That\u2019s it. 2021 has arrived. We want to believe that it will be a year less sinister than the previous one for mankind.<\/p>\n
It finds our little country immersed in a sea of \u200b\u200bdifficulties. The \u201ctask of reorganization\u201d took off, and steps are being taken to rearrange the economy: old structures creak, decentralizations are tried, and we are exhorted to mostly consume what our land can produce.<\/p>\n
In that perennial struggle between the new and the old, the blades of ideology also cross.<\/p>\n
There are entrenchments at both ends of the political rainbow, and those who advocate deep, unbiased and consistent dialogue are called centrists, if not worse.<\/p>\n
There is no mistaking it. The pandemic will have dire consequences in the long term, the labyrinths of a largely inefficient economy do not unravel from one day to the next, the acceptance of the opposite, even when in essence it starts from a common position on the fundamental issues that concern the country, will not take place by magic. It will be necessary to keep pushing to move forward the train in which we travel as a nation; and, above all things, empathy, civility and adherence to the laws that we ourselves discussed and voted<\/a> on must There is no one who can teach Cubans about real socialism. Six decades of attempts, successes and errors in the application of that socioeconomic system offer a clearly discernible balance.<\/p>\n Sixty years is hardly a brushstroke in historical terms, but it is also the time limit for the appearance of four or five generations of human beings.<\/p>\n Here it comes to mind remembering some words of Pepe Mujica, when he stressed that we only have one term in life, and we must live it in the best possible way, without giving up the fight for a world of universal equity.<\/p>\n The only option that socialism has in order not to disappear as a progressive alternative is to democratize itself at its roots, which is equivalent to shedding vertical authoritarianisms, dogmatic establishments and any kind of Stalinism.<\/p>\n The Constitution<\/a> itself, recently assumed, hastens to declare that ours is \u201ca socialist state of workers, independent and sovereign, organized with all and for the good of all, as a unitary and democratic republic, for the enjoyment of political freedom, social justice, individual and collective well-being and human solidarity.\u201d (Ch. 1, Art. 1).<\/p>\n From the foregoing it follows that we aspire to be a rule of law, but not in the way that they are proclaimed in other geographical areas, but assuming the Kantian ideal of a \u201crepublic in which those who obey the law are at the same time co-legislators, so that, by obeying the laws, they only obey themselves. This \u2018inalienable\u2019 republic is nothing more than that society in which obeying the law and being free would be one and the same thing.\u201d 1<\/p>\n Ergo: together we make the laws and we give them to be taken care of by the State, which cannot but enforce them meticulously. If it does not, it denies its essence; if it does not, it is against the sovereign majority.<\/p>\n La democracia tiene que ser una obsesi\u00f3n<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nrule.<\/p>\n