The Faces of Cuba’s Democratic Opposition

 

 by Carlos L. Diaz

In the past few weeks, there has been a pilgrimage of Cuban dissidents arriving in Miami. Some of these democratic activists are better known than others. Yoani Sanchez–the most famous of these activists–writes a blog from Cuba and was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine. Antonio G. Rodiles is a mathematician and physicist who runs a mini think-tank for the Cuban opposition. Berta Soler is the leader of the Ladies in White. Rosa Maria Paya is the daughter of the deceased founder of the Christian Liberation Movement, Oswaldo Paya. These have been some of the most notable names to arrive in Miami recently. Unlike previous dissidents, these have only come to visit the country, present their case and ask for help. After a short stay they will go back to the island. Some might ask: why are they coming now? The answer to that question seems to be in the recent changes implemented by Raul Castro regarding the ability of Cubans to travel. This sudden change in policy by the Cuban regime has given a new spark to the debate regarding that nation’s political future.

I was able to assist to two of the conferences, one by Yoani Sanchez, and the other one, yesterday, by Antonio G. Rodiles. Listening to these democratic activists speak in person reignited my hopes for a change towards a democratic and pluralistic Cuba. There are a few details which are encouraging about the new democratic activists in Cuba. There is no set ideology, no apparent rivalry, a clear goal, and more importantly, no visible Caudillo.

  These activists have risen to prominence at a crucial time. Today the Cuban regime is in disarray. When, back in 2006 Fidel Castro stepped down as the country’s top leader, it was clear that the Cuban regime was close to the end and that its current leaders were interested in one thing only, remaining in power to enrich themselves even more. The recent announcement by Raul Castro, that he too would be stepping down, serves to confirm this idea. A great description of the current regime was given by Christopher Hitchens in 2006 “the Castro era is effectively finished … a uniformed and secretive and highly commercial dictatorship is the final form it will take.”[i] The kind of third-world-capitalism which the Cuban leaders want to implement is starting to look like a total failure. The regime looks desperate and they are trying to make very minor changes which they expect the international community will interpret as significant reforms. A change in attitude by the international community and especially by the United States will give the system some oxygen to live another day. That is why today is not the moment for a change in policy towards Cuba. If Castrismo is reaching its end, biologically or politically, then now is the time for those who admire and support democratic and pluralistic values to speak up and show Cuba and the world that there is an alternative to dictatorship.

These activists are not a monolithic group, for example Sanchez opposes the United States’ embargo towards Cuba and Rodiles supports it. Even though they disagree on certain issues, they always remind us that their main goal is to have a democratic change in Cuba and they do everything they can to produce that change.

The fact that the opposition is made up of varied ideas and faces is a magnificent sign for those who worry about one dictatorship being replaced by another one, something that happened in 1959. In the past, revolutions used to have a leader, or a caudillo as they are known in Latin America. France had Napoleon, Cuba had Fidel Castro and Russia had Lenin. In Cuba today there are different individuals and some of them have claimed that they have no interests in any official political roles after a transition is complete.

If these individuals can translate the support they have received abroad to support in Cuba, where they are barely known, changes will occur much faster. After all, tyrannies often look stronger than they really are.

---

[i] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/08/the_eighteenth_brumaire_of_the_castro_dynasty.html

Series on Same-Sex Marriage: Final Post

This will be the last post of my Series on Same-Sex Marriage. I decided to leave the legal aspects for the end because in about two months the Supreme Court of the United States will decide two very important cases regarding this subject, Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor. Even though these cases are very different, the first one deals with California’s Proposition 8 and the other one with the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, they are both related to same-sex marriage.

The court could choose a broad or narrow ruling in the first case. It can say that California cannot ban same-sex marriages, while leaving unanswered the question for other states or the justices can say that shunning same-sex couples from marriage violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14^th amendment of the constitution, this will mean that no state can deny homosexuals the right to marry. In the DOMA case the court only has to deal with a single federal law which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage licenses issued by individual states.

In the first case the justices will probably take the easy way out and dismiss the case because it lacks standing or make a narrow ruling applying only to California, I don’t think any justice wants to tell Alabama it has to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. Some of the justices expressed a sentiment shared by many people around the country, that this question should be solved through the political process not through the courts and that states should be the ones to decide. Same-sex marriage in California will, more likely than not, remain legal, regardless of the court’s decision.

The case of DOMA seems like it will be a victory for defenders of same-sex marriage. The federal government has typically stayed out the marriage issue. If a state decided to allow same-sex couples to marry then the federal government should recognize that union showing respect for state’s rights. This should be an appealing idea to the conservative members of the court who are known for their defense of state’s rights. Jeffrey Toobin seems to get this one right when he says that “DOMA is doomed!” The fact that DOMA was drafted with the intent of discriminating against homosexuals, this can be seen from the debates which took place in the House of Representatives before passing the law, makes it harder for the court to uphold it.

