The Cuban Revolution Today: Proposals of Changes, Scenarios, and Alternatives 37
ority to patriotism, internationalism, equality in all spheres, continuing
education, and active political participation, both quantitative (in
diverse places: the neighborhood, the workplace) and qualitative (real
participation in decision making) (Harris, 2009).
Each of these traits had its potential opposite: unanimity instead of
unity; the lack of institutional and democratic mechanisms for ensur-
ing democratic political succession to the highest level (in order to
avoid loss of legitimacy) and generational succession; calls for debate
that did not include participation in decision making; the reproduction
of the political institutional model of other forms of socialism, gener-
ating corruption, formalism, bureaucracy, inefficiency, estrangement
between leaders and the people, inequality, and double moral stan-
dards; a tendency toward adopting laws and constitutional disposi-
tions that were not adapted to Cuban reality; the concentration of
functions and resources at the top levels to the detriment of the local
ones and the concentration of decision-making processes in the
actors of the major hierarchy; the emergence of distortions in politics
(elitist and corrupt practices that generate inequality) and in the cul-
ture of work; and the failure of efficiency in work, combined with
other revolutionary values, to guarantee upward social mobility and
proper remuneration.
Until July 2006, power was concentrated in the historical leader of
the revolution, Fidel Castro, first secretary of the party, president of
the State Council and of the Council of Ministers, and commander in
chief of the armed forces. He still holds the position of first secretary,
but Raúl Castro occupies the other three.
The system thus, despite political concentration, has democratic-
participatory possibilities—a permanent link between the state and
the masses through the party and the mass and professional organiza-
tions—but also deficiencies. There is a lack of deliberation in deci-
sion-making bodies; citizens consider the sessions not as an
opportunity for collective discussion of alternative solutions but as
mere forums for presenting demands. Local governments are invested