Translation: Raul's National Assembly speech

In an address to Cuba's National Assembly of People's Power on December 23, Raul Castro made the struggle against corruption a key focus of his speech, indicating that this is one of the revolutionary leadership's top priorities and vowing "to put an end to this parasitic plague" of "corrupt bureaucrats, with posts obtained through pretence and opportunism, who use the positions they still occupy to accumulate fortunes, betting on the eventual defeat of the Revolution", among others.   

He gave indications of the depth and scope of the problem and of the offensive against corruption that is now underway. He considers corruption to be "one of the principle enemies of the Revolution, much more harmful than the subversive and interventionist activities of the US government and its allies within and outside the country." 

These comments would seem to vindicate Esteban Morales, a respected Cuban academic expert on US politics and race relations in Cuba. Morales was "separated" from the PCC – a disciplinary measure one step short of expulsion – after he published an April 2010 commentary titled "Corruption: The true counter-revolution?", in which he warned:

Without a doubt, it is becoming evident that there are people in positions of government and state who are girding themselves financially for when the Revolution falls, and others may have everything almost ready to transfer state-owned assets to private hands, as happened in the old USSR...[There are] corrupt officials, not at all minor, who are being discovered in very high posts and with strong connections – personal, domestic and external – generated after dozens of years occupying the same positions of power.

Morales launched a successful appeal and his full PCC membership was reinstated in July.

While the Spanish text of Raul's speech has been published, there is not yet an official English translation. When one becomes available I'll post it to this blog.  

"Corruption is one of the principal enemies of the Revolution"

Extract from Raul Castro's National Assembly speech, December 23, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

[...] Moving on to another matter, very closely linked to the functioning of the national economy is the paramount role of contracts in the interrelations between state enterprises, budgeted entities and the non-state forms of management of social property. 

Despite having been taken up on various occasions, including in the Main Report to the Sixth Communist Party Congress and in the Economic and Social Policy Guidelines, in Guideline No. 10, in interventions in the National Assembly and in a number of meetings of the Council of Ministers, we are not seeing the necessary progress. This is reflected in the deficient situation regarding receipts and payments, with the consequent disorder in internal finances and the facilitation of criminal activities and corruption.

This is apparent, to cite just one example, in the fraudulent deliveries of agricultural products, that did not exist and were never cultivated, to the Havana produce markets. This resulted in the embezzlement of more than 12 million [non-convertible] pesos through the criminal activities of directors, functionaries and other workers of the state distribution firms, as well as peasant farmers that acted as proxies, all of whom will face administrative and criminal liabilities in correspondence with the seriousness of their deeds.

I bring this up in order to illustrate the urgent necessity for all of us in leadership positions at the various levels, from the base up to the highest posts in the country, to act with firmness in the face of indiscipline and lack of control over receipts and payments, which is one of the principle causes and contributors to crime. I am convinced that today, corruption is one of the principal enemies of the Revolution, much more harmful than the subversive and interventionist activities of the US government and its allies within and outside the country.

The office of the Comptroller [i.e. auditor] General of the Republic, the office of the Attorney General and the special branches of the Interior Ministry have been instructed to combat this scourge, with all the severity allowed for by our laws, just as we successfully dealt with incipient drug trafficking beginning in January 2003.

In this strategic battle, the degree of coordination, cohesion and rigour in confronting crime has been increased and we’re beginning to see some results, both in terms of so-called white collar crimes, committed by Cuban and foreign directors and functionaries linked to foreign trade and foreign investment, and in terms of crimes carried out by common criminals in collusion with administrative leaders and workers of state firms involved in production, transport and distribution in entities of the food industry, retail trade, food services, housing and the ministries of Basic Industry and Agriculture.

Indeed, in the agricultural sector, beginning on August 1, the fight against the theft and slaughter of livestock, and the subsequent commercialisation of the meat on the black market, was stepped up in a sensitive manner. This is a phenomenon that flourished for years with a certain impunity with serious negative consequences for both state and private producers, not only from an economic point of view but also from the moral and ethical standpoints.

The National Revolutionary Police, together with other agencies of the Interior Ministry, in close coordination with the political and mass organisations, have assumed with professionalism and a systematic approach the task of eradicating, once and for all, livestock theft in the Cuban countryside. These crimes are carried out with the complicity of the butchers, managers and specialists of state enterprises, agricultural cooperatives, peasant farmers, veterinarians and the municipal directors and other functionaries of the institution that is supposed to ensure a growing supply of meat in the country. I’m referring to the Livestock Control Agency, known by its initials, CENCOP.

It should be clarified that we’re not talking about one more campaign, as has certainly happened in the past, when actions taken to re-establish order were discontinued after a while and routinism and superficiality ensued, proving correct those who waited for everything to go back to how things were so they could continue to prosper at the expense of the wealth that belongs to our people.

I can assure you that this time the cattle thieves in Cuba are done for, just as we put an end to drug trafficking, and they will not reappear, because we are determined to carry out the directives of the government and the decisions of the Communist Party Congress. I say the same to those corrupt bureaucrats, with posts obtained through pretence and opportunism, who use the positions they still occupy to accumulate fortunes, betting on the eventual defeat of the Revolution.

This Wednesday, in the Communist Party Central Committee Plenum, we analysed in depth these factors and screened a series of documentaries and footage from the interrogations of white collar criminals. In due course these will be shown to all you compañero National Assembly deputies, and also to other leaders, in your respective provinces.

We keep in mind Fidel’s warning on November 17, 2005 in the Great Hall of Havana University, just over six years ago, in which he said that this country could destroy itself by itself, that today the enemy could not do it but we could, and it would be our fault. That’s what the leader of the Revolution said on that occasion. This is why we agreed two days ago, in the 3rd Central Committee Plenum that I just mentioned, that we would put an end to this parasitic plague.

In the name of the people and of the Revolution we warn that, within the framework of the law, we will be implacable. 

[...]

Translation: One day we'll wake up

Here, Luis Sexto teases apart the subtle distinction between control and rigour in the Cuban context to sharpen the minds of his target audience, Cuba's revolutionaries. As president, Raul Castro has called for the lifting of excessive — which usually means counter-productive — prohibitions. The government he leads has been delivering: since 2008, many such prohibitions have been lifted.

Paradoxically, excessive prohibitions aimed at asserting control led to the very opposite of what was intended. For example, the ban on people buying and selling their own homes and cars simply drove these markets underground, where they were not subject to taxation or regulation. This led to the corruption of officials who took bribes to cover up for illegal transactions. The state, which wanted to suppress the market, stimulated the black market and to one degree or another became an appendage to it via the widespread corruption of administrators. 

In its misguided zeal to control everything, the state ended up controlling nothing. 

Of course, not all prohibitions are excessive. The ban on small private businesses acquiring and accumulating property is aimed at blocking the emergence of a new Cuban bourgeoisie on the island, as is the ban on individuals owning more than one residence and one holiday house, also a just measure given the acute shortage of housing in Cuba.

