Democracy in general
Ireland is a democratic country. Cuba is not a democratic country. Most people in Ireland would probably agree with this proposition. Why is it so simple for people to agree with this proposition and believe it to be correct? Most people believe in democracy and agree with democracy but the problem is that democracy does not define itself. It must be defined in the exact context in which it is used. For instance, in Ireland we use the Proportional Representation (PR) system of elections, in Britain First Past the Post (FPP) is used and there are endless variations of the theme all of which are deemed to be democratic. Already it is clear that the subject of democracy is not as simple as it appears at first sight.

Most of all, there is a widespread belief that democracy is necessarily defined by multi-party choice and elections. Nevertheless, popular wisdom has it that Ireland is democratic and that Cuba is not. There is no doubt that there are vast differences between the exercise of ‘Irish' democracy and ‘Cuban' democracy but who decides which is democratic and which is not and what criteria is used in determining the answer? Rather than arguing the case for the form of democracy used in Cuba we ask you to cast a critical eye on the form of democracy used in Ireland. The term democracy is thrown around by all manner of people, to give legitimacy to their demands and to garner public support for them. Besides being a mass aspiration with universal appeal, what precisely does democracy mean? Candidate selection, political parties, elections and governments do not define democracy.

In our society, democracy means multi-party free elections. However, issues such as who controls the material resources of society and in whose interest society is organised are largely deemed to be outside the scope of democratic discussion or decision. Candidates tend to be selected by party activists who have views they wish promoted by the candidate they select. Consequently, our choice is largely between rival parties, with most people following habitual voting patterns. So the choices on offer are limited, by the ideology of those already in power and the political agenda they favour to perpetuate.

Pressure Groups
A brief examination of the influence that pressure groups can exert delivers another indicator of the flaws in our system. The role of pressure groups highlights the fact that democracy is not about consensus or even majority rule. Groups with more skill, time, experience and money can ensure that a powerful minority interest can become dominant. Governments must recognise that all pressure groups are not representative before they give them unregulated entry into policy making.  Indeed, the up-front pressure groups such as trade unions, housing associations, solidarity groups, etc are clearly recognised as pressure groups with specific interests and their activities can be judged by the public. But, what of the less obvious pressure groups such as the churches, business interests, etc?



And, what about the large monetary donations to political parties, the lunches with ministers, etc - are these activities supposed to enhance our faith in our democracy? Even more sinister are the ‘interests' which never openly declare themselves but who exercise enormous power over government, local authorities etc.

What can go wrong?
It is unlikely that any government will enjoy unanimous support. In extreme cases those who do not support the government reject their right to govern, refusing to acknowledge the courts, police or any other forms of coercive government control. Apart from our own, in how many other countries is this the case? If legitimacy is withheld by a substantial minority then the government is no longer a legitimate force and becomes an agency of oppression. The question must be asked why the number of eligible voters in Ireland is declining to participate in elections? Is it through a lack of interest or faith? Or its it that our model of democracy has simply failed them? Whatever the reason they have ultimately denied themselves any input into the political system, which determines their lives. If our form of democracy is so wonderful why is it that so may people have so little faith in the democratic processes and fail to participate even in the electoral processes themselves quite apart from not taking part in the process that leads up to the elections including the selection of candidates? When the majority is disinterested and has no resources to effectively participate in the political process what difference do formal political freedoms such as elections make?

Democracy can only be measured by the depth and range of mass participation in societal decisions. By these criteria we need to reassess what we call democracy in this country before we attempt to attack its various manifestations in other countries. It is only then we can critically ascertain which system is more, less or equally democratic and why this is so. In Cuba, almost 100% of the eligible electorate vote in elections. In some communities in Ireland it is reaching the stage where almost 100% of the eligible electorate do not vote. Candidates are selected usually by masses of people; in Ireland candidates are usually selected at party conventions involving very small numbers of people. In the United States if you have 50 million dollars you stand a good chance of competing in an election for a state governorship! How much do you need to become the "democratically elected" president?

