The shared perceptions among media outlets of almost all stripes about Cuban society is that it is divided into two poles. On one side, those who wield power at some level and the “officialists” who support them (with a declining trend); and on the other, those who oppose them (increasingly), from belligerent or “independent” positions. In the middle, there is an innocuous, amorphous, exhausted, drained, etc. mass, incapable of reacting except in bursts of despair, and who, in the meantime, suffer with resignation; that is, silent or looking for a way out.
This representation, now mainstream, also affirms that young people are apolitical. That they prefer to leave the country to struggle for what they believe is just. That they respond with the reflexes typical of their generation, absorbed in social media and immersed in the alienation of the hypermedia world, in evasion and banality; that they ignore or disdain the usefulness of technology for learning, science, development, etc. That they don’t dare to use the space of their organizations and institutions to demand what they believe is right and necessary for themselves and for society. That they don’t share the crystallized and ceremonial modes of social communication and discourse because they are “apathetic.” That they live in an anachronistic country and in an outdated culture, removed from the contemporary world.
In the midst of the wasteland described thus, where everything is ideology, the only lights of hope emanate from a certain “civil society,” where the voices of change reside. That is, a private sector, although alive, in decline; Evangelical, Protestant and Catholic churches, which bring clarity, a democratic sense and a progressive orientation to the people who follow them; a resident opposition inside and outside, whose media outlets are sources of truthful and balanced information, and whose intellectuals possess the most reliable perspectives to explain what is happening.
The abrupt and disproportionate increase (compared to expectations regarding a public service) in internet rates has been a one-time event whose most significant effect has not been economic or ideological, but sociopolitical: highlighting, in high definition and contrast, a segment of the public sphere that is almost always ignored and forgotten. I am referring to the “socialist family” in all its true plurality.
I attempt to put together these notes about a part of that “family,” its diversity, vibrancy, institutional or non-institutional means of expression, points of convergence and divergence.
This reaction encompasses voices from diverse social groups affected by the measure; not only students, but also older adults, artists, academicians, etc. The media channeling these reactions are also varied, including established organs and institutions.
The Hermanos Saiz Association (AHS), an organization of young writers and artists, was one of the first to respond to the rise in internet rates. Its arguments defended those who “increasingly depend on digital platforms,” “especially those living outside of provincial capitals,” whose access will become “unsustainable for many creators.” They also defended “live broadcasts of their events,” essential “to reach diverse audiences” inside and outside Cuba. It will become more difficult to “download books, audiobooks, and videobooks” amid a “shortage of paper for printing literary works.”
This argument concludes with a broader political and cultural reflection: the increase in rates “would curb the potential of a generation of artists who have found in the internet a tool for empowerment and resistance to the wave of international colonization”; it would also prevent “the visibility of our country’s culture in a context like the current one.”
The official newspaper of Matanzas, Girón, immediately published an unusual editorial against the rate hike:
Was such a huge leap necessary? Isn’t there a middle ground between ETECSA’s financial strangulation and the economic strangulation of users? Online users are asking: Have all avenues been explored to encourage foreign currency refills without penalizing essential domestic consumption? Differentiated packages based on usage profiles? Targeted temporary subsidies? Partnerships with other productive sectors? Connectivity is not a luxury; it’s a tool for work, study, communication and development. Managing it with fairness, vision and dialogue is not solely ETECSA’s responsibility… Detailed and public explanations of the investment and improvement plan are needed, along with information on whether alternatives will be explored to alleviate the impact on productive and lower-income sectors.
Professors from the University of Havana’s Department of Sociology described the measures as “contrary to the principles of our State, to the fundamental right of access to communication” and, above all, as threatening “the already deteriorating quality of life of the Cuban population.” They also described them as lacking “citizen consultation,” ignoring “the precarious economic conditions in which the people live” and having a greater impact “on structural inequalities” and “limiting the scientific, academic and social development of the nation.” They also aggravate “the crisis situation” for “large sectors of the population” and ignore “the principle of equity and the social nature of an essential public service in Cuba.”
They affirmed that the measures contradict established policies, such as “digitalization, bancarization, teleworking, the migration of services to digital platforms,” the existence of “greater digital education” and “transnational families supported through technology.” They denounced their effect in generating “discontent and concern among the population.”
They described the “specific impact on the academic community and society in general” as “very serious,” with an impact on “the already weakened higher education system” and “greater intellectual isolation and technological backwardness.”
They judged the measures not only as unpopular, but also as a reflection of “an economic logic out of touch with social reality” and “contradictory to the policy of computerization of society,” and expressed concern about the political treatment given to the discontent of the general population and students in particular.
Their demands are summarized as “more dialogue, participation, consensus and coherence.” They asked that the measures be suspended and a transparent consultation process with the public be established, through “the activation of institutional participation mechanisms,” so that “the agreements reflect the consensus of the majority.” They demanded “a public statement from the country’s high leadership, taking into account the political complexity of the situation.” They concluded by emphasizing that they will not allow their declaration to be used “for interests alien to our revolutionary position.”
It closes with a definition of their role as professors and sociologists, which could well answer the question of what the role of a socialist intellectual is in today’s Cuba: “to criticize our reality and advocate for social policies that contribute to the country’s social equity.”
This reaction, ultimately, does not encompass only one segment of the intellectual and ideological spectrum of “that socialist family.”