The task is to sort the wheat from the chaff, dispensing with a vast encrustation of excessive prohibitions so that only the essential ones remain, bringing simplicity and coherence to Cuba's laws and regulations in the style of her wonderfully readable socialist constitution. This will unblock the channels of virtuous initiative, both individual and collective, that is not only a democratic imperative but an economic necessity. The hope is that this will give Cuba's post-capitalist society the fluidity it needs to adapt and evolve without losing its socialist essence.

Myriad excessive and often absurd prohibitions have corroded respect for legality. Given this, the easing of excessive restrictions must go hand in hand, as Sexto points out below, with efforts to apply the law more rigorously and, as Raul Castro has insisted, to enhance the authority of institutions, starting with the Cuban Communist Party.

I'll translate selected commentaries from the debate sparked by Sexto's piece on the Juventud Rebelde website. But I'll leave it for another post because this one is long enough...and it's past midnight here in Australia.   

One day we'll wake up 

By Luis Sexto, Juventud Rebelde, December 1, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

Yes, I agree: one day I’ll awake and find myself in a new country. A better country, but renovated by ourselves, that is, by the revolutionaries, by those who still believe in the values of independence and social justice. In the values of a participatory socialism, dialectical, continually improving in the midst of foreign hostilities and probable errors.

This was my response to someone who, from outside the country, alerted me to my sins of naivety. One day, señor, you’ll open your eyes ... OK, we know how it goes. But I’ve learned that those least capable of judging Cuba or foreseeing its destiny are those who act against the aspirations of the Revolution. Time has passed, that’s for sure. But this doesn’t mean that despite zigzags, improvisations, mistakes and the unforeseeable and at times ungovernable circumstances, we Cubans who contribute anguish and an ideal – rather than to Cuba as a land of ambitions and a space for domination and exploitation – will continue aspiring to the most beautiful cause, like Don Quixote’s love for Dulcinia.

Neither will they be able to understand Cuba those who, while saying they are representatives of the most just trend, feign action and act in the least beneficial way: doing little, or doing the opposite. Do we not see the habit of attaching voluntaristic clauses to the laws and shutting the gates on that which arises without limitations, or with the most minimal ones to preserve order and principles? I have no doubts on this score. These are symptomatic of how bureaucratism, as a viewpoint and a position, continues to contaminate political commitment and action on the part of some of those who should be putting into practice the new concepts.

A part of the citizenry is no better. This can be seen in the behaviour of those who turn their backs on the process of renovating society while they wait and see what happens. But if it is a certain indifference that contaminates participation, confidence, optimism, in another moment it switches over to aggressiveness that manifests in disregard for the law and just limits, as if the feeling of impunity were like a complete anarchy, since “this is Cuba”. Is this, really, the Cuba that I heard an ignorant or provocative voice address when somebody warned them that they were doing what is justly prohibited?

More than once I’ve asked if we’ll have to wait for the complete renovation of the economy to establish rigour in its widest scope. It seems that if the country is reorganising, confronting irrationality and legislating the antidotes to rigidity, the deviations and the deterioration of administrative honesty, then we’ll have to tackle in equal measure the nests of impunity beyond the economy.

I’ve said rigour, and I’ve consciously avoided using the term “control”. It is so worn out. Control bound up in cardboard, control rooted in the “this is not permitted”, has sometimes served us as a foam mattress to improvise the negative or a shrugging of the shoulders. And rigour begins with the institutions that must reclaim it and watch over it so that control acquires its true meaning. Words don’t stand for jokes; they get upset when they’re not used with precision when we apply them to science, in particular the science of society.

As I see it, we’ve considered this word, so coarse in its prosody, to have something to do with financial management and prohibitions. Let’s be clear: control has been one of the arbitrary synonyms of prohibition. And perhaps indiscipline, whose smouldering dumps we see dispersed among various sectors, including in the streets, may also be a consequence of prohibitive control that at one time even forbade the solution of certain necessities. The equation is elementary: a prohibition plus a necessity equals an indiscipline.

We need, then, to increase rigour in the exercise of control, of the kind that doesn’t see human beings as Cuban queens on the chessboard that, as such, can be moved about or kept still according to the will of the players. I repeat: it seems that in some areas we’re taking a laissez-faire approach so that when we hear the clarion call, we’ll have to legitimise what has been done badly because it’s too late. This, I am reminded, is what will have to happen to these shacks, synonyms for household garages, that have sprouted up, illegally, in urban areas and above all along main thoroughfares such as Linea Avenue in Havana, for example*. If we continue to wait for institutional action, soon some areas in the central part of Havana will end up as rural zones [where traditional thatched-roofed cottages abound].

One day, nevertheless, I’ll awaken to a new country. The same country that we’re renewing, even though there exists the distorting action of those who have not realised that they are passing up the opportunity to become better.

*Sexto seems to be referring here to the proliferation of micro-business street stalls

Translation: A bureaucrat? Me?

Here, the ever-candid and perceptive Luis Sexto examines Cuban society as a doctor would a patient. He diagnoses the illness of bureaucratism and warns that the replacement of individuals, necessary as this may be, treats only the symptoms. He prescribes "the decentralisation of the economy" as an antidote to "the opacity and sterility" of excessive administrative prohibitions. 

I've also translated the first four comments by readers in response to Sexto's commentary as they appear on the Juventud Rebelde website. 

Cuban journalist Luis Sexto

A bureaucrat? Me?

By Luis Sexto, Juventud Rebelde, September 22, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

Clearly the bureaucratic mentality isn’t an abstraction. Rather, it is a conduct, an approach, an attitude towards people and things. And if we tried to be more precise, and therefore more correct, we’d say that it’s a swelling of the public function of the bureaucracy. Like a social illness that is acquired structurally.

On the “medical” plane, one would have to ask some basic questions: what is bureaucracy? What do we know about the vocation of the bureaucrat, a word whose usage those who are not bureaucrats demand and those who are protest. About bureaucracy, we know that it exists because it’s necessary. No society can detach itself from “the body of public functionaries”, as the dictionary defines its first meaning with great justice. The problem begins when this becomes a caste, with its members seemingly disconnected personally, though attached precisely to one and the same narrow, rarefying and rarefied vision: bureaucratism.

This sickness, according to my “clinical manual”, consists of certain extreme ideological characteristics, certain sores in the ethical fabric and, above all, a tendency to curl up in one’s shell, snail-like, to the point of affecting the conscience; so that one day the suffer will no longer be able to discern the difference between right and wrong, honourable from dishonourable, truth from lies, the useful from the useless. And above all – in its most pernicious manifestation – it ends up nonchalantly substituting the interests of the community for the interests of all those who fill out and sign paperwork, give instructions or administer collective wealth...

