Thursday, September 9, 2021

Two Socialist Students Call for Dialogue and Change

By Leonardo Romero Negrín and Alexander Hall Lujardo


Alexander on left, Leonardo in center

We reject the readings that seek the revictimization of the people involved in the 11-J protests without paying attention to their political demands and reasons that motivated their mobilization.

We Demand:

The cessation of the economic blockade/embargo against Cuba and of any attempt at foreign interference in the affairs of our country. In turn, we condemn imperialism and oppression in all its variants, as well as the bureaucracy that weighs on Cuban socialism.

We demand respect for the truth of the people involved in the events of 11-J, so that it is possible to reflect their testimonies, tell their stories and experiences, without being revictimized and without reprisals falling on them. As well as the immediate release of those who exercised their constitutional right to demonstrate. Therefore, we demand that law enforcement officers involved in acts of violence of any kind be judged as established by current laws.

We demand the creation of new spaces for plural participation and public debates within the student body among all the political tendencies that manifest themselves in the university scenario, whose leadership suffers from extreme bureaucratization, lack of autonomy and distancing from its social base.

We demand that the demands of Cuban civil society be heard in its many variants (anti-racists, feminists, sex-dissidents, ecologists, etc.) and that plurality be respected in its multiple forms of expression. That dissent is not a reason for repression, nor political and social isolation.

We demand, as socialists, respect for the multiple tendencies of the left, due to the extension of both anti-communist and neo-Stalinist hate speeches that are gaining strength within Cuban society today.

We ratify:

 Our position as young university students who reaffirm their socialist, Latin Americanist, Martiian and anti-imperialist ideas, at the same time that we advocate for the deepening of democracy on the Island, respect for all forms of expression, political thought and artistic creation.

We reaffirm our solidarity with the different actors of civil society who suffer from police harassment, threats from the DSE, violations of their privacy, home confinement and provisional detention, among other measures imposed for the exercise of their political activities, so that their rights to publicly express their dissent from the current model, are entirely violated by the State and its repressive organs.

We reaffirm our call for the establishment of a national dialogue among all sectors of Cuban society.



Rechazamos las lecturas que pretenden la revictimización de las personas involucradas en las protestas del 11-J sin prestar atención a sus demandas políticas y razones que motivaron su movilización.


El cese del bloqueo/embargo económico contra Cuba y de cualquier intento de injerencia extranjera en los asuntos de nuestro país. A su vez, condenamos el imperialismo y la opresión en todas sus variantes, así como la burocracia que pesa sobre el socialismo cubano.

Reclamamos el respeto a la verdad de las personas involucradas en los hechos del 11-J, de modo que sea posible reflejar sus testimonios, contar sus historias y experiencias, sin ser revictimizadas y sin que caigan sobre ellas represalias. Así como la liberación inmediata de quienes ejercieron su derecho constitucional a manifestarse. Por ende, exigimos que los agentes del orden involucrados en actos de violencia de cualquier índole sean juzgados como establecen las leyes vigentes.

Reclamamos la creación de nuevos espacios de participación plural y debates públicos en el seno del estudiantado entre todas las tendencias políticas que se manifiestan en el escenario universitario, cuyo liderazgo padece de extrema burocratización, falta de autonomía y distanciamiento con su base social.

Reclamamos se escuchen las demandas de la sociedad civil cubana en sus múltiples variantes (antirracistas, feministas, sexodisidentes, ecologistas, etc.) y se respete la pluralidad en sus múltiples formas de expresión. Que el disenso no sea motivo de represión, ni aislamiento político y social.

Reclamamos, como socialistas, el respeto a las múltiples tendencias de izquierda, debido a la extensión de discursos de odio tanto anticomunistas, como neo-estalinistas que ganan fuerza en el seno de la sociedad cubana actual.


Nuestro emplazamiento como jóvenes estudiantes universitarios que reafirman sus ideas socialistas, latinoamericanistas, martianas y antimperialistas, al mismo tiempo que abogamos por la profundización democrática en la Isla, el respeto a todas las formas de expresión, pensamiento político y creación artística.

Ratificamos nuestra solidaridad con los distintos actores de la sociedad civil que padecen de acoso policial, amenazas del DSE, violaciones a su privacidad, reclusión domiciliaria y prisión provisional, entre otras medidas impuestas por el ejercicio de sus actividades políticas, de modo que sus derechos a exteriorizar públicamente su disenso del actual modelo, resultan enteramente vulnerados por el Estado y sus órganos represivos.

Ratificamos nuestra convocatoria al establecimiento de un diálogo nacional entre todos los sectores de la sociedad cubana.

Por Leonardo Romero Negrín y Alexander Hall Lujardo.

Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Fake News on Military Control of Economy


William M. LeoGrande, Contributor

Professor of Government at American University

Does the Cuban Military Really Control Sixty Percent of the Economy?

06/28/2017 11:39 am ET

Anatomy of a Fake Fact

President Donald Trump’s decision to prohibit U.S. transactions with Cuban enterprises controlled by the military has thrown a spotlight on the role of the armed forces in Cuba’s economy. That role is extensive, reaching across a number of different sectors, and it has grown in recent years along with Cuba’s tourism industry, where military-controlled firms are concentrated. These enterprises are managed by the holding company Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A., GAESA, which reports to the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (MINFAR).

The sudden spurt of media interest has produced widespread repetition of the spurious “fact” that the Cuban military controls 60% of the economy. “GAESA is the business arm of the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces and controls 60 percent of the island’s economy,” the Miami Herald reported shortly after Trump’s speech and repeated several times thereafter. The Economist, Politico, The Guardian, The Times of London, Business Insider, and others repeated it.

Even a cursory review of the composition of Cuba’s Gross Domestic Product demonstrates that this “fact” is ludicrous. Sectors in which the military has little or no participation easily comprise more than half of GDP, and in the other sectors, there are civilian as well as military-controlled firms (Anuario Estadístico 2015).

So how much of the economy do military enterprises really control and where did the 60% claim come from?

The Cuban government does not routinely report the revenue from individual enterprises, but we have a few data points for the largest military holding companies from which we can make reasonable projections.

Total revenue from enterprises managed by the military was reported as $970 million in 1997. Since a large portion of their revenue comes from tourism, let’s suppose that their revenue has increased in tandem with the rapid growth of that sector. In 1997, Cuba had 1.2 million foreign visitors (according to Cuba’s 2004 statistical year book, Anuario Estadístico). In 2016, Cuba had 4.1 million — a 249% increase. At that same rate of increase, projected revenue from military-linked firms in 2016 would be $3.4 billion.

We can check the reliability of this estimate with data from the three main military companies, Gaviota, Cimex, and TRD. Gaviota, the largest military-controlled conglomerate, is concentrated in tourism. Total revenue from the tourism sector was $2.8 billion in 2015 (Anuario Estadístico 2015). While Gaviota is the largest player, it does not hold a monopoly; it controls 40% of all available hotel rooms (though it has a higher proportion of the better ones), plus car rentals, tourist taxis, and restaurants. It is plausible, then, that Gaviota may generate as much as 60 percent of the earnings from tourism, or approximately $1.7 billion.

Cimex had 2004 revenue of $740 million. Using the same projection method based on the growth of tourism, Cimex’s estimated 2016 revenue would have been about $1.3 billion. The Havana Consulting Group, whose President Emilio Morales was formerly an executive at Cimex, estimates its revenue as $1.2 billion.

TRD, a chain of retail stores created to capture hard currency, had sales of $250 million in 2004. Using the same projection method, TRD’s estimated 2016 revenue would have been about $442 million.

Thus we estimate that the three largest GAESA companies taken together would have had 2016 revenue of about $3.45 billion, very close to the $3.4 billion initially estimated from the data on total MINFAR revenue. Emilio Morales at the Havana Consulting Group, using data he has collected over the past 15 years, estimates GAESA’s total current revenue at $3.8 billion.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Using Morales’ estimate, GAESA’s revenue constitutes 21% of total hard currency income from both state enterprises and the private sector, 8% of total state revenue, and just 4% of GDP (Anuario Estadístico 2015). That’s a long way from 60% of the economy, no matter what metric you use.

Where Did It Come From?

So where did the wildly inaccurate claim of 60% come from?

It first appeared in a February 2004 story in the Miami Herald about the head of Gaviota, Manuel Marrero Cruz, being named Minister of Tourism. “Cuba’s armed forces have taken over up to 60 percent of the island’s economy,” the Herald reported, citing the Cuba Transition Project (CTP), a U.S. government-funded project of the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies.

