On May 29th, Cubahora published a news article written by Cuban investigator and historian Elier Ramirez on the so-called third way in Cuba. The professor focused on historical and theoretical elements from the different political forces that struggled for the solution to the national problem throughout the Cuban historical process.
I coincide with most of Ramirez’s viewpoints. But we cannot avoid debate. Furthermore, we should, or must not be afraid of the so-called “Cuban opposition”, which does not exist and this fact is perfectly known by the US embassy in Havana as well as the rest of the Western embassies that subtle foster the emergence of a third force in the Cuban political environment.
There is no third political or ideological force in Cuba: either you support the updating process of the Cuban model, or you do not. I said so because being in this situation demands full support of the process of our model, which is by the way, a hybrid. I name it hybrid since we enjoy an open, healthy Marxism; less dogmatic than the one we had in the 1980. It is a hybrid because there are now different ways of writing and debating.
Summing up, there is no centrism in Cuban politics. Even though people called themselves like that, they take a stand in one of the two possible choices: to defend or not the continuity of the Revolution.
The Third Way, from a doctrinal approach, has had more followers in Europe than in the US. For instance, when the European Union (EU) took a hostile stance towards Cuba for several years —the EU started to reverse such stance three years ago— they urged Cuba to adopt the third way or the Anthony Blair’s way. It was stated that Cuba should have opened to the multi-party system and the social market economy through different plans to dismantle socialism.
- Political Centrism: It is a geometric-mean concept: the middle point of all political extremes. Political position stance that is believed to be in the middle of right and left, socialism and capitalism.
- Lenin called such stance as a “treacherous utopism caused by the bourgeois reformism.”
But Cuba has not swallowed the bait. Plain and simple, in politics, you take a stance. In the essential aspect of Cuban socialism, either you back the updating of the process of our model —supported by the vast majority of the Cuban people— or you take your stance in favor of those small groups defending the Western-like capitalism.
That is the key. We must not be afraid of political debate. Certain things cannot be avoided. From the French to the Bolivarian, a Revolution will always have its enemies. The undecided, procrastinators, and the allegedly apolitical are then left in between. But they, according to their needs, will remain opposed to any national problem to solve.
Cuban current political agenda is somewhat qualified since we will experience the process of generational shift within the most important levels of the government. Now, the ideologists of the third way will try to make the most of this time. They will try to reverse the basis of the Revolution. Therefore, there must not be a third way for us: the ideological struggle continues.
The future leadership of this country should be aware of this. And they must revolutionize and reform themselves in new sceneries. This will be the essential struggle in the strengthening of Cuban independence: maintaining the socialist option opened, healthy, sustainable; not in speeches, but in the earthly praxis.
Translated by Sergio A. Paneque Diaz / Cubasi Translation Staff