Without dissent there
is no way out of the crisis
November 29, 2025
In any society, dissent serves to highlight problems, question political decisions, and hold those in power accountable. In the case of Cuba, where managing a prolonged economic and social crisis requires reviewing decisions, correcting errors, and opening channels for participation, treating criticism as a threat instead of recognizing it as a legitimate civic right can only exacerbate existing tensions.
The 2019 Constitution
establishes that "the State recognizes, respects, and guarantees to all
persons the freedom of thought, conscience, and expression." It also
affirms that "every person, as a guarantee of their legal security, enjoys
due process," and therefore may not "be deprived of liberty except by
a competent authority and for the legally established time." Likewise, it
recognizes that "persons have the freedom to enter, remain in, travel
through, and leave the national territory."
However, the gap between
this constitutional framework and its everyday application is considerable. In
practice, there has been an expansive and discretionary use of certain criminal
and administrative offenses—such as “disobedience” and regulations linked to
the supposed interest of national security—that enable the punishment of
conduct that, in itself, forms part of the legitimate exercise of rights. The
cases of entrepreneur William Sosa , recently detained, and
historian Alexander Hall , barred from leaving the
country, confirm these assertions.
The way in which the
work of the non-state media outlet elToque and its relationship with
contributors and entrepreneurs on the island have been handled has also been
highly questionable. From a democratic perspective, a media outlet has the
right to question a government's actions, just as a government has the right to
point out elements of a media outlet's agenda that it deems interventionist or
manipulative.
However, legal action
against a media outlet is only warranted when the publication engages in
conduct defined as crimes under the law, such as disseminating false
information that causes verifiable harm, acts of defamation, or the violation
of other rights recognized by current legislation. In some countries, receiving
or using funds from enemy foreign governments
intended to influence internal political processes, including regime change
programs, may also be considered illegal.
However, for these
mechanisms to operate legitimately and effectively, a state governed by the
rule of law is essential, with a clear, coherent, and protective legal
framework that safeguards freedom of expression and of the press, including the
practice of independent journalism and not just that of state or public media.
The absence of such a framework—which the Cuban state has avoided
establishing—limits the possibility for citizens and the media themselves to
access effective legal remedies and an environment of genuine informational
freedom.
Therefore, publicly
criminalizing an entire team under terms like "media terrorism," with
no basis in international treaties, is more of a police response to a political
situation, and an attempt at reputation assassination, than a legitimate questioning
of a media outlet's agenda.
On the other hand, it is
crucial to distinguish between criticizing the government and
criticizing the country , a difference that has often become blurred
in Cuban political discourse. Questioning specific decisions, pointing out
management errors, or demanding changes in public policies is not the same as
attacking the nation or wishing ill upon Cuba; on the contrary, many of these
criticisms stem precisely from concern for the collective well-being and the
defense of the national interest.
The problem is not the
existence of criminal offenses aimed at truly harmful conduct, but the
flexibility with which they can be interpreted when what is at stake is the
expression of discontent with government decisions, criticism of leaders, or
citizen organization for peaceful purposes.
It is important to
emphasize that limitations on freedom of expression for reasons of public
interest are not a phenomenon exclusive to Cuba. Various legal systems
penalize, for example, the disclosure of state secrets that could jeopardize
security operations, or the incitement of hatred and violence against certain
groups.
However, these
restrictions must be regulated by clear rules, and their application must be
governed by due process. In contrast, when reasons of "national
security" are repeatedly invoked to restrict or punish expressions of
citizen discontent that do not incite violence or conceal criminal activity,
several problems associated with this distortion become evident.
On the one hand, a
legitimate and essential citizen's right to oversee public power is restricted.
On the other, the very concept of national security is trivialized and
vulgarized, becoming less associated with protecting the country's sovereignty
and integrity and more with the political protection of certain decisions or
figures within the bureaucratic apparatus. Allowing the category of
"national security" to become a catch-all to delegitimize any
criticism ultimately erodes public trust in the integrity of the institutions
that are supposed to safeguard it.