In subsequent months, Institute Director Jaime Suchlicki regularly repeated the claim. In the proceedings of a November 2004 CTP conference, he wrote, “Today, more than 65 percent of major industries and enterprises are in the hands of current or former military officers.” In August 2006, he told the Associated Press, “They’re running 60 percent of the Cuban economy. All major industries are in the hands of the military’s active duty or former military people.”

Although no data or evidence was ever produced to support that claim, Suchlicki’s formulation was at least plausible, though misleading, because he included not just enterprises managed by the armed forces, but civilian enterprises and whole ministries led by active or retired military officers. The implication was that these entities were controlled by the armed forces, although there was no basis for such a conclusion. On the contrary, because the military has always been among the most efficient Cuban institutions, it has a long history of exporting managers to the civilian sector, going back to the 1970s.

Before long, the claim of military control devolved into a claim that MINFAR enterprises themselves constituted 60% of the economy. “The University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies estimates that soldiers control more than 60% of the island’s economy,” the Wall Street Journal reported in November 2006.

Other conservatives picked up the theme. “The military… controls about 60 percent of the economy through the management of hundreds of enterprises in key economic sectors,” wrote Carl Gershman, President of the National Endowment for Democracy (which also received U.S. government funding for “democracy promotion” in Cuba), and Orlando Gutierrez, national secretary of the exile organization Cuban Democratic Directorate. A 2008 Heritage Foundation report declared, “Serving or former military officers direct an estimated 60 percent of Cuba’s business and industry.”

By 2016, Suchlicki himself, who had originally been careful to specify that he was talking about major industries and enterprises run by military officers and former officers, had lapsed into the broad, unqualified claim that “more than 60% of the economy is under military control.”

Various newspapers and web sites repeated the claim over the years, setting the stage for this oft-repeated “fact” to be widely circulated when President Trump’s announcement made the Cuban military’s role in the economy a news story, as exemplified by the Miami Herald’s declaration, “GAESA...controls 60 percent of the island’s economy.”

It’s a case study in how fake facts become legitimated and spread, even without the boost of social media. Promulgated by a university-based center, which gave the claim credibility, it began as an exaggeration of the military’s control, lumping together military enterprises and civilian enterprises run by officers and former officers.

Gradually, those details fell away, perhaps because the flat statement of 60% control was more dramatic, or a better sound-bite, or perhaps because journalists failed to understand the nuances of the claim. As more and more sources quoted it, it gained credibility. By the time of President Trump’s June 16 policy announcement in Miami, it had become conventional wisdom that Cuban military enterprises controlled 60% of the economy, even though that “fact” was spectacularly wrong.

Monday, September 6, 2021

Controversy About Dialog


Cuban political opinion

Controversies over the dialogue(s)

Diálogo (1)

Dialogue has become a recurring and controversial word. As an expression of the country's systemic crisis, it seems that we speak without understanding each other. Civil society has coined the government as non-dialoguing; Meanwhile, he (government?) reiterates that he has always been willing to dialogue, and in fact he does. Then?

In principle, dialogue is the form of communication between two or more people who expose and exchange ideas, a conversation that does not necessarily involve entering into agreements. It has multiple variants, it is also a mechanism for conflict resolution and a fundamental resource for civilized coexistence.

In the socio-political sphere – whether spontaneous, planned, between social sectors and between these and power – it is used to articulate consensus and solve specific problems. However, when the crisis is general and the social pact is broken, there are parties in dispute and repression; or when it is intended to move from authoritarian traditions to a democratization of society, international experience advises the convening of a National Dialogue.

It must be inclusive, bring the parties to the conflict to the negotiating table and derive binding agreements. Five proven effective rules in negotiating scenarios are: 1) recognizing that we all have flawed perceptions about what is fair; 2) prevent tensions from escalating with threats and provocations; 3) overcome the "us versus them" mentality and concentrate on pursuing the common goal; 4) unveil the problems hidden beneath the surface and 5) separate the "sacred" themes from those that are not in reality.

en parties to the conflict, Israel and Palestine in that case.

Dialogues and the crisis

Three factors show the relevance of a National Dialogue in Cuba:

1.- Wear and ineffectiveness of traditional channels of dialogue related to power. They have been diverse among citizens and components of the political system. The broadest and most decisive for democratic development is that of the organs of People's Power. For more than three decades, they have either been emptied of content and effectiveness, or have no impact or credibility on a popular scale.

