Re: [OPE] One party state?

From: Alejandro Agafonow <>
Date: Wed Jun 03 2009 - 14:47:58 EDT

The first step toward the Cuban assembly is the nomination by grass roots and mass organizations. Those nominated have to be voted in order to become *delegados de base* (grass-roots delegates). And here is the first flaw in the Cuban one-party system, i.e., since the communist party is the only with an organized platform to mobilize voters, the majority elected is composed of communist delegates.   Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible to sneak a dissident in. So, can a dissident delegate reach the Cuban assembly? The answer lies in those entitled to select among grass-root delegates, who will become candidates to the assembly that finally will be voted by people.   Those entitled are gathered in *Comisiones de Candidatura* (Candidature Commissions) and here is the second flaw in the Cuban system, i.e., the persons who fill these commissions are members of communists organizations that follow the party line.                                                                                                            It is virtually impossible for a dissident to defeat Candidature Commissions. Can Cuban system be considered democratic? Of course not! That’s why Fidel was elected as president in all elections after his retirement. The non-democratic secret lies in party members and sympathizers selecting the appropriate candidates for the assembly.   So yes! Maybe Jurriaan is right. USAand Cuba might have much more in common than David can see.   Regards,A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: "" <> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <> Enviado: miércoles, 3 de junio, 2009 14:20:39 Asunto: Re: [OPE] One party state? The difference is quite simple for anyone with a modicum of knowledge re Cuba. The two systems  have very little in common other than that voting takes place in both systems. There are two parties, sometimes more, but realistically two, standing for the elections in the US. You have to have millions of dollars to seriously compete in those elections. A very large number of people do not vote, in some recent elections they have been a majority. You could call the US a plutocracy - rule by the very wealthy in the interests of corporate capital. In Cuba the party does not stand in elections. It is not an election concerning parties. People are nominated by  the grass roots and mass organisations, not by parties. Money plays no role in the election.   This applies to everyone including leading Communist Party members,  who have to be initially nominated at grass roots level. More than 90% of people vote. I believe that Cuba has potentially the most democratic system in the world. It is a complex system and cannot be neatly categorised in the way Jurriaan attempts to do this. David Yaffe At 23:39 02/06/2009 +0200, you wrote: Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was quoted by the BBC as saying that Cuba's readmission to the OAS would be conditional on "democratic reforms" in Cuba's one-party state, but the BBC also said that the US might be "outvoted". My musing is: isn't the US itself pretty much a one-party state these days? The Republican Party has more or less collapsed and what remains of its leadership has been to a considerable extent integrated in the government apparatus, Mr Obama being careful to retain a workable degree of unity in the political class. What would be the substantive difference, in real terms, between the governmental systems of Cuba and the US, from the viewpoint of Joe Average? Maybe there are differences, but they may have much more in common than you would think! Jurriaan E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor ( Database version: 5.10260 _______________________________________________ ope mailing list

ope mailing list
Received on Wed Jun 3 14:50:20 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 30 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT