By Vicente Medina*
Prior to the infamous coup of 1973, Chileans enjoyed the oldest democracy in South America. By contrast, after the Cuban Revolution of 1959, Cubans have had the longest authoritarian regime in the Western Hemisphere. Chile’s presidential election has been one of the most contested in its recent past foreshadowed by the massive antigovernment protests of 2019-2020. Still, Chileans exercised their right to settle their differences at the polls offering an example of democratic political stability.
After the triumphed of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the late Fidel Castro, whose 26th of July Movement overthrew the Fulgencio Batista’s dictatorship promising to reestablish and expand democracy, ended up ignoring the democratic values embedded in Cuba’s 1940 Magna Carta. Once in power, Fidel did a volte face and consolidated all state powers in his person as the “Comandante en Jefe” [Commander-in-Chief] of the revolution. From 1959 until 1976, when a Soviet style constitution was imposed, the Commander-in-Chief governed by decrees. He did so because, presumably, he embodied the will of the constituent power of the people similar to the Fuehrerprinzip whose will, as a dictator, determined the material content of law in Nazi Germany.
Ironically, those who organized and supported the 1973 coup in Chile against the late socialist President Salvador Allende interrupted a longstanding democratic tradition to try to save it from becoming another communist regime similar to Cuba, or so they proclaimed. The perpetrators of the coup, supported by the US government, established a ruthless dictatorship under the head of the army, the late General Augusto Pinochet. In 1980, General Pinochet imposed an authoritarian constitution that with different amendments has lasted until today.
Unlike Castro in Cuba, in 1988 General Pinochet, pressured by domestic allies and the international community, allowed a national plebiscite asking Chileans to determine whether they wanted to continue with the authoritarian regime for the next eight years. Chileans spoke loudly and answered, No. General Pinochet respected the will of the people. Since 1990, when the formal dictatorial regime ended, Chile has been a model of democratic stability and economic prosperity in the region until the unexpected social upheavals occurred.
The convulsive and oftentimes violent social outbreaks in Chile during 2019-2020 demanding a more equitable society tested Chilean democracy. Chile’s President Sebastián Piñera respecting the will of the people agreed in November 2019 to hold a national referendum asking two questions: whether they wanted a new constitution and who would be responsible for enacting it. In an unprecedented constitutional foundational moment, the Chilean people overwhelmingly succeeded in establishing a constitutional convention with the mandate to redact a new constitutional text and thereby eliminate the last vestiges of the Pinochet’s era. Unlike the 1973 coup, this time Chile’s democracy passed muster, and like in the 1988’s national plebiscite, the will of the people prevailed.
The same cannot be said about the protests that erupted spontaneously in Cuba this past July 11th (a.k.a. J-11) and shortly thereafter. Of course, the magnitude of Cuba’s protests was not equivalent to Chile’s protests in terms of numbers. But if one considers that Cuba is a communist regime where no independent organizations exist, such as labor and student unions, the risks taken by the thousands of Cubans who took to the streets chanting “Libertad, Libertad …,” “Abajo la dictadura” ¾Down with the dictatorship¾were greater than the ones taken by their Chileans counterparts.
Unlike Chile’s democracy where the rule of law is honored, Cuba’s communist regime respects neither democracy nor the rule of law. Cuban officials and their unconditional loyalists used disproportional violence against peaceful protesters who were simply demanding that their constitutional rights be respected. Despite Cuba’s Magna Carta’s article 54 that guarantees the right of freedom of expression and article 56 that guarantees the right of peaceful demonstration, many protesters were and still are arbitrarily incarcerated. Unlike those who protested in Chile, Cuba’s autocratic government just ignored the protesters’ demands and missed a golden opportunity for a refounding moment of a truly decent democratic society.
Like in Chile, the J-11 protests were the culmination of deep-rooted discontent with failed economic policies and inequities. But, unlike in Chile, Cuban citizens were also protesting against an authoritarian government unresponsive to people’s needs. For example, in 2018, the Cuban government promulgated the 349 decree restricting artistic freedom, freedom of expression and the buying and selling of art. Such a draconian decree sparked, at first, a repudiation from members of artistic and cultural communities. Some of these young artists, writers, and poets were harassed and imprisoned. As a result of governmental intolerance, the San Isidro Movement was born. On November 27, 2020, members of the movement and their supporters stood in front of the Minister of Culture in Havana demanding that their voices be heard, including their demand for derogating the 349 decree. They were one more time harassed and persecuted by government officials and their cronies.