The latest estimate is that one billion dollars will be spent on the 2008 US presidential contest – a contest rather than an election between two quite similar political parties in a two party state.  We have a lot to learn about democracy but the first thing to understand is that it is not nearly as perfect as we might think and we should remember that especially when we take it upon ourselves to try to impose our model of democracy on others.

Cuban Electoral Process
The National Assembly of Peoples Power (Parliament), the heights legislative power, is elected every five years. From its members the Council of State is elected, which acts on behalf of the National Assembly, between sessions. The National Assembly also appoints the Council of Ministers. In 1992, the Parliament approved changes to the electoral system, which would strengthen public control over the government. Henceforth, the deputies to the National Assembly and the delegates to the Provincial Assembly were to be elected through free and direct ballot.

People's Councils were added to the governmental structure in 1988 and were renewed in 1993. Delegates are elected at the constituency level, they represent the area in which they work and have authority to develop the production and service industries, to meet the people's needs.  Municipal Administrative Councils (1993), consist of elected representatives who work with delegates from social and economic organisations. These Councils can demand that these organisations fulfil their duties to the community.

Ricardo Alarcon, president of the National Assembly, believes that the democratic nature of the National Assembly has been improved, since to be elected you must be nominated by your community. Inherent in the system is the voter's right to recall delegates who are not fulfilling their mandate. This in conjunction with the fact that 99% of those eligible voted on February 24th 1993, reflects the peoples active participation in their election process.



Nomination Assemblies are convened within constituencies to propose and elect candidates. There is no intervention by the Communist Party in the process. The Candidacy Commission draws up lists of candidates for delegates to the Provincial Assemblies and for deputies to the National Assembly. These Commissions are made up of representatives of trade unions, students, farmers and women's groups. The candidates, for the 1993 elections, were selected by consultation with a million and a half people, from this a pool of 60,000 - 70,000 candidates arose.

From this number the Candidacy Commission put forward 1,190 candidates for the Provincial Assembly and 589 for the National Assembly. The Candidacy Commission calculated that the National Assembly is composed of 274 grass roots delegates, 180 provincial candidates and 135 national candidates.  After the elections the National Assembly consisted of 83% new representatives, 23% women, 75% university graduates, 6% Communist Party officials, 18% scientists, 24% workers, 10% farmers and 6% military.

‘Democracy Promotion' alias the Nicaragua Model
Since the 1980's the US has argued that their dispute with Cuba is with its lack of ‘democracy'. The Helms - Burton Act, reiterates that any normalisation of relations will depend on ‘democratisation' inside Cuba. From 1959 to the late 80s, Cuba was presented as a ‘security threat', due to its alliance with the Soviet bloc and its active support for liberation movements throughout the world. The emphasis on Cuba's internal political system has been identified as ‘democracy promotion '.  The real objective is to reassert US domination and to destroy any example Cuba sets. ‘Democracy promotion' penetrates civil society and the state from within. By transferring anti-Castro forces from Miami to Cuba, opposition would be internalised. This would facilitate the flow of resources from America. To appear legitimate, US support has to be transferred from extreme right groups, eg Alpha 66, to more moderate ones.

This infiltration has fostered opposition networks inside and outside Cuba, including so-called human rights groups, political parties, the media etc. The shift from hard line destabilisation to ‘democracy promotion' also led to the 1990 electoral defeat of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. ‘Democracy promotion' would be neither covert nor violent. It would not call for the overthrow of the Cuban government but for open dialogue and peaceful change. It would raise sensitive issues among Cubans, emphasising the economic hardships at that time and the aspirations of the generations since 1959. US forces would seek support among those Cubans involved in the newly emerging market economy.

Every means to exploit internal resentments and divisions will be used. For ‘democracy promotion ' to succeed, economic recovery had to be prevented -the strategy being to convert economic crisis into social unrest, then giving political voice to this unrest. The blockade was critical to this process.  Of course, this strategy was a complete failure in Cuba but that did not deter the great democracy in the slightest. The latest US  plan “The Commission for Assistance to a  Free Cuba” is outlined in another chapter.

