Biscet responds

Last month I noted a statement signed by a group of dissidents called “The people’s path” and a brief dissenting response from Oscar Elias Biscet. Biscet announced that he would be gathering his political colleagues in October to complete a statement in response.

Biscet has now issued a statement (original here, Babalu’s translation here). There may be more to come, but this indicates his thinking. He doesn’t like the idea of proposing “reform of the regime” and finds it utopian. He argues that any process of transformation with the current government in place would have to begin with, among other things, the resignation of the entire Council of State, the top executive body that includes the President.

Biscet has a very clear belief that Cubans should struggle to replace their current government, not to change it bit by bit, and he further believes that this mentality will lead to more rapid and complete change.

Regarding reform, he said this: “It is very difficult for the Communist Party to initiate profound changes when in the last five years it has purged from its ranks its most moderate thinkers.” I wonder who he has in mind.

His earlier statement implied that he would be proposing a “method of struggle;” maybe that comes later.

Regardless, Biscet has added one more round to the discussion among dissidents about how to move their ideas forward.

If you want to go deeper into all this, I recommend this post in Spanish at the blog Todo el Mundo Habla. Worried about too many cooks spoiling the broth, the author advances some idea about uniting the opposition and along the way links to a bunch of other statements where opposition members debate each other.

This includes Guillermo Farinas (who signs his statements “2010 Andrei Sakharov Freedom of Conscience Prize”) chiding Biscet (who signs his “Presidential Medal of Freedom”) for not joining the Camino statement, and Martha Beatriz Roque complaining about outside influence in opposition politics.

Roque:

“It would also be necessary to reduce the use of prizes, because if it’s the case that from one point of view they help make known the work of the opposition, in some cases they bring ideas of hegemony that do nothing at all to address our need to pull together and get stronger.”

Also:

“If it is hard to reach consensus on a document, it is not only State Security’s fault for penetrating the organizations. One must also ask how much responsibility the opposition itself has, which in some cases takes unnecessary positions; takes offense in public; and also: What are our brothers in political exile doing to help avoid these ugly situations and not add fuel to the fire?”

Yo te digo a ti...