Reading the results of the last conference The Nation and Emigration, a political contradiction of our ongoing socialist transition came to mind: that of national dialogue inside and out and their interrelation.
A little over a year ago, one of the participants in that meeting was the target of epithets such as a counterrevolutionary and a Plattist, comparable to an evil character from “The Lord of the Rings.” To do so, it was argued that it was good to “open to debate, but not leave the door open” to these demonic creatures, with the argument that “one thing is the agenda of the Cuban State in the diplomatic arena and another thing is internal politics and the function of our media in updating the consensus for Cuban socialism.” In other words, it is good for dialogue and debate to diversify, become more flexible, and expand; while in the country it should be avoided, as it confuses and weakens.
This contradiction does not reflect anything more than a point of view, a nuance of the discourse, a very free opinion, or a folkloric manifestation of sectarian rhetoric among some, but rather an underlying conceptual political issue.
The first thing that jumps out is the peculiar notion of what qualifies as dialogue and debate. These are perceived to be restricted to an exchange between those who think the same. As if giving rise to an antagonistic position would weaken them; as if the political meaning of a debate was not to confront the ideas of those who oppose it, to refute them with arguments, to defeat them in their specific field, with the rules of competition.
It’s as if, say, in a baseball series with the Orioles, when it took place in Baltimore, we would apply the universal rules of the game; and when it was at the Latino, we would use other rules, more suitable for the strengths and weaknesses of our team.
What seems so obvious is not so for those who continue to think with an old head, who conceive the ideological debate as limited to territorial borders, with atavisms from a stage prior to the extension and use of the Internet among us. But, above all, before a new historical moment characterized by a changed political culture, a space in dispute, which is not identified with a territorial trench, in a classroom or park, but located in the heads of the people.
On the other hand, if dialogue and debate do not mean sharing a chorus; if the leaders of the Revolution have time and again pilloried unanimity; if Fidel Castro himself demonstrated many times his ability to interact with those who did not identify with his political ideas, as long as it was a dialogue, in what socialist tradition is the idea sustained that a debate weakens us?
Perhaps it originates in the confrontation with an asymmetrical order, where access to the most powerful media is in the hands of the usual anti-communism, which opens the doors of The Washington Post or El País to the enemies of Cuban socialism, and never to those who defend it or criticize it from within. Now then, is that a good reason to imitate them, and try to refute them through opposite monologues? Is it effective to confront the ideological adversary as if one were fighting with a shadow, with a scarecrow, to which banal, simple, easily refuted arguments are attributed as if one were afraid to let it show with its logic and elements of judgment?
It’s as if when going out to fight the bull, the bullfighter asked to be shown on a video or put in a cage, instead of letting it circle the ring and show its real strength and the sharpness of its horns. Does anyone want to see a bullfight like this? Can the bullfighter who does not risk getting into the same ring with the bull claim victory, to fight it and drive the sword with the intelligence and skill of the trade? Is he going to beat it by asking the public to side with him, out of solidarity with his cause, and out of simple righteous opposition to the species that has more muscles and better horns?
If the Revolution’s field loses followers, it is not because they leave the country, much less because they align themselves against it, but because they stop feeling part of its politics. Those who believe they defend this field today with flags, slogans and trumpet blasts, calling to preserve its social conquests, but ignoring that differentiated consensus in real society, do not seem to realize that this position implies retreating.
It is not surprising that the apostles of “hard unity,” reluctant to argue head-on with those who, without allying with the United States, oppose or disagree honestly and openly, are also reluctant to sit down with others who do not think of socialism as they do, nor to share the same debate table.
These divergences unfold over Fidel Castro’s own political legacy. The aforementioned unity of steel precisely invokes him, who was the architect of a political field not demarcated with barbed fences but carved out and open to all Cubans of goodwill and who, in moments as critical as 1961, knew how to tell a revolutionary minority that it was necessary to listen to and dialogue with a majority that was not, to encourage it to stay inside and prevent it from turning against it. The harsh confrontation, on the other hand, was reserved for those who attacked the Revolution with all the means at their disposal, actively and consciously, and for those who allied themselves with the main enemy. Making that distinction was always in his strategic vision, and generally, he did not confuse those enemies with those he disagreed with.
