Díaz-Canel Dismisses Multi-Party System as a Hallmark of Democracy in Cuba

In a recent interview with journalist Monica Bergamo, published by the Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo, Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel defended the country's single-party system and dismissed the idea that political pluralism is essential for a nation to be considered democratic.

“Don't be misled into thinking that multi-partyism is the essence of democracy,” stated Díaz-Canel as he attempted to justify Cuba's political model, where the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) has held power for over sixty years without electoral competition.

Debating Electoral Processes

The conversation arose when Bergamo questioned the method of electing the president on the island. Díaz-Canel argued that Cuba is not unique in having a parliament-elected president, drawing parallels with practices in European countries.

“Cuba isn’t the only nation where the parliament elects the president. This happens in France and elsewhere in Europe. Why is Cuba such a concern?” he questioned.

Bergamo pointed out a significant difference: the presence of multiple parties. “Do you really believe in Brazil that having numerous parties equates to more democracy?” Díaz-Canel retorted.

Redefining Democracy

The Cuban leader then shifted to defining democracy through social rights. “Democracy exists when the majority have the right to life, equality, equity, and access to health and education, regardless of whether there is one party or twenty,” he asserted.

Díaz-Canel argued that linking democracy to political pluralism is a notion imposed by “capitalist thinking” and “neoliberal ideology.”

This stance overlooks a core issue of Cuba’s political system: citizens are unable to choose from competing political projects vying for governance. The PCC is constitutionally enshrined as the leading political force of society and the state.

A Party Representing All Interests?

“There is one party here, but it aims to represent all the interests of the Cuban people,” Díaz-Canel claimed, justifying the party monopoly on historical grounds and asserting that Cuba would not accept a party representing U.S. interests.

“We wouldn’t accept a party that represents U.S. interests in Cuba due to historical reasons,” he stated.

Critiquing U.S. Electoral Practices

Díaz-Canel emphasized that criticisms of Cuba’s electoral system are “distorted.” He explained that to become president, one must first be elected as a deputy in the National Assembly and then receive parliamentary support.

“While you don’t get a nationwide presidential vote, part of Cuba, in your district, votes for you to become a deputy,” he noted. He also claimed that candidates are nominated by “the people” and “Cuban civil society organizations,” not political parties.

However, Cuba’s presidential election does not allow voters to choose directly between multiple state leadership candidates or decide between rival political agendas.

Furthermore, Díaz-Canel criticized the U.S. system, stating that Republican and Democratic candidates are chosen by “elites” and influenced by electoral funding. “It’s a fallacy. It’s not a merit-based election representing the population,” he argued.

He also highlighted that in the U.S., the candidate with the most nationwide votes does not always win the presidency due to the Electoral College system.

He used these criticisms to challenge the notion that the U.S. model is superior to Cuba’s system.

“Where is there more democracy? In the United States or Cuba?” Díaz-Canel provocatively asked.

These statements come amid intense international scrutiny of the Cuban government for its lack of political pluralism, representation, and transparency under the Communist Party, which maintains control over all state institutions.

Díaz-Canel succinctly defined this relationship himself: “The PCC is a party to lead the Revolution, but it is not an electoral party.”