Is it the job of the SCOTUS to wonder if a law does harm or good to children, or if it will be seen differently in different parts of the country? From the oral arguments one gets the idea that it is their job. In my opinion the justices should not be concerned with these questions. The attitude I would like to see from the SCOTUS is one similar to that of Hawaii’s Supreme Court “Whether the legislation under review is wise or unwise is a matter with which we have nothing to do. Whether it… works well or works ill presents a question irrelevant to the issue. The only legitimate inquiry we can make is whether it is constitutional.”

Whether I think banning same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection clause or not is irrelevant, since the justices will decide these cases more on the basis of their own beliefs and ideology rather than on constitutional analysis.

The conclusion which can be reached from these two cases is that same-sex marriage is being accepted by more Americans everyday. The court has seen this trend and will probably think it wise to stay out of the debate. Letting opponents and supporters keep their fight in the political arena instead of bringing it to the legal one.

The Aftermath of the Election in Venezuela

by Carlos Diaz

This past Sunday millions of Venezuelans all over the world went to the polls to decide who should lead their country for the next six years. But the election was  about much more than that. It was the first election since Hugo Chavez’s death. The election was supposed to answer several questions. Can there be Chavismo without Chavez? How divided is Venezuela? How much would the centralization of the state apparatus at the hands of Venezuela’s Socialist Party (PSUV) influence the election? These questions and others were answered on Sunday. But a bigger one presented itself. Who won the election?

Shortly after midnight eastern time, Venezuela’s election authority the CNE announced that interim president and Chavez’s hand-picked successor Nicolas Maduro had won the election. The president of this body emphasized that this decision was “irreversible”. That would have been fine, except for the fact that Maduro’s advantage was about 1% or 235,000 votes. The opposition candidate Henrique Capriles did what many candidates do all over the world in a similar situation, asked for a recount of the votes. His demands were ignored. Shortly after the results were announced Maduro went on television and delivered his victory speech, in which he stated that a “victory is a victory.”

Thousands of Capriles’ supporters took to the streets in protest of these results. These marches took a violent turn and now the Venezuelan authorities are accusing Capriles and his supporters of causing these protests, which have claimed the lives of at least eight people. The opposition candidate had call for a march to the CNE, but cancelled it citing the violence which had taken place.

The response from Maduro and his minions has been utterly belligerent. The president of the National Assembly and the party’s number two, Diosdado Cabello, prohibited opposition members of the Assembly to speak until they recognized Maduro as President. He also called members of the opposition fascists and two of them were attacked by pro-government representatives- one of the victims received more than fourteen stitches in his forehead. Maduro has threatened with “radicalizing the revolution” and has said that he now does not recognize Capriles as governor of the state of Miranda- a position he’s held since 2008. The country’s Supreme Court has also given hints that Capriles could be put in prison for his “actions”.

The United States, the European Union, and the Organization of American States have not recognized the results of the election yet.

It is hard for me to understand why a recount has not been allowed. More likely than not, even if the votes are counted again Maduro will still be the winner by a narrow margin. From the over-blown actions taken by the government it looks like they are trying to use this issue to solidify their power and instill more fear in the population. Although I doubt that Maduro and his minions committed significant fraud in the actual elections, this race was far from  being a clean one. The PSUV’s candidate used countless state resources to his advantage including media- coverage was about Maduro 95% of the time- and material gifts- thousands of houses, cars and other items were handed out by the government within days of the elections.

Henrique Capriles should have been the winner of this race not because he received more votes, but because he was a better candidate. Maduro proved to be what I had expected him to be, a total imbecile. He went around claiming to see Chavez in the form of a little bird, showing a lack of knowledge of Venezuelan geography, rapping, and acting like knock-off version of the deceased Caudillo. Christopher Hitchens’ description of George W. Bush can easily be applied to Maduro “He’s unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things”- by coincidence they both refused to allow a recount in a close election. Capriles was far from perfect, but the reality is that anyone could have beaten Maduro if it wasn’t for the near total control the executive branch has acquired in Venezuela since 1998.

Only in Miami

by Carlos Diaz

For a few months I have been trying to read a Carl Hiaasen novel for the first time. Two things led me to be interested in Hiaasen’s novels: His columns and the setting where his stories play out. I have been an admirer of Mr. Hiaasen’s Sunday columns in The Miami Herald for quite some time. I could not resist to read a novel based in Miami by a writer who says Florida is a character in his novels. Last Sunday, I finally found time to start reading one of the novels. I chose the latest adult one he has published, Star Island. The most remarkable thing about this work is its characters.

The novel begins with twenty-two-year-old Cherry Pye–a not very talented pop star who has been in the spotlight since she was fourteen–being carried out of a hotel in Miami Beach after swallowing “an unwise mix of vodka, Red Bull, hydrocodone, birdseed and stool softener” or what Cherry’s mom calls the effects of “gastritis.” Due to the constant “flare-ups of her gastritis,” Cherry’s parents–mom has an affair with a tennis instructor and dad has a relationship with a Scandinavian couple–, her promoter–who enjoys sex with underage girls–, and PR team–twin sisters who did not look alike until they paid a Brazilian doctor to make them look the same–decided to hire a stunt double. This decoy, Ann DeLusia–Cherry’s antithesis–is not thrilled with the job or the star she is supposed to impersonate but does it because the pay is good. Apart from her addiction to alcohol and narcotics, Cherry also has an almost insatiable libido. Her bodyguards usually end up as her accomplices after she performs some marvelous sex act– she is better in bed than on stage. Cherry is very disappointed when her mom fires the bodyguard–whom she loved because of his penis piercing. Cherry’s promoter hires a new bodyguard nicknamed Chemo. Chemo is a seven foot tall, ex-convict who sold real estate during the bubble years–who didn’t in Florida–and has a battery powered weed whacker as prosthesis for an arm he lost. In one of her adventures Cherry welcomes a paparazzo to the mile high club. The paparazzo, known as Bang Abbott, besides from a horrible smell also has a Pulitzer Prize in photography. The Prize, of course, was won under questionable circumstances. Abbott feels played by Cherry Pye and decides to kidnap the artist. He mistakenly takes Cherry’s double hostage. What Abbott does not know is that Ann made a new friend in her recent trip to the Florida Keys. Skink is Ann’s friend and self-appointed protector. He also was, briefly, governor of Florida, but now lives in the mangroves among alligators and poison-wood. His hobbies include placing sea urchins inside a real estate developer’s underwear.

What could go wrong with this throng of characters?

Series on Same-Sex Marriage: The “Religion” Argument

by Carlos Diaz

RELIGION

In today’s debate about same-sex marriage it is assumed by many that religious objections are a valid argument against the proposed institutional changes. In this post I will explore some of the key arguments stemming from religious groups. I will also do my best to show how these arguments don’t merit serious consideration in a secular society.

The opinions of religious people are by no measure monolithic when it comes to this issue, even though most people who are part of an organized religion disagree with the legalization of same-sex marriage. Those who oppose the issue on religious grounds tend to cite The Bible or other religious text to prove their case, not only against same-sex marriage but even in opposition to the acceptance of homosexuality in general. They cite Genesis which claims God made man and then he created a woman so man would not be alone. Leviticus orders death as a punishment for several sexual behaviors including homosexual relations, which it calls an “abomination”. These are two of the most mentioned religious objections, but not the only ones.

The Catholic Church is the largest organized religious group in the world. The essence of the criticism which Catholics use in their disagreement with same-sex marriage is that marriage’s most important goal is procreation. Since homosexuals cannot procreate they cannot marry. The church’s doctrine regarding sex is a catch-22 for homosexuals. The sexual act, according to the church, must have two core elements: procreation and union. A homosexual man meets the first requirement when he engages in sexual activity with a woman, but he fails to meet the second condition because he cannot sincerely love her. If he is to engage in sexual conduct with a man, he meets the second condition, but since no procreation is possible, the first requirement is left unmet. The doctrine gets more interesting when the test of reason is applied. Why doesn’t this doctrine apply to sterile or older heterosexuals? The church simply says that in that case a miracle is possible. Apparently God’s omnipotence is not enough to perform a miracle in the case of homosexuals.

Can an individual profess to be a Christian or Jew and support the rights of homosexuals? According to conservative talk show host Dennis Prager if you know the Bible  and want to support gay rights your answer should be “I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and I consider the Bible wrong”. I hate to agree with Prager but he is right. Religion is intended to be taken literally and not, as many do nowadays, allegorically. Today most people would disagree with Prager’s statement because, as Christopher Hitchens puts it at the end of his book god is not Great, they “take their beliefs à la carte or cafeteria style, choosing the bits they like and discarding the rest.”

Many religious people miss what should be the main question when discussing the issue. What is religion’s role in marriage? The church and other religious institution do not marry people. People marry each other. When it comes to the legality of marriage, religion does not have a role. The state grants citizens a right to marry. This right then allows them to own property jointly and to make important decisions on each other’s behalf. To conclude I will add that in our society religion’s role is merely symbolic when it comes to marriage. At its highest point all it does is give those who are already married through civil institutions its blessing. At its lowest it serves as a place for newlyweds to take photographs and make their parents happy. Whether a religious institution wants to give its “blessing” to same-sex couples or not should not influence the debate over the legality of these marriages.