2.- Greater complexity and risks in the current scenario: economic and social crisis, increase in internal contradictions, expansion of dissent with ideological alternatives, contestatory civic actions and increased repression. November 2020 opened a critical phase with the events of San Isidro, the MINCULT and successive isolated protests, until the social outbreak of 11-J. Almost all of them were peaceful and mostly appealed to dialogue with the country's institutions, but they were repressed.

3.- Persistence of the criminalization of dissent and evasion of inclusive dialogue based on the stimulation of political extremism and the crisis. Two examples:

– Events of November 27 at MINCULT. Thanks to its magnitude and surprise, a first dialogue was achieved, above all a negotiation for the next, with some emerging official decisions to calm the spirits. However, the government canceled the dialogue and insisted on not doing so with people allegedly committed to the U.S. agenda. It initiated a campaign of criminalization in various media and successively expanded, without damning evidence, the list of excluded – those who "support terrorist activities", or have demands "with an origin in lies and opportunism" – with whom "there is no option to talk".

– Plebeian Articulation, an initiative with rapid reception in civil society and that generated a first public debate on the Internet about the National Dialogue. This was directly attacked and the project experienced criminalization in the media and dismantling by the government. One of the most aggressive texts "Neither commoners nor patricians: wrong", was published in Cubadebate, with seventy-five comments of the same tone, many without knowing the reason for the title.

Dialogue (3)

After November 27 and the initial agreement, the government canceled the dialogue and insisted on not doing so with people supposedly committed to the U.S. agenda. USA (Photo: Yamil Lage/AFP)

It is not enough to recognize plurality

These and similar failures led to frustrations and reservations about the viability of a National Dialogue. The government, apparently dialoguing, has maintained the polarizing and exclusionary discourse. It does not even admit the right of reply of those who are discredited in official media. These only find space in social media and the independent press.

The recent mass protests showed that this is not a specific sector, demand or place. It is a national conflict that for the first time replicates emigration in several countries. At the root is the fracture of the social pact that had emerged from the Revolution during the sixties. The persistence of a model with totalitarian features and authoritarian corporatism sharpened the internal contradictions that identify our present.

A process of national dialogue is the best way to achieve, as Cuban sociologist Lenier López put it, "a framework with fair rules in which none of the many parts that make up our nation can be overwhelmed by another."

Only the extremes—the radical sector in the U.S., which has some followers in Cuba, and the Cuban government—have opposed that Dialogue. Both hold intransigent positions and do not recognize legitimacy in the opposites.

Ignorance of the country's institutions and extremism against those who opt for this peaceful and sovereign solution would not prevent the Dialogue, but it complicates the scenario by ratifying the environment for such a process. They should think responsibly about Cuba's conditions and consider that violence and/or any subordination to a foreign agenda disqualifies them from the majority.

The government's responsibility is high because it is responsible for the stability of the country and the activation of the national dialogue mechanism. Its attitude is inconsistent with the negotiating skills it shows internationally. A simple piece of evidence is its role in the peace talks in Colombia, the process to re-establish bilateral relations with the US. The U.S. and even with the CIA to cooperate on intelligence.

Dialogue (4)

The government's attitude is inconsistent with the negotiating capacity it shows internationally. A simple piece of evidence is the process to re-establish bilateral relations with the US. USA (Photo: Pablo Mayo Cerqueiro/Reuters)

At the national level, the Party/Government/State uses dialogue in the comfortable and traditional sense of conversation, from which official decisions may or may not derive. Displays of "revolutionary reaffirmation" and– from unconditional political commitment – discreet sectoral demands are often combined.

All dialogues are legitimate, but:

– Those who are government-style help only momentarily because they do not resolve the real conflict, which is maintained in parallel processes: exacerbation of the crisis, palliative or untimely measures, repression, cascade of laws and decrees with their backs to the people, some of which grant certain benefits, but in essence they intend to shield the State more and drown out dissent.

– There is a deep asymmetry between the parts. An all-powerful Party/Government/State and a weak civil society systematically violated by it. The government is doubly oppressive and sharpens contradictions when—knowing that the majority does not respond to any foreign agenda—it prevents that disadvantaged party from exercising the same right to dialogue and articulation.