I know: all this has been spoken about, yet I have no other recourse than to attend to the case at hand. I’d been preparing for this in my notebook. Just imagine: would this “doctor” refuse to treat a patient just because he treated another person with the same condition beforehand? It seems to me our country must subject bureaucratism to public scrutiny. And I'm not talking about the bureaucrats. Because if these were to be replaced – though we'd have to apply the forceps or scalpel to he or she who errs frequently – I’d like to point out that while the individuals may change, if the conditioning structures remain intact then this remedy will only eliminate, for a while, the symptoms. 

From this conclusion, which is readily apparent, it follows that we must recognise the urgency of understanding the need for and supporting the decentralisation of the economy and of social services. Perhaps many small entities will then be able to become strong pillars of the central structure, the socialist state, whose old role of accumulation in both the vital sectors as well as those of lesser importance prevented it from exercising its core function: taking the pulse of society [rather than trying to run it] in those sectors that are more distant from the centre. 

So, of course, every point, every service was constructed as a vertical replica of the great centre: to pass down the rules. Those lower down the chain had a double mission: to receive from above and at the same time continue passing down the instructions, so that the chain would begin to twist itself up for lack of democratic control. And with the twists came the labyrinths, the clerical retreat into one’s shell and the glut of service windows and forms and, above all, so much impunity as if to amend the law and to apply it, or not, as convenient.

But let’s not kid ourselves. I wrote this paragraph in passing because I set out to convey the conviction that our society is determined to shake off the obsolete structures. And if I’ve referred to the inevitable transformation of that part of the social order that fosters the bureaucratic mentality, I include, as a basic antidote, the strengthening of socialist democracy. Do we not believe that our democracy has suffered from the opacity and sterility of the bureaucratic prohibitions?

This equation, therefore, has to be turned on its head: rather than the bureaucracy controlling democracy, let democracy monitor the bureaucracy. To achieve this we’ll have to rehabilitate the half-clogged channels of horizontality, and the Peoples Power institutions will have to watch over, alert, criticise and denounce, so that the necessary verticality is less prone to something or someone becoming corrupted and distorting our efforts and our aspirations for improvement. Because if we don’t defend them from within, they could be snatched away from us from without.
_____________

Comment No. 1 by “Pepe” 

We’ve been talking about bureaucracy for almost 50 years, yet it has grown like the marabu bush* in the countryside. To get rid of this evil, or to at least reduce it to the indispensable minimum, we have to change everyone’s perception of reality, from the most humble citizen to the highest levels of leadership. In my opinion, if there had been a true self-critical spirit this evil wouldn’t have persisted for so long. When thousands of directives and prohibitions are issued, when it’s all about controlling everything, from a large enterprise to a simple newsstand, it’s inevitable that people are going to be employed to carry out these functions, and that many of these people are going to take advantage of their position to obtain privileges at the expense of society through becoming corrupt or corrupting others. 

When, in order to access certain food items, a pregnant woman, a sick person, a child or an elderly citizen must get such a simple procedure approved by having it signed and stamped by various institutions, it’s inevitable that this is going to create an indecipherable thicket of administrative entities, which end up acting as an immense spider web in which the economy and services get entangled. Let’s get rid of everything useless and we’ll see how the economy, on the basis of everything else, develops, and this will render unnecessary hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats who could dedicate themselves to production or services. This is the opinion of someone whose greatest desire is to see our country prosper and for it to become an example for the rest of the world to follow.

*Marabu is a tropical thorn scrub that has overrun large areas of farmland in Cuba – translator's note.

Comment No. 2 by “kirenio81” 

There is bureaucracy in Miami just as there is in Havana, or anywhere else in the world. It’s a necessary evil that governments need in order to run the state. The situation in Cuba is worse, because its dependence on bureaucracy is much greater given that almost all the means of production and services are state property. This creates an enormous parasitic body that restrains any economic development, whatever the inconveniences it causes the citizens and themselves, who are part of the citizenry.

Comment No. 3 by Alfredo Viamonte Marin 

I agree Luis, particularly with the last sentence of your commentary. The bureaucracy corrodes and hollows out the structure just like termites, gradually and without making any noise, and this does more harm to us than 100 blockades all at once because it fortifies the internal blockade: you can’t do that, this is incorrect, this is not permitted, that isn’t legal, NO to this, NO to that, NO to the other. But in my modest opinion, to cast aside the obsolete bureaucratic structures it’s necessary to decentralise and separate out the three powers: legislative, executive and judicial. For as long as these are one and the same, as they’ve always been, we’ll never win this Cuban fight against the demons.

Comment No. 4 by Carlos Gutierrez 

I’ll repeat it here to see if anyone listens to me, because a little while ago they censored my comment on the same topic. In that ill-fated attempt to help the Revolution I basically said: (1) Bureaucratism has become an obstacle between the government and the people to the implementation, as they wish, of laws and other general directives. (2) This capacity to “adjust” general directives has given bureaucratism such power that it is almost impossible for either the government or the citizenry to confront it. (3) On the basis of this power, corruption thrives. (4) You can’t combat something that has no clear delineation. Nobody has been able, or had the audacity, to define a bureaucrat so we’d be able to point the finger at them. (5) Despite the repetition of many slogans during the past 50 years there isn’t, as far as I know, a single law for punishing the bureaucrat as there are, for example, laws for the punishment of absence from the workplace or theft. For as long as we can’t identify and punish the bureaucrat, he or she will keep laughing at our infantile and never-ending campaigns against bureaucratism. Bureaucratism, as the endemic evil that it is in Cuba, will only disappear when the causes that gave rise to it disappear, the first of which is excessive centralisation with its consequent hyper-control. I hope this humble reflection has more luck than its predecessor. Saludos.

Translation: Coming to grips with bureaucratic thought

Born in Paris in 1932 to a Russian mother and a Cuban father, Graziella Pogolotti grew up in Havana, Cuba. She studied at Havana University and at the Sorbonne in Paris, specialising in contemporary French literature. After returning to Cuba she qualified as a journalist, lectured at Havana University and worked at Cuba's National Library.

She has held various academic posts in the field of the arts and literature and has served on the editorial boards of several leading Cuban cultural journals and other publications, including Granma, the Cuban Communist Party daily. In 1999 she received the National Award for Art Criticism in recognition of her lifelong contribution to this field. She has also received numerous other national awards.

Attentive readers of my blog will have noticed how few of the commentaries I've translated are authored by women, which is more of a reflection of reality than any bias on my part. The commentary below is a small step towards redressing this imbalance. On the cusp of her ninth decade, Pogolotti's sparkling intelligence shines through in this piece. 

Coming to grips with bureaucratic thought

By Graziella Pogolotti, Granma, July 21, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

General Raul Castro, Cuban Communist Party (PCC) first secretary and president of the State Council and of the Council of Ministers, has sharply criticised on more than one occasion what he terms “secretism”. Despite this, the phenomenon appears to be getting worse in all institutions, from the office that deals with paperwork involving the common citizen to those higher up that have the authority to decide what goes on in a workplace.