After the protests of J-11, some of the participants decided to launch the Archipiélago Platform. Based on articles 54 and 56 of Cuba’s Magna Carta, the leaders of this newly minted movement, requested permission to the Cuban authorities to organize a peaceful protest on November 15th. Of course, their permission was denied, and their leaders were besieged by government officials and their acolytes. Facing mounting pressure from the Cuban government, Yunior García Aguilera, one of the leaders of the newly formed movement, tried to exercise his freedom of speech and threaten to walk alone with a white flower across Havana on November 15th. Needless to say, Cuban officials could not stomach such a defiant attitude by just one citizen who dared to exercise his rights.
As expected, Cuba’s popular protests during July 11th and thereafter were violently repressed. Despite Cuba’s Magna Carta where article 54 guarantees the right of freedom of expression and article 56 guarantees the right of peaceful demonstration, many protesters were and still are incarcerated with no recourse of habeas corpus. Unlike protesters in Chile, Cuba’s autocratic government simply ignored the protesters’ demands. They even initiated a witch-hunt which is still going on nowadays against all those who took to the streets to express their frustrations with the dictatorial nature of the government.
Unlike in Chile where the rights of freedom of speech, assembly and due process are honored, Cuban officials, by denying the request for a peaceful protest on November 15th, demonstrated their utter contempt for constitutional rights and the rule of law. Also, unlike in Chile, their intolerant behavior evidenced their disregard for the rights of citizens to criticize and oppose government policies peacefully. No rule of law can exist when the constitutional text, namely Cuba’s Magna Carta, establishes certain rights, such as freedom of speech and assembly, and the authorities and kangaroo courts ignore them.
Any fair-minded person who reads Cuba’s Magna Carta and experiences the repressive measures perpetrated by government authorities obviating freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, which are clearly stated on Cuba’s constitutional text, can understand that in Cuba there is no respect for democracy nor for the rule of law. For example, Cuba’s promulgation of the 349 decree is an evident violation of artistic expression which falls under the right of freedom of speech. If freedom of speech carries any moral and legal weight to provide a counterbalance against the government monopoly of power, it entails a right to not only disagree with government policies but also to actually challenge the nature of the government itself. As long as citizens’ dissenting opinions are expressed peacefully, they have a right to demand an end to the government, be it democratically elected as in Chile or an authoritarian government as the one that has prevailed in Cuba for over 60 years.
By denying the request for a peaceful protest on November 15th, Cuban officials demonstrated one more time their contempt for constitutional and democratic values. Also, their intolerant behavior evidenced their disregard for the rights of citizens to criticize government policies. There cannot be a rule of law when there is no presumption of innocence nor respect for the right of habeas corpus of those who have been incarcerated by acting on their constitutional rights.
In addition, no substantive conception of constitutionalism can exist when the constitutional text establishes specific rights, as already-mentioned, and the authorities and kangaroo courts violate those rights. Moreover, no true democracy can exist when a government neglects the rights of citizens and their voices are violently silenced, as it happened during J-11 protests and thereafter. The stark contrast between Chile’s traditional respect for democratic values allowing the will of the people to be heard, even during general Pinochet’s dictatorship, and Cuba’s formal recognition but material disregard for constitutional and democratic values demonstrates not only the government’s double-talk on behalf of those values but also the tyrannical nature of the communist regime.
Despite the election of the leftist candidate Gabriel Boric, Chile’s entrenched constitutional democracy will likely survive as a beacon of hope and tolerance for other Latin American nations. I am afraid the same cannot be said of Cuba’s authoritarian regime whose officials promote respect for democracy and the rule of law abroad while repressing those who advocate the same at home. While Cuba’s political cliffhanger has no clear end in sight yet, Chile’s political cliffhanger has ended with its recent presidential election.
*Vicente Medina is a Professor of Philosophy at Seton Hall University. Professor Medina's areas of specialization are social and political philosophy and applied ethics. He also works on Latin American philosophy. His most recent publication is his book Terrorism Unjustified: The Use and Misuse of Political Violence (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015). For a description of the book, see here.
Some of his most recent articles are "The Philosophical Polemic of Havana Revisited," Inter-American Journal of Philosophy, 4 (June 2013); "The Innocent in the Just War Thinking of Vitoria and Suárez: A Challenge even for Secular Just War Theorists and International Law," Ratio Juris, 26 (2013); and "Militant Intolerant People: A Challenge to John Rawls' Political Liberalism," Political Studies, 58 (June 2010). He is presently working on a paper on John Rawls’ political philosophy and the justification of terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment