4-02-05, 9:05 am

From Granma

JUST a few days away from municipal elections in Cuba (April 17) there are reasons for attempting to find an equation to parallel the electoral process in general on the island and that of the United States. For example, one of them would be that these are the first after the Bush administration announcement of the so-called report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba.

As the above-mentioned plan, an overtly annexationist project signed by President George W. Bush in May 2004, proclaims in its Title 3, the establishment of democratic institutions, respect for human rights, a state of law and justice and national reconciliation.

The concrete measures of this section include: with the help of the United States, creating and strengthening a democratic electoral system for the drafting and reform of electoral laws and the training of electoral officials in matters of registering voters, keeping electoral censuses and in voting procedures.

To sum up, at the stroke of a pen to eliminate existing electoral law on the island because it totally differs from the US electoral process and because, as Ricardo Alarcón, president of the Cuban Parliament, emphasized, it differs in terms of what they call democracy.

The first step is to draw up an equation and set about clearing away incognitos in search of a final equality. There could be many variables, but just let’s take the selection of candidates and the cost of political campaigns.

I have to warn you that it’s an impossible equation. In fact cost and political campaigning are already terms that do not fit in with the Cuban process, while in the United States the elevated cost of political campaigns is in itself a widely argued issue.

For example, the Center for Responsive Politics, a US non-governmental organization, estimates that money in play in the 2004 campaign was more than $3.9 billion, of which $1.2 billion was directly spent on the presidential battle.

Another investigation, from the Center for Public Integrity, revealed that the same companies financed the campaigns of Bush and John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, in 2004. Four companies are on the list of the 10 principal donors to both candidates: Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, UBS Ag. Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. Apparently, they believed that either of the two candidates would be beneficial to their interests.

Of course, all those campaign funds came at a very high price, explained Charles Lewis, the executive director of CPI, an independent non-party organization and among the most outstanding in investigations into money and politics.

He says it is about naming the price of power in the US commercial democracy where one pays for playing, but where both of the 2004 presidential candidates offered political favors to the principal contributors to their campaigns.

In his recent book, The Buying of the President, Lewis argues that the US electoral system has broken down as, in fact, the big businesses interests select the candidates of both national parties. The real powers that exist in this country are not found on any voting slip, and are not accountable to anyone.

The CPI report notes that the investment is nothing in comparison with the billion-dollar cascades coming out of legislation.

Moreover, he affirms, the powerful corporations back the election of candidates who are already wealthy. In the case of the aspiring presidential candidates of last year, Bush and Kerry and their vice presidents, Dick Cheney and John Edwards are all millionaires.

Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, have a $747-million fortune, of which $14.8 million corresponds to the candidate. Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney and his life Lynn Cheney possess private wealth to the tune of $111.2 million. Edwards has a fortune of $44.6 million and that of Bush stands at $18.9 million.

All that data, the selection of candidates and their personal fortunes, the centers of power, of commercial democracy and the campaign funding are other aspects of the impossibility of the comparison.

In Cuba things are different.

The upcoming municipal elections, which have been organized every two years since 1976, are scheduled for April 17 and, in cases where it is necessary, a second round takes place on April 24.

In order to arrive at the act of voting (secret and non-obligatory)) the electoral process was initiated in January and its most important stage has just concluded (February 24- March 24): the assemblies to nominate candidates for delegates. It is a highly participative process.

A total of 41,606 neighborhood assemblies took place in which more than 84% of the eligible population (from 16 years of age) participated; in other words, more than eight million Cubans. In those assemblies it was the neighbors who nominated (with their hand raised), and who seek in their candidates not the wealthiest or most powerful, but those with more virtue, merit, knowledge and capability.

On March 27 what one should call the electoral campaign got underway, but in Cuba this simply means posting photos and biographies of the 32,640 candidates nominated (80% educated to intermediate and higher levels, 28% women, 23% young people aged 16-35).

Another difference: the delegates who are elected fulfill their services to the community without receiving any salary whatsoever and without abandoning their professions and occupations.

Roberto Díaz Sotolongo, minister of justice and president of the National Electoral Commission, has stated that the nomination of candidates is one of the elements that makes the Cuban democratic system unique in the world.

Returning to Title 3 of the Plan Bush, let us consider the proposal of another electoral census. The intention of that alternative was explained by Ricardo Alarcón. 'The text states that it is necessary to draw up a completely new electoral register and one that follows the US model. They would impose here by force voluntary self-enrollment, a system identical to that functioning in the United States and whose insufficiencies have been highlighted in the press and by civil rights and intellectuals organizations, all of which detail the regulations and restrictions currently being suffered by millions of citizens of that country, in order to be recognized as voters.'

Registration on the island is currently de jure, public and universal for anyone who has reached 16 years of age, without discrimination based on politics, ethnicity, religion or gender, and to appear on the roll is a right.

An equation between elections in the United States and Cuba? Impossible.