Thus the chain of interdependent links that is indispensable for the functioning of a complex society fails to function with the necessary rapidity, as happened on numerous occasions with the primitive tribal structure. When the petty functionary goes on holidays, takes part in one of those many meetings or attends to personal affairs, they leave behind under lock and key the documents without which the workplace cannot function. Meanwhile the demands of reality continue to wander about in search of a solution, because the monopoly of knowledge is the first defensive trench of a system of fortifications that includes routinism in action and in thought.

On another scale, the mentality of the coffee stand proprietor begins to assert itself, an unconscious postmodern atomiser that is unaware of the ultimate end-point of the “meta-narrative” of the construction of the present and the guardianship of the future. Each one preserves their own tiny patch. The inability to see the bigger picture gets in the way of the cooperation that is needed between the various sectors, as well as the optimal utilisation of highly skilled workers. The formalisation of procedures prevents recognition of the relationship between form and content. This leads us to cling to obsolete concepts that must be discarded in order to preserve, above all, the goals that constitute the raizon d’etre of the revolutionary process.

Few recall an interview given by Fidel back in the 1980s to two visitors from the US. It was published at the time by Editoria Politica. In an allusion to Heraclitus, Fidel affirmed that we cannot bathe twice in the same river, not only because the water is not the same but also because we ourselves have changed. The profound truth of this observation reveals an organic assumption about dialectics that is superior to the simple memorisation of the dialectical laws [i.e. the laws of evolution in the most general sense, such as the interpenetration of opposites and the transformation of quantity into quality – translator’s note]. 

This idea, and the implications it entails, is a powerful weapon against the routinisation of bureaucratic thinking and a stimulus to the incessant creativity that life’s unfolding imposes. The conduct of the petty bureaucrat hinders the proper functioning of the economy, the implementation of the Economic and Social Policy Guidelines approved by the PCC Congress and is a source of political discontent among the people, who are often subjected to abnormal administrative procedures. It also undermines the credibility of institutions.

On another level still the harm done is even more irreparable; it can rupture the fabric of continuity of the socialist project, which would mean the end of national sovereignty and a precipitous decline in the quality of life of the great majority, along with the enthronement of violence via the intrusion of Mafia of every kind. Cuba occupies a particular place on this planet as an island in close proximity to the US, the biggest market for narcotics. During the prohibition era in that country Cuba was the base of operations for the smuggling of all kinds of alcohol, but times have changed. The intrigues of Al Capone belong to a more primitive era of criminality.

The present conjuncture demands a change of mentality. It may seem dull, but the phrasing of reports has led us to forget the “why” and the “for what purpose” of things, the concrete definition of medium and long-term goals, the permanent questioning of reality, the priorities and the sequencing of solutions and the specific appraisal of the quality of the available human and material resources. The established rhetoric obscures the formulation of the appropriate questions. In this as in other cases, the language conditions the way of thinking.

The habitual and indiscriminate use of the impersonal mode of expression has become a verbal formula that is applicable in all circumstances. “It” is being carried out, “it" must be undertaken ... who is responsible and the manner of execution are veiled in an impenetrable fog. Statistics rain down that take no account of the need to select meaningful data to quantify magnitudes, characterise the situation and submit everything to the appropriate analysis. The figures require a qualitative correlate. The study of reality must reveal reality in all its crudeness because only this can point to the way forward. “X has advanced, but we’re still not satisfied” has become a catch-phrase that hardly clarifies. 

To take apart the structure of bureaucratic thought, everyone must ingrain into their consciousness a true modesty in the domain of knowledge. Only in this way will our pores remain open to learning on the basis of the confrontation of daily life. What was always done in a certain way may not be what is needed today. Mistakes are not overcome through formal self-criticism, nor by throwing stones at those who were mistaken in the past. Critical analysis serves its purpose when, on the basis of the multiple factors that constitute a problem, it delivers us the necessary lesson. In this sense, the “culture of dialogue” – also converted into a catch-phrase during the past two decades – implies an exchange of wisdom derived from experience, a command of various techniques and of the ability to conceptualise phenomena in order to get the bottom of problems and to come up with solutions.

As a character the bureaucrat has an ostentatious visibility. Though he may seem immortal he is the subject of criticism and, what’s more, withering humour. We see him often in the letters that the readers send in to our daily press. Bureaucratic thought manifests itself in subtle ways and can invade very different institutional environments. Some think that the radical reduction in the powers of the state can contribute to eradicating this evil. For various reasons many entities suffer from an excess of personnel and of functions, derived from the necessity to counteract unemployment and from excessive centralisation.

The strengthening of municipal administrative entities and local Peoples Power governments does not imply the dismantling of the state, but a redistribution of resources and responsibilities aimed at adapting state agencies to the peculiarities of local development. However, local government is bound up with the state. No measures of an organisational character will achieve their purpose if the predominance of bureaucratic thinking persists, a parasitic plant that sterilises creativity, real collective participation and the education of the new generations.

The struggle against bureaucratic thinking will take time. We have to go about demolishing its powerful system of fortifications. Jose Marti wasn’t a dreamer. He could offer Maximo Gomez only the likely ingratitude of men and women. Yet he believed in human betterment, in the dialogue that is needed to move forward. Let’s keep in mind the distinction between fertile contradictions and antagonistic ones. Let’s preserve respect, frankness and mutual confidence. Herein lies the key to the changes in mentality that we are demanding.

Translation: The right to express an opinion

Granma letter to the editor

Extend the right to express an opinion to daily life

By A. J. Perez Perez, August 5, 2011

Very important steps are being taken to consolidate the gains of the Revolution and to reaffirm its socialist character. Our top leaders have spoken about the need to do away with old formulas and prescriptions that hinder and weigh down the economy and life in general in the present circumstances. Despite the calls for change, we’re all aware of the meetings for the sake of meetings and the passivity of many functionaries, with most of the time spent listening to the same things that have been said before and hearing about the same unfulfilled commitments.

In his July 26 speech, compañero Vice President Jose Ramon Machado Ventura pointed out the need to eradicate these evils at once. Things are changing on our blockaded island and people feel it in the streets, though the pace of change may not be as rapid as we'd like or in the manner that many of us long for.

Our President Raul Castro was emphatic in stressing, in the Second Communist Party Central Committee Plenum held recently, that any disagreement within the Permanent Commission for the Implementation and Development of the Economic and Social Policy Guidelines would be analysed rather than being tossed aside, thus ensuring a free discussion in which everyone can say what they think and want. As Raul said afterwards in the National Assembly this also applies to daily life in Cuba, so that Cubans may have a space in which to exercise their right to express an opinion in an appropriate manner and with due respect. 

I’m one of those who ask that our Round Table current affairs TV programme gives voice to opinions regarding national themes. There are people with a lot to say, with many ideas to contribute, who deserve to be heard and must be listened to. We mustn’t fear fair remarks or justified criticism, and if such criticism is constructive, educational and puts forward solutions then all the better.