It is not enough to recognize plurality, it is necessary to adhere to political pluralism as a principle to govern democratically. We are at a crucial moment and we must understand each other. The conflict is national and as such must be addressed. A dialogue on that scale makes it possible to reach binding and sustainable agreements to emerge from the crisis. It would be an important step forward on the road to building a new country project.

To contact the author:

For a contrary view, watch this presentation by Cuban journalist and ideologist Iroel Sánchez with English subtitles

Or read

Theoretical history of Cuban socialism

By Enrique Ubieta Gómez  ALMA MATER

Controversias sobre el (los) diálogo(s)

 2 septiembre 2021
Diálogo (1)

Diálogo se ha vuelto palabra recurrente y controversial. Como expresión de la crisis sistémica del país, pareciera que hablamos sin entendernos. Desde la sociedad civil se acuña al gobierno como no dialogante; mientras, este reitera que siempre ha estado dispuesto al diálogo, y de hecho lo hace. ¿Entonces?

En principio, el diálogo es la forma de comunicación entre dos o más personas que exponen e intercambian ideas, una conversación que no implica necesariamente concertar acuerdos. Tiene múltiples variantes, es también mecanismo de resolución de conflictos y recurso fundamental para la convivencia civilizada.

En el ámbito sociopolítico —sean espontáneos, planificados, entre sectores sociales y entre estos y el poder— se emplea para articular consensos y solucionar problemas específicos. Sin embargo, cuando la crisis es general y se quiebra el pacto social, existen partes en disputa y represión; o cuando se pretende transitar de tradiciones autoritarias a una democratización de la sociedad, la experiencia internacional aconseja la convocatoria a un Diálogo Nacional.

Este debe ser inclusivo, sentar a la mesa de negociaciones a las partes en conflicto y derivar acuerdos vinculantes. Cinco reglas probadamente efectivas en escenarios negociadores son: 1) reconocer que todos tenemos percepciones viciadas sobre lo justo; 2) evitar que las tensiones se agraven con amenazas y provocaciones; 3) superar la mentalidad de «nosotros contra ellos» y concentrarse en buscar el objetivo común; 4) develar los problemas ocultos bajo la superficie y 5) separar los temas «sagrados» de los que no lo son en realidad.

Diálogo (2)

La película Oslo, estrenada en la televisión cubana recientemente, ilustra cómo se lleva a cabo un proceso de diálogo entre partes en conflicto, Israel y Palestina en ese caso.

Los diálogos y la crisis

Tres factores evidencian la pertinencia de un Diálogo Nacional en Cuba:

1.- Desgaste e inoperancia de los canales tradicionales de diálogo relacionados con el poder. Han sido diversos entre ciudadanos y componentes del sistema político. El más amplio y decisivo para el desarrollo democrático es el de los órganos del Poder Popular. Desde hace más de tres décadas, o se han vaciado de contenido y eficacia, o no tienen impacto ni credibilidad a escala popular.

2.- Mayor complejidad y riesgos en el escenario actual: crisis económica y social, incremento de las contradicciones internas, ampliación del disenso con alternativas ideopolíticas, acciones cívicas contestatarias  e incremento de la represión. Noviembre 2020 abrió una fase crítica con los sucesos de San Isidro, el MINCULT y sucesivas protestas aisladas, hasta el estallido social del 11-J. Casi todas fueron pacíficas y apelaban en su mayoría al diálogo con la institucionalidad del país, pero fueron reprimidas.

3.- Persistencia de la criminalización del disenso y evasión del diálogo inclusivo a partir de la estimulación del extremismo político y la crisis. Dos ejemplos:

– Sucesos del 27 de noviembre en el MINCULT. Gracias a su magnitud y la sorpresa, se logró un primer diálogo, más que todo una negociación para el siguiente, con algunas decisiones oficiales emergentes para calmar los ánimos. Sin embargo, el gobierno canceló el diálogo e insistió en no hacerlo con personas supuestamente comprometidas con la agenda de los EE.UU. Inició una campaña de criminalización en varios medios y amplió sucesivamente, sin pruebas condenatorias, la lista de excluidos —quienes «apoyan actividades terroristas», o tienen demandas «con un origen en la mentira y el oportunismo»— con los que «no existe opción de conversar».

– Articulación Plebeya, iniciativa con rápida acogida en la sociedad civil y que generó un primer debate público en internet sobre el Diálogo Nacional. Este fue atacado directamente y el proyecto experimentó la criminalización en los medios y la desarticulación por el gobierno. Uno de los textos más agresivos «Ni plebeyos ni patricios: equivocados», se publicó en Cubadebate, con setenta y cinco comentarios del mismo tono, muchos sin conocer la razón del título.

