The Language in the Struggle for Democratization

The Language in the Struggle for Democratization / 14ymedio, Pedro Campos
Posted on September 3, 2015

14ymedio, Pedro Campos, Havana, 1 September 2015 — If for you revolution
is taking up arms on a hill and facing the bullets of power, for one of
your interlocutors it is an act in which the masses take to the streets
to change one government and impose another and for a third
participating, it is the process of changes in the relationships of
production, you and your other two interlocutors will have a hard time
understanding any discussion on the topic.

We can say the same with regards to socialism, capitalism, democracy and
another set of basic terms of today's politics. It will be very
necessary for us to agree first on what we mean by each of those words,
if we are to reach broader agreements. Achieving this implies opening
ourselves to different positions.

Likewise, we can speak of a positive language and a negative language.
When someone shows themselves to be in favor of something it can be
heard by someone who doesn't think the same and can find points of
agreement. But if a person or group defines themselves as against such a
thing, they may begin by saying, "I totally disagree with you," "you are
completely wrong," "with you there is nothing to discuss." In fact, it
is assuming an attitude of opposition and confrontation that impedes
approaching and interacting directly with regards to that thing or person.

For the anti's, those who are against it, the solution is generally the
elimination of the contrary, the adversary, and not in its assimilation,
in its dissolution into something new and everything is subordinated to
this elimination, especially the methods to achieve it.

When the goal is to do away with the contrary, the objective itself
determines how to do it and compels the methods of suppression, the use
of violence. Consequently, almost always it generates a natural force of
reaction in the object to be suppressed; force that often is superior to
what it is opposing and so send up defeating the anti.

The study of history shows that if, indeed, many changes were achieved
through violence, in practice these changes come already developed and
settled; only those interested in rapidly provoking them turn to
violence to achieve their objectives and end up with the contrary.

History also teaches us that many of those violent changes were not
strong and lasting precisely because they had been precipitated – still
not having created the conditions adequate for their full development –
and they can only be sustained by continued violence. When violence
ceases to be exercised in such conditions, generally the changes are
reversed. Ergo: changes imposed, changes reversed.

It is not taking an anti-Castro, anti-communist, counterrevolutionary
position – or whatever you want to call it – for those interested in the
democratization of Cuban society to pursue it. Between an anti-something
position and democracy there are insurmountable contradictions,
precisely because anti implies suppression and elimination and democracy
is not about suppressions or exclusions, but about a coordination among
positions, including contradictory ones, and about inclusions and taking
into account the interests of everyone.

One of the great masters of Cuban diplomacy, Professor D'Estefano, who
died years ago, in one of his lectures on negotiations back in the
seventies, taught us his "theory of ham loaf." In a negotiation you
cannot get everything all at once, just line you can't eat a ham loaf in
one bite, but if you take it slice by slice, you can eat the whole thing.

In this democratization of Cuba, those who have tried to eat the entire
ham loaf in one go have always fallen into a grave error that has led to
failure. No, gentlemen. This has to be done step by step. Not "with many
pauses and no hurry," but with negotiations, making progress slowly, not
imposing positions, much less trying to suppress contrary positions.

Democracy can also be reversible when it is imposed, when it has not
been preceded by a process of social and economic education. This is
what we have seen in many countries where governments come to power by
democratic means and then act like others that came into power through
violence and end up hijacking the power of the people for partisan ends
or for elites.

It is time for those who consider themselves sincere fighters for
democracy in Cuba to begin to act with more consequence, intelligence
and wisdom, to think more about the way, the methods, to achieve their
objectives, rather than continue to consider themselves opponents,
anti's, enemies of the established power and to seek its elimination, to
look for ways to negotiate a process of democratization with it that is
inclusive, something everyone can agree on.

But if it is assumed there will be no democracy if the Castro tyranny
does not first come to an end, then there will be no negotiation, no
agreement, no peace process, no achieving the desired democracy. Why see
this objective as a precondition and not as a result, where everything
will end up changing?

I offer these ideas not that many of us are trying to come to an
agreement about how to advance the process of democratization in Cuba.
If everyone interested in democracy on the island doesn't learn these
lessons of history, they may have to resign themselves to standing firm
for 50 more years in their "anti-Castro positions."

From the movement for democratic socialism, I support the idea of a
dialog involving all Cubans, and also those interested within the
government-party-state, without anyone dominating it, where we all work
together for the democratization of Cuban society. And if someone wants
to remain outside this process by their own choice, that will their
responsibility.

In this struggle for democratization, we subordinate many other parts of
our program to this objective that we now consider primary and supreme.
We hope that all those sincerely interested in this process consider
this elementary principle of coordination.

And I emphasize "coordinate" because it is not the same "to coordinate,"
"to come together" — said José Martí — maintaining our identity and
seeking points in common, as to fuse homogeneously into something that
will later only serve hegemonic groups and over the long term, because
the internal contradictions are not adequately developed, and they try
to cut it short "for the sake of unity." Is it necessary to recall
recent disappointments of our history in this sense?

For the sake of the efforts being that are being undertaken no one is
trying to impose straitjackets; no one is trying to distort the meaning
of the words. If we have problems with the language and semiotics, let
us first agree on that and then discuss the issues. Negotiate, negotiate
and negotiate is what we must do.

Recently the Roundtable of Democratic Action Unit (some of us preferred
another name) was established in Havana, and in Puerto Rico an important
meeting was held with many Cubans from inside and outside the island who
are interested in achieving democracy in Cuba. In order for these
coordination efforts to make a positive contribution to the process of
democratization, we must take into account all these historical lessons.

For the most positive forces of the government-party-state to not see
"the enemy" in these movements and look for ways for their involvement,
the first thing is not to present ourselves as such and to take a
proactive position.

Source: The Language in the Struggle for Democratization / 14ymedio,
Pedro Campos | Translating Cuba -
http://translatingcuba.com/the-language-in-the-struggle-for-democratization-14ymedio-pedro-campos/