Read on Twitter
the fetishization of "participation" as the end-all-be-all of democracy by the commenters to this post is really annoying, they act as if the definition of democracy is both: (1) settled; and (2) exclusively about participation. allow me to re-post from Coppedge et al. 2011 https://twitter.com/soylent_slut/status/1276020343212314624
I'd also like to plug Schedler 2012, "The Menu of Manipulation." For Schedler, failures of democracy are properly understood as interruptions or defects in the "chain of democratic choice." In this conception, Cuba fails in multiple ways.
For what it's worth, the U.S. and other western, liberal democracies also probably, in Schedler's conception, have "defects" in the chain of democratic choice.
When people argue that there's too much money in politics, for instance, they are implicitly
When people argue that there's too much money in politics, for instance, they are implicitly
arguing that there is some "exclusion of opposition forces" going on, which would be a failure on point 2 in the chain of democratic choice ("the range of choice")
in the case of Cuba - and indeed, most of these communist societies - we would be worried, perhaps, mostly about points 1 and 5: the norm of empowerment is violated because of the presence of reserved positions and reserved policy domains,
whereas the norm of consequences of choices is violated because of the presence of tutelage
all of these things apply to Latin American military dictatorships, too (Pinochet's Chile, e.g.). But in those cases, it is the military, not a Party, which is
all of these things apply to Latin American military dictatorships, too (Pinochet's Chile, e.g.). But in those cases, it is the military, not a Party, which is
reserving positions and domains, and exercising tutelage over elected officials.
This is all plainly visible in the Party's own propaganda on the issue. e.g.: "it is not an electoral party... The PCC’s role is one of guidance, supervision and of guarantor"
This is all plainly visible in the Party's own propaganda on the issue. e.g.: "it is not an electoral party... The PCC’s role is one of guidance, supervision and of guarantor"
This is the frustrating thing about M-L types: they would rightly critique military "supervision" of an electoral process (e.g. Brazil) as undemocratic, but are blind to how a "non-electoral party" could perform the exact same kind of meddling
Or, if you'd like a more recent example (since the military/ARENA era of Brazilian history is in the past), Bolivia.
To discourse just a bit more on Schedler's useful analogy, we're also concerned in Cuba about the norm of the formation of preferences, but these people don't believe that any repression or violation of civil liberties is going on at all, so
I like to keep it to less "contentious" points (1 and 7) when talking with/about them, rather than getting into a discussion of point 3, which they invariably respond to with accusations of "CIA propaganda"
