The Difference Between A Democrat And An Autocrat

The Difference Between A Democrat And An Autocrat / 14ymedio, Raul
Fernandez Rivero
Posted on March 29, 2016

14ymedio, Raul Fernandez Rivero, Caracas, 28 March 2016 — I'm a little
confused. Many analysts, commentators and journalists claimed that
Barack Obama would visit Fidel Castro. That did not seem logical. And it
did not happen. Others said he would not speak with dissidents. Even
some opponents said they would not go if they were invited. He spoke
with a few well-known dissidents, and those who were not going to go went.

The first thing that happened on the United States president's trip to
Cuba was that many people said Raul Castro had snubbed him by not going
to meet him at the airport. But they do not know that diplomacy has
unchanging protocols, which are reciprocal.

And that diplomatic norm (with the exception of the visit of Pope
Francis) is reciprocated by the nations visited. Or does anyone think
that Argentina's President Macri treated Obama badly by not receiving
him at the airport in Buenos Aires?

The prophets of disaster argued that the United States president would
legitimize the Castros by meeting with them, and that confuses me,
because it means that Richard Nixon legitimized none other than Mao
Zedong, the greatest murderer of the 20th Century, when he shook hands
with him in 1972 and, incidentally, removed Taiwan from the United Nations.

In addition, in July 1995, the United States legitimized nothing less
than Vietnam, the nation that defeated it in a war and that also
tortured and killed American soldiers. The legitimization of a
government is not done by a particular country, it is done by a set of
nations, history, international organizations or acceptance in the
United Nations.

Neither China, nor Vietnam, nor Cuba were legitimized by the United
States, it only "normalizes" relations with them. "Normalize" is a
euphemism. Having or not having relations with Washington does not
legitimize or delegitimize a country.

In the press conference after the chat between the two leaders, the
4-star general – and many others seeing stars – was wrong several times
in his speech. He was nervous and jittery. In contrast, the US president
spoke flawlessly. Then came the disaster, the ridicule. The
international journalists were allowed to ask each president only two
questions. And the fear began. Would Raul Castro be prepared? Had his
advisors, helpers, assistants, the grandson – who sticks his nose in
where he doesn't belong – and the rest of the sycophants of the state
apparatus prepared El Jefe for the occasion? Had they rehearsed with him
the possible questions expected from the journalists?

In Cuba no one dares to ask a question that is not on the program, but
those who were there were not submissives and were not inclined to be
obedient puppies before El Jefe. Everything suggests, however, that no
one prepared him or that Raul is dumber than I remember. His headphones
fell off, his hands trembled, he couldn't remember how many cursed human
rights there are, if there are 25 or 61; he looked at the clock and
couldn't make out the time but said, "It's late and we have to finish!"

Faced with a gentleman president of the United States, calm and smiling,
clear in his statements and answers, we saw the raw Cuban reality: the
president of Cuba is a helpless and miserable autocrat, who was standing
there because he is the first secretary of the Cuban Communist Party, an
inherited family position, and not because the people chose him. He
holds this position in a party that has 700,000 members, less than 10%
of the population, making Raul Castro president of Cuba. And this they
call democratic socialism and Revolution.

A day later the US president gave several speeches. With entrepreneurs
he spoke about the needs of today's world and of making a leap forward
because we are in the era of knowledge and technology; he told them how
important their contribution and inventiveness was for their country,
about opening doors, about helping them to access the internet,
communication, information, he encouraged them and valued their efforts.
And he was very clear in saying, "If something hasn't worked for 50
years, we have to change it. This applies to what the United States is
doing, but also to Cuba."

In other words, he does what the Cuban president has never done: listen
to people, give them answers and encourage them. This is not done on the
island. For this there are slogans, propaganda on TV and enormous
billboards on the street. If you have doubts, you respond: "Fatherland
or Death. We shall triumph!" although you feel defeated by the Party
machinery that is suffocating you, that encircles you, that keeps you
from growing. That is the difference between a democrat and an autocrat.

Cubans are still shaken by the visit, but I hope that when they start to
review what happened – not the flags, nor "The Beast" nor Air Force One
– those who think back over the events, will compare and begin to see
that they have some rights that don't appear in Cuban books.

In the Gran Teatro, the regime had deployed an immense army of
functionaries facing the guest orator, who developed his ideas with a
great mastery. A firm voice, measured gestures, well dressed, without
flailing arms or apocalyptic shouting. That is, the exact opposite of Fidel.

"The future of Cuba must be in the hands of the Cuban people," he said
in Spanish. The lapidary phrase. It does not depend on the United
States, nor on international communism. Obama told Cubans that the
future was theirs, that they are going to build it with their material
and human resources, with their courage, their work, their dignity,
their hearts, their hands. Young people must assume their enormous
responsibility in this enterprise because they are an essential part of
the strength of a society.

The Cuban people have the inescapable right to choose their destiny over
a party, starting from their own decisions. Obama summed it up this way:
"I believe voters should be able to choose their governments in free and
democratic elections."

There were the two different systems, face to face. A democracy, which
is the result of the independence of the British colonies in North
America, beginning with a declaration of rights that crossed the seas
and set off the French Revolution, but that in the United States was
refined over the years, always marching forward, opening paths into
their interior and proposing their actions abroad.

On the other side, a family and hereditary autocracy, uncompromising,
intransigent, static and repressive to the point that, while the
president of the United States was visiting the island, the official
thugs demonstrated how much the execrable system was willing to allow.
But this repression has injured not only those who received the blows,
but also those who delivered them.

It doesn't matter what US president spoke to the Cuban people. It is the
nation in the voice of its current president, who cannot be reelected
more than one time, nor inherit his mandate, which defends pluralism and
which has given itself the luxury of primaries, where this year two sons
of Cubans, one woman, and one black man have competed. He spoke
democracy, and he spoke hard.

Source: The Difference Between A Democrat And An Autocrat / 14ymedio,
Raul Fernandez Rivero | Translating Cuba -
http://translatingcuba.com/the-difference-between-a-democrat-and-an-autocrat-14ymedio-raul-fernandez-rivero/