Social tension is growing in Cuba. The measures announced by ETECSA go beyond a corporate “rate increase” or a “tactless” government decision. The multi-faceted crisis we are experiencing fuels the daily heat. Apparently, these measures have been a spark in dry grass.
Some data indicate that the flame is being fanned among the student population. In pedagogical terms, we would say it is a social consequence (neither the entire problem nor the entire solution). There is also ardor among retirees, especially the most disadvantaged.
Informal reports have spoken of intermittent protests (small fires) in some areas of the country: the occasional pot-banging can be heard here and there, garbage cans being burned in the middle of the street, roadblocks, children not being sent to school after early mornings of power outages…
Social unrest is a constant that will continue in the short and medium term. The protests, the outbursts, and the clashes are escape valves in an increasingly complex situation.
The lack of electricity, water, food (and the means to prepare it), transportation and decent public services fuel the smolder of prolonged anguish.
Any spark in dry grass can have unsuspected costs.
I’d like to assume there’s still time (not much) to avoid a devastating fire. Perhaps we’re facing one last chance to avoid something worse, which means people facing off against people, with insults, base passions, and violence as a method.
Within this reality, the best possible political management of the conflict in general and its manifestations in particular is essential. Better management so that the sparks lead to solid ground and not collapse.
Let’s understand that the structural changes Cuba needs are not limited to the economic sphere.
It is urgent, a priority, and a condition for a more peaceful future to modify current political practices and understandings present in the four corners of the Cuban state and society.
It is time for permanent dialogue, to metabolize the plurality that we are, for understanding and compassion, for humility and self-criticism, for national unity, to prioritize the historic project of sovereignty and social justice.
Let’s begin by not separating compassion and politics. There will be no possible way out if we cease to be hurt by the pain of those who are suffering the most: older adults, children who sell and beg on the streets, the sick who suffer without response. We must understand that no pain or anguish is above others.
The poor can never be blamed for their poverty, nor the excluded for their pain, nor the people for blunders.
Let’s assume that political dialogue isn’t about informing; it’s about having a willingness for mutual understanding, and only then can we guide the transformation of reality.
Political dialogue isn’t limited to exposing ideas based on “equal opportunity”; it implies recognizing others in their identity and rights, in their contributions, and in their capacity to participate in solutions.
Dialogue is about building shared meanings, and that takes time, accumulated processes. But above all, it requires a willingness to understand politics not as an art of obedience, but as a tool for freedom.
Let’s understand that humility stems from recognizing that other who is part of our reality. Recognizing our own limits and blunders (even with the best intentions) paves the way for a greater understanding of the path that leads us away from the crisis.
It is essential to create politics based on a sense of unity, which is possible only through diversity, inclusion, and the processes of collectively building solutions. Only in this way will agreements, provisions, and decisions at all levels — social, institutional, and organizational — be more sustainable.
Unity could be defined in the type of relationship established both among the members of specific organizations and within the context of the nation. An urgent point in the required debate is precisely what unity is and how to make it sustainable.
In this scenario, political and mass organizations face the dilemma of embracing and representing the diversity that comprises them or perish.
What is happening today with the Federation of University Students truly proves this dilemma. On the one hand, it demonstrates its vitality as a youth and social force; on the other, it reiterates outdated political maneuvering.
Let’s ask ourselves whether constitutionally supported organizations like this one exist to “inform and convince” about state policies or to produce the imperative mandate of the sovereign, the people, from the specific sectors they represent?
For the best political management of the current crisis, we must understand the foundations, scope, and motives of dissent, its legitimacy, history, and narratives. The gift of discernment is a political requirement: to clarify who the people with different opinions are and who the enemies are.
Better yet, let us be more specific: enemies of what? Of the institutional order or of the national project? Being able to discern in politics reduces blunders, swings, and a significant portion of injustices.
Seen in this light, it is to be hoped that there will be no retaliation, disqualification, or annulment of the young men and women who, in university spaces, have raised their voices on behalf of a community larger than themselves. The most viable option is to debate ideas, not make specific individuals the focus of attention.
In the face of these multiple crises, the response must be comprehensive and integrative. Each social sector, with its shortcomings, demands, and realities, must be taken into consideration in decision-making. They must be a permanent part, through legitimate representation, of negotiations for the construction of solutions.
Piecemeal responses add fuel to the flames in the dry countryside. For example, correcting the ETECSA measures is not limited to the student sector.
If it’s about a structural perspective, it is urgent to metabolize the plurality that characterizes us as a social body while also recognizing it: the economic, social/cultural, and political subjects that comprise it.
It is necessary to integrate them into an institutional, legal, and functional order that goes beyond the short-term response to the crisis or separate contacts, as if, as a whole, they were not part of the same reality, with specific potentialities and shared challenges.
From the debates on the Constitution, through the Family Code, to the popular uprising of July 11, as well as the breadth and persistence of the current crisis, we have had opportunities to seek the best possible political management of social conflict, incorporating the diversity we are, no matter what.
It is true that less confrontational practices have emerged, with more emphasis on communication, which are undoubtedly necessary, but not sufficient.
There will be no sustainable solution that does not involve integrating our diversity into the viability of the national project, its configuration, defense, and prevalence in the definition of public policies. The debate on the upcoming Law of Associations can be fertile ground for this possibility. Failing to take advantage of it could be a costly mistake.
Sparks of kindling appear, ready to burn. Let us not overlook the fact that there are people, groups, and interests intent on fanning the destructive flames (nor is naiveté permissible in politics).
Preventing a large-scale fire is everyone’s responsibility. There are more of us who want the Cuban forest green and alive. Let’s do what we can to achieve it; let’s unite our dignity, our rights, and our knowledge in this effort. Let’s not leave out a single voice calling for sovereignty and social justice. Let’s heed the poet’s advice: “For a fire that’s not extinguished in time, the sun may not rise.”
