Díaz-Canel Claims to Speak for a People Who Never Chose Him, Asserting Their Defense of "Self-Determination"

Once again, Miguel Díaz-Canel has presumed to speak on behalf of millions of Cubans, claiming they possess a unified political will: to resist, defend socialism, and if necessary, mobilize to protect the nation's so-called "self-determination."

"Cuba has not surrendered," he declared in a recent speech, asserting that one of the nation's responses includes "defending the entire territory with a people turned into militias, ready to defend their self-determination, independence, and sovereignty."

But who granted Díaz-Canel the authority to determine what all Cubans are willing to defend?

This question is particularly relevant in a country where the leader did not come to power through free, direct, and multi-party presidential elections, where citizens could choose among rival candidates and political projects.

The Illusion of Choice in Cuba's Political Landscape

Díaz-Canel was appointed president by the National Assembly within Cuba's institutional framework, but Cubans have never been able to decide at the polls whether they prefer him or an opposition candidate, nor to choose between the continuation of the socialist system and a different political alternative.

Thus, when the leader speaks of "self-determination," another question arises: what self-determination?

In what competitive election were Cubans able to freely decide that the Communist Party should remain the sole political force governing the state? When could they vote between socialism and another model? When did they have the chance to directly choose Díaz-Canel over opposition candidates?

A nation's sovereignty should not be confused with the permanence of a government or the survival for decades of a specific political system or project.

And self-determination cannot be confined to the right of the Cuban state to reject foreign pressures while denying citizens on the island the ability to freely determine, through political pluralism, who governs them.

Contradictions Amidst Hardships

The contradiction becomes even more apparent because Díaz-Canel immediately acknowledged some of the conditions the population endures.

"Yes, we face many shortages. We are burdened by blackouts, lack of water, inflation, and queues," he admitted.

Yet these hardships reappeared in his speech not as reasons to question the management of power, but as a backdrop for another demonstration of resistance.

"No material shortage has extinguished the flame of solidarity," he stated.

He went further, attributing to the people a political will favoring the continuity of the system.

"The response of the people, under the leadership of the Communist Party of Cuba, has been firm and creative resistance, unity, the defense of their achievements [...] without ever renouncing the principles of socialism and without yielding to pressures or blackmail," he said, later also mentioning the "heroic Cuban people."

The pattern repeats: the regime acknowledges hardships and then transforms them into resistance; it recognizes sacrifice and turns it into heroism; it speaks of sovereignty and equates it with defending the system; it talks of self-determination while denying that self-determination to be expressed through open political competition.

Voices of Dissent in a Supposedly United Front

What if part of the population doesn't want to continue "resisting"? Cuba is not a politically uniform society, despite the official discourse's insistence on speaking of "the people" as a single voice.

The protests on July 11, 2021, left a hard-to-erase mark: thousands took to the streets to express discontent that included political demands and cries for "freedom." The state's response included arrests and subsequent prison sentences for numerous demonstrators.

There are also Cubans who have emigrated, opposition members, political prisoners, activists, independent journalists, and those who simply do not share the socialist project.

Do they form part of the "people" when Díaz-Canel speaks for them?

Are they also "willing" to defend the system that persecutes, censors, or politically excludes them? Or does the category of "people" cease to include them precisely when they express a will different from what the regime attributes to them?

Díaz-Canel has the right to defend socialism and to ask those who share his views to support it. What is far more questionable is appropriating the will of an entire nation and presenting as a collective decision something that citizens have never been able to resolve through free, competitive, and multi-party elections.

If the government is so sure that the Cuban people want to resist, sacrifice, and defend the "achievements of the revolution" and socialism, there is a much more convincing way to prove it than repeating it from a podium: allowing Cubans to speak for themselves and decide freely at the ballot box.