The official media portrayed Miguel Díaz-Canel's address at the XI Plenum of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) as a self-reflective exercise in "revolutionary updating."
Yet, in reality, the handpicked leader merely reiterated the stale rhetoric of Castroism: resilience, blockade, unity, and struggle. On the surface, it appeared to be a working meeting; at its core, it was a political survival act.
From the outset, Díaz-Canel acknowledged the severity of the crisis: a declining GDP of over 4%, rampant inflation, prolonged blackouts, food shortages, and a general decline in daily life.
Despite this accurate snapshot, the president leaned on a familiar explanation: "six decades of external economic harassment." Once more, the blockade served as the catch-all excuse, deflecting accountability for domestic issues and avoiding transparency with the populace.
The gap between the diagnosis and the explanations offered by the regime highlights a persistent theme: the "continuity" no longer engages with the nation; it dialogues with itself.
Díaz-Canel regurgitates the classical Castroist mantras—“resilience,” “unity,” “popular participation”—but devoid of the epic spirit and conviction of the founding years. The tone has shifted from heroic to bureaucratic: a blend of slogans from Ñico López with procedural manuals from GAESA and Counterintelligence.
Throughout the speech, the successor appointed by Raúl Castro revisited the same rhetorical axis that has characterized his addresses: an emotional appeal to revolutionary morals mixed with administrative promises.
“Rectify distortions and reinvigorate the economy,” he stated, without detailing how this could be achieved in a system that penalizes private initiative, centralizes decision-making, and maintains a state monopoly in nearly all sectors.
The contradiction between words and reality was most evident in the language used. When Díaz-Canel spoke of “revolutionizing the Revolution,” he was, in fact, announcing the continuation of an unyielding model. The pledge for change has turned into an empty slogan, repeated at every congress, plenum, and presidential speech for at least two decades.
Even more telling was his emphasis on "unity" as a strength. In a country with only one legal party and no political pluralism, this call for unity signifies obedience rather than consensus. What the first secretary of the PCC described as "strong discussion" or "critical debate" is, in practice, a closed conversation where conclusions are predetermined.
The XI Plenum was meant to be a forum for evaluation and strategic reevaluation by the communists but ended as an ideological reaffirmation of impotence and incompetence. The leaders acknowledged difficulties but failed to question the system's foundational issues. Thus, the discourse became a circular exercise: diagnosing the same problems, repeating the same promises, and blaming the same adversary.
Meanwhile, Cuban society moves in a different direction. People emotionally disconnect from the official narrative, seek informal alternatives for survival, and emigrate as a silent protest. The "revolution" that once promised dignity has transformed into a mechanism managing scarcity while demanding gratitude for it.
The stark contrast between triumphant rhetoric and everyday life erodes the regime's legitimacy more than any lament over a perforated "blockade." When Díaz-Canel calls for trust and patience, many Cubans hear only repetition and inertia. The speech has lost the fervor of the dictator-in-chief’s charisma, becoming a litany of justifications from a timid heir to the position.
Ultimately, Díaz-Canel's message was the same as always: the country can remain unchanged as long as the people continue to believe. But faith, unlike control, cannot be decreed.
Understanding the Cuban Crisis and Leadership Rhetoric
What were the main points addressed by Díaz-Canel in his speech?
Díaz-Canel's speech primarily reiterated the longstanding rhetoric of resistance, unity, and struggle, while blaming external economic pressures for the country's issues, without assuming internal responsibility.
How did Díaz-Canel explain the current economic crisis in Cuba?
He attributed the economic crisis to "six decades of external economic harassment," using the blockade as a scapegoat for the nation's problems instead of addressing domestic policy failures.
Why does the call for "unity" in Cuba imply obedience rather than consensus?
In Cuba's single-party system, the call for unity often translates to obedience because there is no political pluralism, meaning dissenting voices have no platform to influence decisions.