I urge that we create a mechanism for delivering the population’s daily complaints of institutional abuse suffered at the hands of functionaries who occupy posts that were created to serve the people. Such a mechanism would deliver these complaints to every level as required and would be committed to nothing other than the truth and justice. Unfortunately, and I speak from personal experience, a large proportion of the complaints that are made are lost in complacency and indolence.

It’s infuriating and at the same time sad that cases published in the national press elicit a speedy response following their publication, despite the fact that those making the complaints went back and forth for months, and in some cases years, trying to get their problems resolved. Most of the time the higher-ups took note of these cases (which often waited on their own signature) only when the whole of Cuba knew about them. Unfortunately, there are many functionaries who cease to function when faced with problems whose resolution should be straightforward.

Everyone must contribute to what the country and the people need in these times. Everyone must be listened to. Sometimes, as Jose Marti said, trenches of ideas are worth more than trenches of stone.       

Comment: Raul Castro's National Assembly speech

Raul Castro gave a brief closing speech to the National Assembly on August 1. Earlier, the Assembly had voted unanimously to approve the Economic and Social Policy Guidelines for the Party and the Revolution, on the recommendation of the Sixth Communist Party Congress in April. 

This means that the Guidelines are now state policy. In his speech, Raul said that a special National Assembly commission has been established to "oversee the process of updating the economic model" and that one of its tasks would be to "draft the integral theoretical conceptualisation of the Cuban socialist economy", which "will require much time and effort".

The Guidelines are not a theoretical document but a practical one. While there are references to key principles, such as the socialist distribution formula "to each according to their work" and not allowing the concentration of productive property ownership, there is no coherent theoretical framework and no discussion of the historical experiences and lessons that underpin the Guidelines. 

Presumably, this is because the PCC leadership felt that the most important thing was to strive for consensus on what needs to be done, on a set of tasks and objectives that chart a course towards a new Cuban socialist-oriented economic model, and that an overly theoretical document may well have muddied the waters rather than served clarity at this stage. In the unfolding of the renovation process, the sequencing and timing of the revolutionary leadership's initiatives, including those related to consensus-building, are paramount.  

On the other hand, the PCC leadership has not ignored the theoretical and historical questions involved. Raul took up some of these issues in the main report to the Sixth PCC Congress in April, as well as in other speeches. Neither have the theoretical issues and historical lessons been absent from the public debate, as can be appreciated from the translations of commentaries published on this blog. Yet an "integral theoretical conceptualisation", as Raul puts it, is still a pending task. 

There are several reasons why such a document is needed. 

For Cuba's revolutionaries, it would further the process of striving for clarity and consensus on the broad outlines of the new model that is beginning to emerge. By drawing on the theoretical and practical legacy of revolutionary Cuba's own rich experience of building socialism over the past five decades, as well as those of other socialist revolutions past and present, it could help safeguard the renewal process from the danger, inherent in allowing greater scope for market mechanisms, of a pragmatic drift in the direction of capitalist restoration. It would arm Cuba's revolutionaries ideologically in the face of such pressures. 

At the same time, a clear theoretical justification for the renovation process could also help guard against the opposite tendency, that is, for the renovation process to lose momentum because of unjustified fears, cynically exploited by those in the administrative apparatus that want to preserve their fiefdoms and illicit privileges derived from corruption, that any concessions to the market imply the abandonment of "socialism".

In his August 1 speech, Raul had this blunt message for such officials: "We shall be patient but also persevering in the face of resistance to change, whether conscious or unconscious. I warn you that bureaucratic resistance to the strict fulfilment of the Congress decisions, which have the massive support of the people, is futile."

Finally, such a document would be part of the legacy of the historicos, Fidel's and Raul's generation of revolutionaries, to the newer generations of revolutionaries who will have to carry through the renovation process and put their own stamp on it. It would also be of great value, and no doubt of great interest, to revolutionary socialists internationally, as well as to the Cuba solidarity movement.

Yet the need for theoretical clarification is far from the most pressing challenge confronting the renovation process. As Raul stressed on August 1: "The greatest obstacle which we face in terms of implementing the decisions of the Sixth Congress is the psychological barrier created by inertia, resistance to change, pretence or double standards, indifference and insensitivity, a barrier which we are obliged to surmount with constancy and firmness, starting with Party, state and government leaders in the various national, provincial and municipal bodies."

He concluded that "without a change of mentality, we will be incapable of carrying out the changes needed to guarantee the sustainability or, what amounts to the same thing, the irrevocability of the socialist character of the political and social system enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic." 

Key to this change in mentality is respect for differences of opinion: "All opinions must be discussed and when a consensus is not reached, the differences will be raised before higher bodies authorised to make decisions. Knowing Cubans and given its importance, I repeat: all opinions must be discussed and when consensus is not reached, the differences will be raised before higher bodies authorized to make decisions and, moreover, nobody is entitled to prevent this."

An official translation of Raul's August 1 speech is here. It's a short speech that's well worth reading in full.

Translation: Alfredo Guevara & students 4

Here is the final instalment of my translation, slightly abridged, of Alfredo Guevara’s candid dialogue with students and staff hosted by the Faculty of Chemistry of Havana University. Guevara comments at some length on the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy in the USSR and how this contributed to the miseducation of communist cadres in Cuba.

It’s worth noting that he does this without once mentioning Leon Trotsky, the key leader in the struggle against the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet state and Communist Party. This may be because Guevara is unfamiliar with the role of Trotsky in this struggle. Trotsky’s works have not been widely available in revolutionary Cuba and only recently have a few of them been published on the island. Or, it could be that Guevara felt that given decades of Stalinist demonisation of Trotsky, this is a controversy best left for another occasion. It may, of course, have been purely incidental and one should not read too much into it. What’s important is that Guevara’s analysis of Stalinism converges with that of Trotsky on key points, and Guevara makes these arguments explicitly and publicly.

If Cuba were really ruled by a Stalinist bureaucracy, as some leftists imagine, it would hardly allow a prominent public figure such as Guevara to say what he says here. Nor would such a ruling bureaucracy allow Cubadebate, a semi-official website hosted by distinguished Cuban journalists based on the island, to transcribe and publish such an exchange. In other words, Cuba’s working people have an ally against bureaucracy in the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) leadership.

Guevara also touches here on an important debate that took place in the 1960s between Carlos Rafael Rodriguez and Che Guevara on economic management in socialist-oriented Cuba, and praises the PCC secretary for Granma province, Lazaro Exposito, for his energetic efforts to clean up the city of Santiago de Cuba and provide decent dining out options at affordable prices. Rather than cloning Exposito, as his admirers suggest on a blog, what really needs to be cloned is Exposito’s work methods, says Guevara.