Diálogo (3)

Después del 27 de noviembre y el acuerdo inicial, el gobierno canceló el diálogo e insistió en no hacerlo con personas supuestamente comprometidas con la agenda de los EE.UU (Foto: Yamil Lage/AFP)

No basta reconocer la pluralidad

Esos y otros fracasos similares provocaron frustraciones y reservas respecto a la viabilidad de un Diálogo Nacional. El gobierno, aparentemente dialogante, ha mantenido el discurso polarizante y excluyente. No admite siquiera el derecho a réplica de quienes son desacreditados en medios oficiales. Estos solo encuentran espacio en las redes sociales y la prensa independiente.

Las recientes protestas masivas evidenciaron que no se trata de un sector, demanda o lugar específicos. Es un conflicto nacional que por primera vez replica la emigración en varios países. En la raíz está la fractura del pacto social que había emergido de la Revolución durante los años sesenta. La persistencia de un modelo con rasgos totalitarios y del corporativismo autoritario, agudizó las contradicciones internas que identifican nuestro presente.

Un proceso de diálogo nacional es la mejor vía para conseguir, como expresó el sociólogo cubano Lenier López, «un marco con reglas justas en el cual ninguna de las tantas partes que componen nuestra nación pueda ser avasallada por otra».

Solo los extremos —el sector radical en los EE.UU., que tiene algunos seguidores en Cuba y el gobierno cubano— se han opuesto a ese Diálogo. Ambos sostienen posturas intransigentes y no reconocen legitimidad en los contrarios.

El desconocimiento de la institucionalidad del país y el extremismo contra quienes optan por esa solución pacífica y soberana, no impediría el Diálogo, pero complica el escenario al enrarecer el ambiente para tal proceso. Deberían pensar responsablemente en las condiciones de Cuba y considerar que la violencia y/o cualquier subordinación a una agenda extranjera, los descalifica ante las mayorías.

La responsabilidad del gobierno es alta porque a su cargo está la estabilidad del país y la activación del mecanismo de diálogo nacional. Su actitud es incoherente con la capacidad negociadora que muestra internacionalmente. Una simple evidencia es su papel en los diálogos sobre la paz en Colombia, el proceso para restablecer las relaciones bilaterales con los EE.UU, e incluso con la CIA para cooperar en inteligencia.

Diálogo (4)

La actitud del gobierno es incoherente con la capacidad negociadora que muestra internacionalmente. Una simple evidencia es el proceso para restablecer las relaciones bilaterales con los EE.UU (Foto: Pablo Mayo Cerqueiro/Reuters)

En el ámbito nacional, el Partido/Gobierno/Estado usa el diálogo en la cómoda y tradicional acepción de conversación, de donde pueden derivar o no decisiones oficiales. Con frecuencia se combinan las muestras de «reafirmación revolucionaria» y —desde el compromiso político incondicional— discretas reivindicaciones sectoriales. 

Todos los diálogos son legítimos, pero:

– Los que son al estilo del gobierno ayudan solo momentáneamente porque no resuelven el verdadero conflicto, que se mantiene en los procesos paralelos: agudización de la crisis, medidas paliativas o a destiempo, represión, cascada de leyes y decretos de espaldas al pueblo, algunas de las cuales otorgan ciertos beneficios, pero en lo esencial pretenden blindar más al Estado y ahogar el disenso.

– Existe una profunda asimetría entre las partes. Un Partido/Gobierno/Estado todopoderoso y una sociedad civil débil y violentada sistemáticamente por este. El gobierno es doblemente opresivo y agudiza las contradicciones cuando —a sabiendas de que la mayoría no responde a ninguna agenda extranjera— impide que esa parte en desventaja ejerza el mismo derecho a dialogar y articularse.  

No basta reconocer la pluralidad, es preciso apegarse al pluralismo político como principio para gobernar democráticamente. Estamos en un momento crucial y debemos entendernos. El conflicto es nacional y como tal debe encararse. Un diálogo a esa escala permite alcanzar acuerdos vinculantes y sostenibles para salir de la crisis. Sería un importante paso de avance en el camino para edificar un nuevo proyecto de país.

Para contactar con la autora:

52 comentarios