Nor can a foreign
government's policy of hostility and aggression be used as a perpetual blank
check to punish internal dissent. The existence of an adverse external context
does not absolve the national leadership of its responsibility for managing the
economy, public services, social protection, or transparency.
Today, Cuba is
experiencing a multidimensional crisis, with visible effects in the scarcity of
food and medicine, the recurring blackouts, the instability of public services,
and a noticeable decline in the quality of life. Given this reality, a
people who suffer these deprivations daily cannot be expected to refrain from
confronting those with the legal and political mandate to find
solutions. Attempting to silence this confrontation does not eliminate the
causes of the discontent, nor does it make those who suffer them forget them.
The criminalization of
dissent also has profound consequences for political and social dynamics. One
of these is the rise of reactive extremism and polarization. When moderate
avenues of expression and participation are blocked, the perception grows that
only the most radicalized positions are capable of breaking through the
barrier.
Another consequence is
the gradual delegitimization of the institutions themselves: if they are
perceived as responding to criticism with punishment, but not with corrections
or accountability, the idea that change and reforms are possible within the existing
framework is weakened.
On the other hand,
eliminating the political function of public dissent as a mechanism to hold
decision-makers accountable creates fertile ground for them to take measures
without considering the impact on citizens, or for those in power to use it
with impunity for their own benefit.
A clear example can be
seen in the case of former Economy Minister Alejandro Gil .
For years, various actors—economists, journalists, and citizens—warned on
social media and in non-state media about the risks and effects of certain
economic decisions made under his leadership, which contributed to the
deterioration of the population's living conditions. However, these criticisms
were dismissed or labeled as being aligned with "enemy agendas." Only
when official bodies themselves made public investigations and accusations of
alleged crimes and mismanagement was it acknowledged that serious problems
existed in the economic policies.
Therefore, even from a
hegemonic preservation perspective, suppressing dissent is counterproductive.
No political project can be sustained indefinitely through coercion and
discipline alone, especially in contexts of prolonged crisis. Legitimacy is
renewed through the capacity to incorporate criticism, correct flawed
decisions, and create spaces where people feel they can speak without
fear of reprisal. When, instead, the natural contradictions of any
society are met with criminalization or punishment, not only are dissenters
harmed, but the very foundation of consensus that any state needs to reproduce
itself is undermined.
Therefore, it is
essential that public spaces be open and safe for citizens to point out
wrongdoing, propose solutions, and confront—peacefully and respectfully—those
in positions of power who obstruct those solutions. This implies reviewing
the expansive use of criminal and administrative penalties for conduct
that should be protected by freedom of expression and assembly; ensuring that
limitations on freedoms respond to criteria of necessity and proportionality,
and not to a desire to punish dissent; and strengthening accountability
mechanisms so that criticism is not perceived as a threat, but as a normal
component of public life.
Dissent is a fundamental
element in any project that aspires to be democratic , inclusive, and sustainable. It allows for oversight
of bureaucracy, exposes errors, corrects course, and prevents decisions made by
those in power from completely disregarding the well-being of citizens.
Criminalizing this right not only violates what is enshrined in the
Constitution itself but also exacerbates the crisis by closing off avenues for
dialogue and reform. Preventing people from expressing their discontent will
not make them stop feeling it.
The solution is not
punitive, it is political, and it involves recognizing the essential role of
criticism and guaranteeing safe mechanisms so that citizens can exercise it
without fear or punishment. Therefore, only in a context of real guarantees for
dissent will it be possible for the diverse voices of society to contribute to
overcoming the crisis. Conversely, continuing down the path of criminalization
moves us further away from any peaceful solution to the conflict, which, far
from diminishing, grows with each person prevented from exercising their
legitimate right to disagree.
https://jovencuba.com/disenso-salida-crisis/
No comments:
Post a Comment