He begins here by answering a question put to him by Alejandro Fernandez, a professor in the Faculty of Philosophy at Havana University. Unfortunately the transcript of Fernandez’s question is incomplete because, as the transcriber notes, the recording equipment malfunctioned momentarily. This makes it difficult to follow what Fernandez was saying. His question had something to do with the distinction between the Marxism of Marx and Lenin, and Soviet “Marxism-Leninism”.

Debate Forum dialogue with Alfredo Guevara in the Faculty of Chemistry, Havana University

Part 4

(Part 3, Part 2, Part 1)

Cubadebate website, June 22, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

Alfredo Guevara: This is a big topic. I assure you that dogmatic ideas do not prevail at the highest levels of leadership today, but for years we had a formal school of Marxism-Leninism in which Marxism was officially studied as Marxism-Leninism, that is, as a Stalinist catechism.

Many cadres have been schooled in this. Some cadres, among them some who still hold important positions, studied in the Soviet Union in schools where the curriculum was based on the Soviet manuals on Marxism-Leninism. This greatly discredited a book that had not circulated widely enough, Che’s “Critical Notes on Political Economy” – I don’t know if you’ve made a study of it – in which there’s an in-depth analysis of the Manual of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. In reality, the content of the Soviet manual was a new, falsely Marxist theory of “Marxism-Leninism”. Not because Leninist thought – which in some cases is an important aid to political thought and to the analysis of the evolution of capitalism and of imperialist power – is false, but because there are some political positions that applied to very concrete situations faced by the first country that tried to build socialism.

Certainly while Lenin was alive there was an open debate in the Soviet party and only when Lenin became ill did this debate subside. It should be recalled that Lenin died in 1923, didn’t he? OK, at the beginning of 1924. So Lenin’s last instructions to the party leadership were written in 1923. Lenin died, and the line of succession he proposed, more or less as an anxious reflection on the dangers of ... etc. etc., was not implemented. But despite appearances it wasn’t Stalin who replaced Lenin, due to Stalin’s ignorance it could be said. Lenin was replaced by a triumvirate. This happened gradually because these were struggles for power. Stalin goes about destroying those who could have been an obstacle to his absolute power until this was achieved, that’s to say, there was a transition period. But in the end, once he’d attained absolute power, he elaborated a philosophy, a philosophy that overlaps here and there with Marxism, here and there with Leninism, but it’s a Stalinist philosophy aimed at consolidating absolute power, because it may be that Stalin wasn’t as monstrous as history will portray him, but perhaps there’s a mixture of nationalism and power, because if you compare two episodes in Russian history you’ll find a close similarity between Stalin and Ivan the Terrible.

Sergei Eisenstein, the great film director who was almost the originator of cinematographic technique given his contributions to editing and form, made a film titled “Ivan the Terrible” that was censored because Stalin was portrayed in “Ivan the Terrible”, in other words Stalin ended up becoming – excuse me for going on about this a little because I’m going to relate it back to Cuba, I’m just beginning but I won’t go on too long – Stalin ended up being the great defender of Russian nationalism, that of Russia prior to the Soviet Union, and don’t forget that at the Yalta meeting [of Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill in February 1945 – translator’s note], Stalin decided to annexe all of the countries under the influence of the Soviet Union [i.e. of the Soviet Red Army], except for the Slavic countries.

At one point Lenin had said that the worst Russian chauvinists, that’s to say nationalists, were non-Russians, because Stalin was Georgian. Lenin said this and he also said something else. I’m not saying that what he said was valid, but he was a participant, a protagonist, and he clarified many things. Lenin said that the triumph of socialism – he said this before the October Revolution – that the triumph of socialism in Russia would be a barrier to the spread of oriental barbarism. Stalin was the oriental barbarian.

Unless you study and grasp the history of the Communist International you can’t understanding the early period of the Cuban Revolution, you can’t even begin to shed light on certain mistakes, among them the education that was given in the Schools of Revolutionary Instruction for a long while. These schools have a new leadership now, I’m sure they’ll change some things, though I still don’t know if they've done so.

The old Popular Socialist Party (PSP) was under the influence of the Communist International, and the International became – secretly, silently, stealthily, by means of assassinations – dominated by Stalin. This old PSP was full of good people, marvellous people of very high calibre. Some were Stalinists in good faith, and the PSP trained Stalinist cadres who formed a part of our [post-1959 revolutionary] leadership and occupied high positions in our political life.

I don’t think this is the time – maybe someone will tell me this, who knows – this isn’t the appropriate time to be dedicating ourselves to digging up this history, but the researchers have to delve into it, since history cannot remain in obscurity either. And those of us – I still feel like a professor, I’ve been a professor at this university – those of us that have an interest in these things have to make sure that the youth understand them, given that we’ve studied these problems and we’ve searched for the documentation that backs up what we’re saying.

We must convey it to you as I’ve done many times, or on certain occasions. We have to transmit this and the researchers must take it up: you won’t understand anything unless you study the International, because the International was the Communist Party International, that is, it condemned nationalism. There were many mistakes that have to be corrected, aren’t there, and because of this many things remain in the dark.

We’ve contributed two outstanding Latin American thinkers. One, Julio Antonio Mella [1903-29, a founder of the original Cuban Communist Party in the early 1920s – translator’s note], didn’t live long but he lived intensely the whole of those five short years in which he accomplished everything. He was a founding member of the Cuban Communist Party; he went to Mexico, the Latin American headquarters of the International; he was a member of the Mexican Communist Party, he worked for the International, he established the organisation in solidarity with [Nicaraguan revolutionary Augusto] Sandino, etc., etc., the Anti-Imperialist League of the Americas. He attempted, like Fidel, an expedition to invade Cuba and topple the Machado dictatorship, against the wishes of the International and the Mexican Communist Party. Where can one find out about all this? Where can one find the information about Paul Lafargue whom I spoke about earlier? Why isn't it more readily available?

Right now I’m trying to fathom, I’m coming to understand it more and more, why Paul Lafargue, who married one of Karl Marx’s daughters, the first deputy elected to the French parliament, a Cuban [by birth], why is it that we know nothing about Paul Lafargue? Ah, because the old PSP imposed ideological lines to ensure silence. We must study these things.

Raul [Castro] said that we’ve made mistakes. Why have we made these mistakes, what are they and who was responsible for them? Do any of you know – you knew there were debates, perhaps – about the profound debates on economic management between Che and [former PSP leader] Carlos Rafael Rodriguez, the two lines? Would I say now that Che was entirely correct? I don’t think so. Would I say that Carlos Rafael was entirely correct? No, but boy, was there was a debate about the economy. Che ran a cadre school for the training of managerial cadres. What manager from any enterprise, from any entity, from any ministry, has had managerial training? This is why I say that we’ve no right to be ignorant of others’ experiences.