Instead of contributing to a political climate of participation and dialogue, similar to the one that characterized those decisive years of consensus architecture, they load it with ideological precepts and great quotes, forgetting the lesson of building unity in heterogeneity, and not by force.
On the other hand, paradoxically, this creed is closer to the extreme of dissidents and opposition media, which instead of informing and giving space to those who think differently than them, dedicate themselves to stigmatizing them, disqualifying them, giving them names, and expelling them from the outset from that kingdom of republican plurality that they have been announcing.
Dealing with these actors in front, or next, it becomes difficult to defend and maintain the dialogue, to make it a reality, rather than as a slogan that is followed, but not fulfilled.
I’m not a theorist and even less a doctrinaire of politics. The little I know about dialogue and debate I have learned experimentally, as others do in physics labs or psychology. With many at the bottom and the understanding of others at the top, we have been able to maintain and defend a space for open debate for more than twenty years. In that laboratory we have seen how even those on the opposite shore can appear, ask to speak, say what they think or ask, hear answers and arguments against. Instead of “taking” that space, of turning it into their platform, or of receiving the warm welcome that others, for their own reasons, give them in other forums, they have faced opposite reasons, refutations, questions, and answers. To verify this, just review those debates, that have been published, and nothing has happened.
The measure of its usefulness does not lie, of course, in having earned the respect of some adversaries, nor in attempting to give lessons to institutions, politicians, or ideologues. But just to cultivate, in an experimental incubator, another style of dialogue within the diverse socialist family, which contributes to renewing a political culture supported by the exercise of civic freedoms, citizen participation, and democracy, of which there is so much talk. That is, in real participation practices, where those who may know more and know less learn together, without pre-established hierarchies or didacticism.
These exchanges, which can even be broadcast live, seem more productive to me than those that swarm on social media, where the antagonists entrench themselves, bravely stone their adversaries, and engage in endless, sterile fights, that have nothing to do with a genuine debate, much less a dialogue.
I’m not an enemy or a prosecutor of the social media. It is as unproductive to demonize them as it is not to notice their insufficiencies. With this clarification, I reiterate that, if it is about dialogue and debate, the prevailing climate in ours, here and now, is not contributing to political dialogue, but rather to polarization and diatribe. With all due respect, of course, for those who believe that they decide the fate of dialogue.
In fact, some friends who think this way have told me that from the virtual universe, attitudes are summoned, modified, or reaffirmed, social representations are configured, ideological and cognitive wars are deployed. These friends are worried today that the Cuban government is going to block them. They also tell me that this fight is inevitable, and although social media facilitate confrontations and exacerbate polarization, they also express the existing tensions, contradictions, and political-ideological plurality, without us being able to blame them for the origin of such problems.
They add that social media helps release pressure as a cathartic escape. And that we must use them for dialogue because, whether we like it or not, it is also happening there, and will continue to do so. They affirm that they are a space for human interaction, association, and collective construction of knowledge; and that they will be what we make of them, what we collectively build there. Etc.
I share their reflections to a certain extent, especially in the realm of what should be. However, ignoring what is happening and the effect of the dynamics on these platforms on dialogue here and now is illusory and politically counterproductive.
In 2015, in his investiture speech as an honorary doctor in social communication and media culture from the University of Turin, a few months before he died, the great Umberto Eco stated: “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community…but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It’s the invasion of the idiots.”
The epiphenomenon pointed out by Eco eight years ago, far from having been overcome by greater education and culture in the management of digital media, continues at its peak, since its role as expanded reproducers of common sense and stupidity, instead of being moderated, increases. If the first rule of a code of conduct on social media, as I once read, was not to say anything that one does not dare to say face to face, we would have a measure of how the discussion on them feeds arrogance, stone throwing, and the bullying furthest from a civic culture and the values that we talk so much about.
If it comes to politics, the costliest thing, however, is not the differentiation between imbeciles and Nobel Prize winners, because at the end of the day, both extremes are ostensible, just as ― a farmer would say ― species of birds are distinguished by their droppings. I am more concerned about those who, in the desire to maintain perfect sterility in the political space attributed as a parcel to socialism, like others, attack the government and the Party just like the bull when faced with a red rag, contribute, poison that public space in which dialogue must grow and multiply, as a matter of survival.
A friend of mine, who always says the last word, would surely tell me that we’ll have to live with that.
Author
Rafael Hernández