In a text criticizing the policy implemented (Cubainformación – Article: Los contextos de ETECSA o cómo no podrán convertir a la FEU en el sindicato Solidaridad [The Contexts of ETECSA or How They Can’t Turn the FEU into the Solidarity Union]), its author acknowledges that “mistakes were made in the application of the measures adopted” and that “public dialogue should have preceded their implementation.” He notes that this “has a huge psychological impact, because during the pandemic and power outages, we take refuge in connection, and through it we talk to our relatives abroad or with friends in the country, we gather information for work or school, etc.”
Speaking of the Party, and of “many of its dedicated leaders and officials at all levels,” he notes that “over the years it has lost its initial dynamism, and sometimes fails to deal with the spontaneity of a youth who want to wage their own war.” And he adds a characterization of that youth: “The instant mobilization of young university students in the face of a measure they considered unjust is a breath of fresh air, a demonstration of life, a warning that the Revolution is not dead. They may not be right because they are young; being right is not a matter of age. They may or may not be right; that is what needs to be discussed. But they do have the right to be heard, to participate in decisions that affect them.”
I would like to conclude these notes with some thoughts gleaned from my conversation yesterday with two Federation of University Students (FEU) presidents from the Faculties of Philosophy and History, and Biology and Biochemistry, respectively, Amalia Díaz Pérez and Daniela Alberto Álvarez. Although I intend to publish them in full in Temas magazine’s “Catalejo” in a few days, I’m sharing them here telegraphically, as a live reflection on a process in full swing. Below are some answers from both sides to my questions.
Why such a sharp reaction to the rise in internet rates, amid rising prices for basic goods? Why are students at the forefront?
DA: It’s the straw that broke the camel’s back.
AD: Because of the buildup of discontent. But also because the internet has been used as a channel to get away from everyday problems like the lack of electricity, water and cooking fuel.
DA: Communication [via the internet] is a way for Cubans today to connect, to feel heard, to have a space for participation, to create and maintain ties.
AD: The impact is greatest among students, because they are at the forefront of this technologization of society. And because of their potential, thanks to an organization that has more opportunities, namely the FEU, where they have a short time and a renewing spirit. Students are those who historically have the least to lose and, therefore, are the most revolutionary.
DA: It’s a measure that widens the gap between those who will be able to access it and those who won’t, on top of all the existing difficulties and inequalities.
Some say that students are defending their interests as a sector.
DA: Yes, we are defending the interests of students, because students are interested in what is happening in Cuba, they are interested in what is happening to the Cuban people. And that’s why we were the first to raise our voices, so that we would be heard, but also so that the rest of the people would be heard. But we don’t want a second package for the students. What we want is for the people of Cuba, of which we are a part.
AD: The reason for our reaction is that students may be one of the most affected groups, and the capacity of the FEU organization to process and organize this discontent.
There is a bigger problem here, which is political participation. Because we have organizations that, despite having legislation and a structure designed for this, fail to channel discontent, and are tainted by a lack of representation that prevents this from being functional when it comes to decision-making.
To what extent can we speak of a common position among students? Is there a homogeneous reaction?
AD: The view among students has not been homogeneous, although there is a general consensus regarding rejection of the measures. There are those who complain about how it affects them individually, and there are those who have understood that the nature of the organization and the University is to be part of the people, and we must think about society as a whole.
DA: It is very difficult for the reaction to be homogeneous. There may be different currents: some who are waiting to see what happens, some who don’t want to wait, some who, while waiting, have sat down to think about what we are doing, what we can do.
At the university level, the consensus is that no one agrees with the measure, nor with it or the communication it has received.
There are faculties that have decided to act differently, which is completely legitimate. Above all, I believe that we have greatly respected each other in terms of our autonomy as an organization, our desire to do things, and doing. There has been consistent respect for the different ways in which the faculties have reacted. To legitimize the fact that the faculties have acted differently. They have done so because they felt it, not because anyone paid them or influenced them from abroad.
It is very important to let us students build our struggle, because we don’t need any official or unofficial means to construct or deconstruct what we want, what we want to fight for.
Is there a dialogue underway? Is it moving forward? What does it depend on? What are its implications for the future?
AD: Regarding additional measures for students, after all these alternatives were mentioned, many students remained dissatisfied until the Multidisciplinary Group was formed, with the participation of the FEU and ETECSA, and other organizations, to see how an alternative could be found for the entire population.
DA: Yes, there was dialogue, we were listened to. That’s important to emphasize. There was even an automatic response, which was for the ETECSA leaders to come to the university. The university authorities, the rector, the vice-rectors, the deans, have sat down with us to dialogue, they have listened to us.
AD: There have been results and progress; at the same time, there have been problems that have limited the fruitfulness of the dialogue. The line between whether this dialogue process yields results or not can be decisive; as well as the implications it may have for the country, and above all for the political participation that students will have from now on.
A process of motivating students can begin when choosing representatives and getting involved in ongoing decision-making and, therefore, in participating, in addressing social issues in general.
***
Although this is an ongoing process, and reflections on its dynamics and nuances would provide much more scope, I conclude this already lengthy text with that quote from Galileo that we all know by heart, in the original Italian, and which is relevant to combat disbelief and its dogmas. Do you remember what it says?
________________________________________
1. Reviewing the 62 comments accumulated on this editorial in the following 48 hours would provide the basis for a concrete reflection on the nature and content of the public sphere, the role of the official press and its degree of legitimacy (Editorial Note from the Girón Newspaper – Girón Newspaper).