The US insists that once, fair and free, multiparty elections take place it will have no further interest in Cuba. However one must remember the 1984 elections in Nicaragua, which were fair and free but were rejected by the US due to their outcome: a Sandinista victory. In 1990, the elections were once again fair, but this time were welcomed because they removed the Sandinistas from power. The insertion of Nicaragua back into the global economy and neo-liberal restructuring followed. So, if Cuba were to hold multiparty elections which reinstated the current government, would US hostility cease? Definitely not. The US has openly stated that it will persist with its policies until it can subsume Cuba into the capitalist system it controls.

In Cuba mass participation in decision making is fundamental to democracy. Without the Cubans faith and pride in their system, they could never have survived almost 50 years of US hostility.  Cuba is not the only target: every country in Latin America (just to look at a relevant area) that attempts to adopt independent economic, social and political methods of organising their societies – that is, independent of the US – suffers the wrath of the US. The more elections Hugo Chavez wins in Venezuela, and the bigger the majority vote he wins them by makes him more of a dictator according to the US. If only it was the US that reached these absurd conclusions it might not be so bad but now the European Union – including Ireland – is parroting the US position.

In the run-up to the presidential elections in Nicaragua in 2006 the US interfered in the process threatening to restrict trade, stop remittances from migrant workers in the US or even send migrant workers back to Nicaragua. The US made exactly the same threats in the presidential elections in El Salvador and on that occasion the threats produced the desired result; the left-wing candidate lost having had a considerable lead. 

Fidel Castro on Democracy
"For me, democracy means fraternity and true equality among men and women and equal opportunities for all men and women, for every human being who is born. Capitalist bourgeois democracy doesn't contain any of those elements. How can they talk of democracy in a country where a minority has immense fortunes and others have nothing? "

"People used to cite Greek democracy as an example, democracy from the classical age of Greece. Athens, which was the prototype of democracy, had 40,000 citizens and 90,000 slaves. For every free man, woman and child in Athens, there were more than two slaves - I'm not criticising them because they were products of their society."

"Over $100 million, $200 million and $300 million have been spent on advertising in some electoral campaigns in Latin America. What kind of democracy is that, in which they use the same methods in seeking votes as in trying to get consumers to drink Coca-Cola, to smoke a certain brand of cigarettes, to use a certain kind of perfume or to use any other product."

"For our countries, and especially for a country such as Cuba, one of the most important things is unity - of our forces and of our country - which has made it possible for us to stand firm against all of the United States' threats and acts of aggression. How could our country have stood firm if it had been split up into 10 pieces? 

"What democracy is there in the United Nations? Nearly 180 countries are members but only five countries have the right to veto. A single country on the Security Council can veto what all the rest want. And they call that democracy! Can that be defended? Some of those countries, with 50 million inhabitants, have the right to veto what the rest of the world wants, yet other countries, such as India, with 800 million inhabitants, doesn't have the right to veto."

"In some countries in Latin America, 10% of the population receives over 50% of the income. How can you talk about democracy in such conditions?" "The Cuban government is the embodiment of the people's strength, and the people are indeed strong. In our country, the people not only have the right to vote but also have the right to bear arms. What would happen in Europe if the workers, students and all other sectors that are constantly repressed whenever they demand something or mobilise for something were armed? This is why I say that nowhere else in the world are the people and government so closely identified as in our country. I think that this is eloquent proof of the essence of democracy and of the fact that democracy can exist only in a fair social system. "

"If lack of democracy were to cause governments to collapse, the capitalist system would have collapsed a long time ago."

"We give the people not parties, but the power to nominate and elect candidates. We keep improving our government, and we'll have the most democratic procedure in the world."  "If the people didn't take active part in all the Revolution's activities, we would not have been able to stand firm for more than 30 years against the blockade and threats of the US. The essence of democracy is expressed in our country by the popular defence of the government."