Why are there scarcities, is everything a result of what we know? No, it’s also because of what we don't know. Because I’ve just returned, three weeks ago I was in Santiago de Cuba. My secretary pointed out to me a blog on the internet called, “Let’s Clone Exposito” [Lazaro Exposito is the Cuban Communist Party secretary in Granma province – translator’s note]. Lazaro is the new leader over there, he was also in Bayamo and he sorted everything out in Bayamo, and Santiago de Cuba is a marvel, except for transport which has not been fixed, everything is clean, everything is … you were there, weren’t you? … everything’s clean, no [old] buildings are collapsing, the footpaths are free of cigarette butts and waste paper. Let me tell you, the last time I was in Santiago de Cuba it was filthy. How did they get everyone to stop tossing cigarette butts and bits of paper on the pavement? This is an example of dignity, the recovery of dignity. It’s going to be hard given everything we've been through, but that’s how it is in Santiago de Cuba.

But I haven’t told you everything. Walk down the street in Santiago de Cuba and you can buy bread with beef steak in regular [rather than convertible] Cuban pesos. Walk two blocks further and you can eat bread with suckling pork, also sold in regular pesos. In the next block you can eat a plate of prawns, sold in regular pesos, and a lobster, in regular pesos. All this in regular pesos, and I say OK, why? Ah, let’s clone Exposito, as the blog suggests, but I’d say we should do something even better, or more critical, to complement what you’re doing, Exposito. And why Exposito? Why the devil does it have to be just one person whom we can trust in to set things right? No, let’s clone a work method, and this work method is a shipment of truth, honest and clean truth, because this is how he works. It may shorten his life, he’s still a young man.

Monsignor Carlos Manuel de Cespedes, who is naturally very alert to everything that happens in Bayamo, when Exposito was in Bayamo the Monsignor told me: “Alfredo, it’s as if we were in another country”. He talked about things there the way I’m describing Santiago de Cuba. […]

I was worried they might be teasing me, so I had to go and take a look with my doctor and my son, because as you can see I’m somewhat frail, and they told me: “Go and have a look and tell me if everything I see there is real when I’m not there.” It was real, it’s magic. And why? I know Havana has 2.2 million inhabitants and is invaded by internal migrants, but OK, it’ll be more difficult but we must clone a method. First comes the method, the plan, rigour in the planning, in the method. (Applause).

Chair: Well Professor, thank you very much, I never thought we’d be able to have you come and speak to us here. I hope it won’t be the last time given what I said in the introduction about what we’re trying to do with this debate space, which is not to create it for one occasion but to maintain it, which is the most difficult thing to achieve. And another time, when you have a bit more of an audience, when we have electricity, when all this is OK, then we’d like to invite you to come again because it’s very enriching to converse with you. We’ve brought you a little present, a very humble one, in the name of the organisers of this forum.

Translation: Corruption in Cuba

In the commentary below Dr. Ramon de la Cruz Ochoa, a Cuban authority on the penal system, takes up the question of corruption in Cuba in response to a commentary by a retired Cuban psychiatrist, Dr Fernando Barral, titled "A sociological approximation to the problem of corruption in Cuba". I decided to translate de la Cruz Ochoa's response because of its brevity and the fact that the author is authoritative. 

Comments on the contribution of Dr Fernando Barral on corruption in Cuba 

By Dr. Ramon de la Cruz Ochoa, President, Cuban Society of Penal Sciences of the Cuban Union of Jurists

Temas magazine website, June 25, 2010

Translation: Marce Cameron

The contribution of Dr Fernando Barral has the merit of calling attention to a theme as important as that of corruption. However, I disagree with some of his statements and I will try to elaborate in a very summary way.    

1. There is no doubt that in Cuba, very little is publicised regarding concrete cases of corruption, but this does not mean that this topic is off the political agenda of the country. We cannot forget the words of the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, on November 17, 2005 at Havana University, when he said: "This country could self-destruct, they [referring to the imperialists] cannot destroy it; we ourselves could destroy it and it would be our fault. We invite all the people to participate in a great battle [...] the battle against theft of any kind, in any place". It's not possible to speak in a clearer or more dramatic way against corruption. Although the word corruption wasn't used, we all understood perfectly well what he was saying. It was a very dramatic warning.

2. It's not correct to say that corruption is only known about "by word of mouth" or via indirect sources. We Cuban revolutionaries know that it is a grave reality that confronts our country, that it is a very widespread phenomenon in our society and that it's not only a problem of corrupt functionaries and leaders.                 

3. It is known that there are deficiencies in the mechanisms of accountability, fundamentally in the internal functioning of every enterprise, every institution. We cannot overlook the creation and institutional  strengthening of the Comptroller General of the Republic, nor the work being done for some time by the Attorney General and the organs of the Ministry of the Interior. In recent months the Popular Tribunals have even created courtrooms that specialise in economic crimes, such as those that exist in many countries and that are recommended in studies.        

4. To say that functionaries "enjoy great discretional powers over monetary and material resources" is to completely ignore the regulations that govern our economy. What happened in the 1980s [presumably a reference to the "Rectification of Errors and Negative Tendencies" launched by the Cuban Communist Party in 1986] and Cases 1 and 2 [the 1989 trials of high-ranking military officers on drug-trafficking and corruption charges] do not support this claim. Also, twenty years have transpired since then, in which much has been done in this area.      

5. To say that the jail terms in Cuba [for crimes of corruption] are benign is totally inaccurate.

6. It's true that corruption is legally defined in some countries, although in most of them it's a doctrinal and criminological definition, not one relating to penal laws. The relevant Cuban legislation — especially that contained in the Penal Code — is very broad, and many think it excessive and overly comprehensive. Legal experts recognise that the Penal Law is an indispensable instrument to combat corruption, but not by any means the most important.          

7.  Excessive punishment and justice without guarantees — as some seem to want — has nothing to do with rationality in the use of penal law. The history of humanity has taught us that its abusive and excessive use is perverse and ends up harming the whole society.

8. I disagree with Dr. Barral's definition of "occupational delinquency", unless it is a very personal interpretation of so-called "white collar crimes", but this is the subject of another debate.     

9. It is undeniable that corruption arouses irritation among the people, but above all certain kinds of corruption [i.e. large-scale or involving high officials]. In the face of other kinds of corruption, in daily life, those that tend to be more socially harmful, there is an absence of social reaction and this is very serious.   

10. It would appear that Dr Barral opposes individual material incentives and other economic mechanisms. He appeals to the words of Che Guevara, said in another historical context and for other realities. In Cuba, labour must be incentivised according to the results and the quality of work. It is necessary to create a sense of belonging [i.e. a sense of individual and collective responsibility for social property and productivity]. I think the immense majority of the Cuban people agree with this, wishing only that it becomes reality as soon as possible.      

11. The role of ethics is very important — I would say decisive — to combat corruption, but neither can one ignore the influence that socioeconomic factors have on the observance of ethical values.

12. In his recommendations, the author talks about political measures and the participation of the masses to combat corruption. However, it should be pointed out that in the base committees of the Cuban Communist Party the issue of corruption is debated systematically. Certainly, on occasion these discussions are formal and superficial and do not go to the heart of problems; but there is also the political will to face up to it.      

