What reality demands

By Francisco Aruca and Manuel Alberto Ramy

The journalist and political analyst Francisco Aruca, who, with Edmundo García hosts “La Tarde Se Mueve,” spoke on Nov. 6 in Havana with Manuel A. Ramy, editor of the Spanish-language version of Progreso Weekly. The conversation turned into an interview and what follows is a transcript of the former.

Francisco Aruca (FA): Do you think that the outcome of the recent U.S. elections will affect the policy changes being implemented by the Cuban government?

Manuel A. Ramy (MAR): The changes currently taking place respond, as I’ve often written for more than two years, to specific requirements of the Cuban reality. They are the demands of reality, they are not bargaining chips or concessions to international factors. Having or not having an impact at that level would be a consequence, not the goal.

FA: You speak of “international factors.” Don’t they play a role?

MAR: For all governments, and more so in the case of Cuba, the international climate is a consideration when formulating policies. But in the Cuban case, domestic circumstances are so pressing that I do not consider that the international climate will slow them down, although it might affect the extent of some steps, and I stress “might” and “extent.”

Often, people don’t take into account that a climate of harassment and hostility is restrictive. A while back, the Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano said in an interview something that always echoes in my head: the Cubans “have built the democracy they’ve been able to, not the one they’ve desired.”

By contrast, a relaxed atmosphere, such as the policy maintained so far by the current Spanish government, would allow more flexibility and greater depth in some changes. But beware, the depth does not imply a renunciation of the socialist option that is the course announced by the Cuban government.

FA: It appears that the outcome of midterm elections in the U.S., which left the Republicans with a majority in Congress and the ability to filibuster in the Senate, dims the chances of a possible opening toward Cuba.

MAR: That’s true, but the changes will not depend on that situation. The important thing is that Cuba cannot remain static. Either the essential changes in the economy are carried out or an extremely delicate situation will develop.

Does that mean walking on the razor’s edge? Yes. A risk? Yes, everything in life is a risk. All revolutions are. And isn’t it risky to turn a social metaphor into reality? The greatest risk would be not changing. To opt for immobility, i.e., to maintain the status quo, would amount to suicide.

Do not rule out that some narrow-mindedness abroad, including not opening up to Cuba, is a way, in addition to historical strategic objectives, to force the island to become entrenched in old patterns, structures, mentalities. To immobilize, to widen the gap between society and the institutions and thus promote the divorce, the breakup.

FA: That’s your opinion, but do you think that the election results surprised the Cuban government?

MAR: I think they caught no one by surprise. The Democratic defeat was predicted and its consequences for our country and for sensible Americans were expected. With the vast Republican majority in the House of Representatives, which implies the chairmanship of all committees, including the Foreign Policy Committee, which will most certainly be presided by Mrs. Ileana Ros, there will be no flexibility in the line toward Cuba. And if, as you say, you add that in the Senate, despite a Democratic majority, the Republicans can filibuster, everything will be tied up.

FA: At the risk of seeming too pushy on the same topic, might this not affect the decisions in Cuba?

MAR: I think not, because of the first thing I told you. The changes here are mandatory. And now, as they say, I’ll jump in, head first.

I believe that the Cuban government, when drafting its guidelines for the economic plan for 2010-2015, probably began from the premise, among others, that there will be no relations with the U.S., or that there will be no lifting of the travel ban by Americans to Cuba. Zero American tourists.

To begin with the grimmest scenario and to mobilize domestic human and material resources seems to be the rule that governs what is being done gradually and taking risks. Or is it not a risk to dismiss 500,000 workers, albeit temporarily?

FA: Regarding this point, some people think that such a move is unwise.

MAR: One thing is the prudence any government must have; another thing is the bullheadedness, which is nothing more than persisting in a model rejected by practice. Life has disqualified the overly nationalized model, the centralized and hyper-bureaucratic model.

I sense a vision and trend that will energize the economy. Moreover, the measures already announced – discrete and small for some, not for others – say the country is moving ahead.

FA: In the U.S., opinions abound that the changes are capitalistic.

MAR: You see, until recently, the critics complained that nothing happened, and now they complain about the measures, about what is happening. After the inertia is broken, the focus is on the procedure. The point of discussion has changed.

Until yesterday, the argument was that nothing happened – and this applies to many of my countrymen of different opinions. Now the criticism is aimed at the actual changes. That thing about capitalism is oversimplification. The economy has universal instruments and applies valid measures for any system. For instance, in Britain, Canada and other highly industrialized capitalist countries – not in the United States – medicine is socialized. Have those countries ceased to be capitalist?

I ask myself. They levy taxes, recognize the existence of the market, a reality that the classics of Marxism and socialism did not deny. They allow the free hiring of workers for the emerging private sector or open spaces for small businesses, etc. Does doing the same make Cuba capitalist?

You told me earlier that in 1968 the Revolutionary Offensive wiped out small businesses and you recalled that seven years ago (in April 1961) the government proclaimed the socialist nature of the process. As you see, the point of discussion has changed because the reality and the answers have shifted. Of course, some things are encouraging and good, but others worry me. There are lights and shadows.

There will be other installments of this interview, soon, about the current reality of the measures, about what is happening, about “the lights and shadows,” as Ramy puts it.