Direct Democracy?

Direct Democracy? / Fernando Damaso
Fernando Damaso, Translator: Unstated

Among our leaders there is a practice of submitting for discussion and
popular approval certain laws and documents which they consider to be of
special importance. The assumption is that, by doing this, they are
presenting an example of direct democracy as an expression of popular
will, which will grant them greater legitimacy.

In reality this is not the case. Although figures are published
indicating approval in the millions, we all know—including the
authorities—that real discussion is notable by its absence and that
approval is merely a formality, as exemplified by the well-known
expression, "Why waste time talking about it if everything has already
been decided at the top?" It has been this way for too many years. Laws
have also been imposed, from one day to the next, without having been
submitted for either discussion or approval by the people. This has led
to a lack of civic awareness and citizen responsibility, currently two
of our worst ills.

Years ago, when the proposed constitution was being presented, many did
not even bother to read it much less analyze and discuss it. It was
approved by a majority of the population which, even today, is unaware
of its principal provisions, such as those dealing with citizens' rights
and responsibilities. It is really just a formal document—it has not
even been reissued—languishing in obscurity and only used by the
authorities at propitious moments to further their political interests.
When the article that established "eternal socialism" was added, it was
hurriedly approved by signature, with tables and lists everywhere, in a
few days of hustle and bustle, and was intended to close a breach that
had been discovered in the "state monolith." Many of those who signed
did not even think about what they were doing.

In the end, something similar happened with the new Guidelines for the
economy. Officially declared "the document most democratically discussed
and approved by the majority of the population," in reality it was
formally "analyzed" and "discussed" in situations that had already taken
place, and "approved" the way all documents proposed by the authorities
are approved—by unanimous consent.

As a result this way to achieving "direct popular approval" does not
lead to more democracy nor does it improve what is being proposed. It
only increases quantity to the detriment of quality. The constitution of
1940, considered the most important document of the Republic, did not
have to be discussed by the entire population nor approved by every
Cuban because it attracted the widest citizen participation through
responsibly elected "constituent members." They represented the widest
political spectrum of Cuban society at that time and, through real and
profound debates, wrote it article by article, balancing the different
interests for the good of the nation. This allowed for the creation of a
document which, even today, retains its importance and relevance. It
might even serve as "temporary constitutional support" in a political
transition.

In short, the country has for a very long time had a body — the National
Assembly — which, if it concerned itself more with what should be its
primary reason for being and met periodically rather than only twice a
year, would be responsible for analyzing, discussing, amending and
approving or rejecting the laws proposed by the government. To do this
it must rely on "elected" deputies who, as officially described,
represent their constituents. If this is so, why is it then necessary to
go back to consult with them? Various specialists, knowledgeable about
the subject in question, could be invited to join the analysis and
discussion without excluding anyone for arbitrary political reasons and,
through their preparation, could contribute to and enrich the debate.
There is no denying that the current deputies do not reflect the current
political spectrum of the country, which now has only one color — the
government's. This prevents serious and critical debate.

Unnecessarily prolonging the approval of a proposed law, taking it to
the so-called citizen "base," not only reeks of populism, but also means
an unnecessary loss of time. It does not provide the impetus for
"updating the model" or the speed demanded by the majority of the
population, who are well aware of the speed at which problems are piling up.

October 3 2012

http://translatingcuba.com/direct-democracy-fernando-damaso/