13. To say that the corrupt do not go to prison is to ignore reality. Though Dr. Barral may not be aware of it, while acts of corruption are not publicised as much as they should be, those who visit and know the prisons, the training institutions of the Ministry of the Interior, the Attorney General's office and the Tribunals through our professions know that this assertion bears no relation to reality.

14. The author does not talk about the [post-Soviet] Special Period and its impact on the growth of corruption, nor does he mention monetary duality as a propitiating factor. The increase in corruption always has structural causes that he doesn't mention, and neither does he talk about the problems of our economic model which, as President Raul Castro has said, needs a systemic update, not partial, and many of us think this is urgent. Neither does he talk about administrative and legislative measures which, on occasion, promote corruption, the most obvious of which are the housing regulations [that sustain a black market, and associated corrupt practices, in the buying and selling of homes].           

In summary, I consider Dr. Barral's contribution to be useful, but — with all due respect — it needs updating and lacks rigour. 

Translation: Bureaucratism, from rule to exception

The "updating" of Cuba's socialist economic model must swim against a tide of passive resistance from much of the bloated administrative apparatus commonly referred to in Cuba as "the bureaucracy". One of the objectives of the rationalisation of the state-sector workforce now underway is to reduce the numbers of such administrators to a minimum. Changes of personnel and of work attitudes are also needed, along with the simplification of absurdly complicated administrative procedures. 

Bureaucratism, from rule to exception

By Felix Lopez

Granma, January 30, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

Sixto Martinez fulfilled his military service in a barracks in Seville. In the middle of the courtyard of this barracks there was a stool. Next to the stool, a soldier stood guard. Nobody knew why...the guard did it because he did it, night and day, every night, every day, and generation after generation the officials transmitted the order and the soldiers obeyed it. Nobody ever doubted it, nobody questioned it...And so it went on until someone, I don't know whether a general or a colonel, wanted to know the original order. He had to dig deep in the archives, and after much poking around, he found out: thirty-one years, two months and four days ago, an official had ordered somebody to stand guard next to the stool, that had been recently painted, so that nobody would think of sitting on the fresh paint.          

Thus the Uruguayan writer, Eduardo Galeano, describes the long reach of the ghost of bureaucratism in the Book of Hugs.     

Luckily for those who live in Cuba, our Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) know how to find their own antidote against this evil that we have not been able to eradicate from the social environment.

The FAR have been pioneers in organisation, planning, in the [socialist state] Enterprise Improvement program and in establishing payment according to work results, economic practices that fly light-years away from the bureaucratic habits encrusted in many areas of the economy, and that some always viewed with animosity in order to avoid being demanding, taking responsibility and the obligation to comply [with what is required].       

The "stool duty", converted into an image of bureaucratism, is a history of the absurd that reminds us of the recent publication in this daily of the letter of a reader*, as important and opportune as the most thorough journalistic investigation, that related the surrealism of his "vicissitudes to obtain a self-employment licence in Moa [a town in Holguin province]". The letter of Holguin resident G. Gomez Fuentes exposes how a functionary asked her for documents that were not required according to the current legislation regarding self-employment. And her reaction to Gomez Fuentez's application: "(...) I asked the compañera if she knew what [Minister for Economy and Planning] compañero [Marino] Murillo had said about this, and her response was that I could forget about Murillo."

This unfortunate response is a kind of X-ray of a mindset, very common, of ignorance regarding legality; it also reflects the damage being done by certain Creole [i.e. Cuban] bureaucrats by obstructing, diluting and complicating a series of measures and solutions that are being implemented as part of the updating of the Cuban economic model.      

Some do not want to realise that in this country nobody will be allowed to act in violation of the laws, norms and resolutions which everyone is obliged to comply with.   

And despite everything that has been said, there are still many who do not understand that this process [of updating Cuba's socialist economic model] must be accompanied by a change of mentality, of work practices and of vision at all levels, from those who lead an activity through to the functionary who staffs a bureau or a window, and who becomes the face (pleasant or harmful) of an idea, a measure, a solution or an important project.      

Gomez's letter triggered a chain of reflections on this matter. Carlos Rodriguez said that "as well as not complying with the regulations and laws appearing in the Official Gazette, the example of what happened in Moa highlights how there are functionaries that far from helping, they hinder the work of reorganising the economy and society". Basilio Garcia warned that "there are many bureaucrats and technocrats that have still not realised that we are in times of changes. They continue to be stuck in their routine, lagging behind, putting the brakes on development and undermining the morale of those who want to fight, advance and triumph."

There are still those who turn a blind eye to the new scenario that's being constructed for the economy and Cuban society. Some because they have bureaucracy in the blood, inoculated as if it were a deadly virus. Others because it doesn't suit them to change the system of red tape, delay, impunity, and the "fine" or "bite" [i.e. the charging of illegal fees] required for any procedure so as to ensure a happy ending.  

And there are those who enjoy their eight hours a day of being executioners [a metaphor], making life miserable and embittering everyone who tries to climb the Golgotha [Biblical reference to the hill where Jesus was crucified] of licences, permits, authorisations and every kind of procedure and paperwork that sustains the existence of a parasitic plague in the heart of the public administration. The rest — those who work well, who deliver happiness and sustain our optimism — should become the rule rather than the exception.  

In his speech to the National Assembly on December 18, compañero Raul [Castro] insisted that "it is necessary to change the mentality of the cadres and of all the compatriots to face the new scenario that is beginning to take shape. It's simply a matter of changing erroneous and unsustainable concepts of socialism..." Would the bureaucrats understand the message they've been sent by the Second Secretary of the [Communist] Party when he referred to the necessity for a change of mentality?     

For Basilio Garcia, behind every irresponsible bureaucrat or functionary there is a leading cadre that allows this type of conduct: "We have to continue unearthing these pessimists and opportunists, for whom the only thing that matters is that they have a more comfortable life; and go about substituting them with people who are trained and have the desire to do things well. Any human collective is teeming with such people, we just have to find them and give them the opportunity. Clearly, for this to happen we also have to banish from our minds the practice of canonising cadres; that is, whatever you do, you are always a cadre [i.e. someone who is supposed to act responsibly]."         

In its pursuit of improvement, Cuban society in turn clamours for the shaking off of the ballast of bureaucracy, this ancient invention through which one shies away from personal responsibility in the moment of making decisions; this "pedestal" upon which some choose to live their minutes of glory and show off their quotas of power, tiny as they may be. Let's recall that poetic definition of Roque Dalton and we'll understand him better, because we have no other choice but to convert the exception into the rule:

The bureaucrats swim in a sea of tempestuous boredom

From horror at their yawns, which are the first assassins of tenderness

They end up with poisoned livers

And are found dead clinging to their telephones

With yellow eyes fixed on the clock.    

  

*Vicissitudes to obtain a self-employment license in Moa, Friday January 21, p.11.