Cuba

I was in Cuba for the past week, doing some preliminary research for a project on Cuban property law and the inevitable transition to a market democracy.  The trip was, as always, depressing and frustrating, but it left me with a few thoughts relevant (to varying degrees) to our blog:

(1) Anyone who doubts the wisdom of the Church's opposition to communism need only visit Cuba for a short while to become a believer.  There can be no doubt, as Leo XIII recognized (along with every Pope to write a social encyclical thereafter), that Marxist economic systems leave insufficient room for individual dignity and self-expression in the economic sphere.  Moreover, the centralization of virtually all employment leaves dissenters with few options.  The Church's dual criticism of the injustice of unfettered capitalism, and the inadequacy of the Marxist solution, continues to strike me as incredibly wise.

(2) Like many college students, I often sympathized with the egalitarian rhetoric of Marxism.  But my first trip to Cuba in 1995, at the height of the post-Soviet economic hangover, made me a (qualified) believer in the market system.  The profound effect that my first-hand exposure to the folly of communism had on me gives me reason to doubt the wisdom of the US embargo as a tool for change in Cuba.  One of the key strategies of government control in Cuba is the denial to ordinary Cubans of access to information.  Satellite TV is banned in Cuba, and Cubans (unlike foreign tourists) are not allowed to use the Internet.  More people-to-people contact would help to circumvent the isolation fostered by these restrictions.  And, because Cuba's system would clearly lose in a head-to-head comparison by almost any measure, it seems to me that more contact between the two countries could only enhance the pressure for reform on the island.  In addition, the embargo provides Castro with a convenient excuse for the economic failures largely caused by the island's inept management.  As many, many Cubans have told me, the embargo is Castro's best friend.

(3) The Church's stance with respect to the Castro government is an interesting one.  The Archdiocese of Havana has taken a non-confrontational approach to the regime.  In light of Pope John Paul II's strong opposition to communist regimes in Eastern Europe, I find the hierarchy's acquiescence in dictatorship in Cuba to be somewhat disappointing.  While those of us on this blog might disagree about the value of greater lay participation in Church governance, I think we can all agree that there is no excuse for dictatorship in secular government.  No doubt the global Church has more pressing issues, but it would be nice to see the official Church in Cuba take a more prophetic stance in favor of liberty and justice.  (And, to give credit where it is due, some diocese in Cuba have done precisely that.) 

(4) Finally, political rhetoric in Cuba is colored by constant references to external threats to Cuban security.  Billboards everywhere proclaim that Cuba remains under seige, in a state of war, and under constant threat of attack.  This is, mind you, over four decades after the Bay of Pigs.  In light of this supposedly ever-looming threat, dissenters are tarred as unpatriotic and treasonous, as knowing (and unknowing) dupes of a hostile foreign power.  In other words, I felt right at home.  Can there be any doubt that Karl Rove's shameful attempts to use the (permanent) war on terror as a tool of domestic partisan politics bears a strong resemblance to the fear-mongering used by the Castro government, as well as virtually every totalitarian state in history?  If people of good will do not speak out against the political climate of permanent war and stifled dissent that has emerged under this administration since September 11, I fear for the long-term health of our democracy.