Talk:Cuban legislative election, 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Cuba Portal
???	This page has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Cuba To-do: edit  Task list New article announcements Requests: Sport in Cuba, Yaguajay Stubs: Dollar store (Cuba), Celia Sánchez Verify: History of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista Update: 2006 Cuban transfer of presidential duties NPOV: History of Cuba, Delfin Fernandez, Armando Valladares Copyedit: Bay of Pigs invasion, Julio Antonio Mella, Fabio Grobart, Armando Peraza Wikify: Merge: Cleanup: Bay of Pigs invasion, History of Cuba, War Against the Bandits, Abelardo Colomé Ibarra, List of Cubans, Máximo Gómez, Antonio Maceo Grajales Style: Fidel Castro Expand: Cuban-Soviet relations, Chivatos, Baseball in Cuba, Religion in Cuba, Havana's International Book Fair, Cuba-Venezuela relations, Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven

Adam, Please explain why you have deleted the notable statistics from this page. Whether we like or agree with them or not is of no consequence.--Zleitzen 21:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They are not "statistics" and they are not "notable." Of course in a one-party election in a one-party state all government candidates poll 90% or more of the vote. There is nothing notable about the results from any particular constituency in such an "election." The purpose of the editor who put them here was openly propagandistic - he said they showed the level of support for the regime. This was both an opinion and a false opinion, but at least he was honest about his intentions. I have no idea what your intentions are, but I will continue to revert the insertion of this cheap propaganda. Adam 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Presumably you mean Carl Kenner. If he writes "they showed the level of support for the regime" then that's poor material that can be taken out - and was. My intentions are that I was looking for the details in reference to another article and noticed you'd removed them - for what appear to be ideological rather than practical or historical reasons. In fact the uniformity makes the results more notable and thus I wholly disagree with their removal. If you want to make a big deal out of this you're more than welcome to enter the dispute process. --Zleitzen 00:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The way to draw attention to the uniformity of the results is to state the fact that the results were uniform. Giving "results" from selected constituencies, particularly when accompanied by admiring references to the candidates, as if that explained them getting 90% of the vote, is pure propaganda. We don't even do it for real elections, let alone bogus ones. Adam 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just take the admiring references out - election results are election results regardless of how corrupt you believe them to be. How can displaying them be seen as "pure propaganda". I am amazed at how many users here fail to grasp the full electoral system of Cuba; it made sense to me after about 10 minutes of reading descriptions. Of course, the system is crap and highly undemocratic - but the democratic process of just about everywhere except Switzerland is poor, and even the Swiss have a history of absurd exclusionary practices. I was reading about Cromwellian Britain a while ago, and how a democratic zeal overtook a section of society. All kinds of proposals were drawn up by radical groups etc. 350 years later many of these goals still remain unrealised. There's a long way to go Adam to real democracy within our own liberal democracies - I don't believe demonising the unorthodox Cuban system moves us towards this. Just show the facts and let readers make their own minds up.--Zleitzen 01:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I totally disagree with you about that, but that's not the point. This is not an article about comparative democratic processes. It is an article about the 2003 Cuban "election," which was a propaganda facade put on by a cynical communist dictatorship to deceive people like you - apparently successfully, despite what you ought now to know about similar exercises in eastern Europe. I "grasp" Cuba's election system perfectly well, thankyou. Cuba's election system is not "unorthodox" - it is a deliberate fraud. Putting up election statistics from such exercises gives them a legitimacy they do not possess. Perhaps you would like some statistics from the 1936 Reichstag elections, showing that Hitler polled 98% of the vote? Adam 02:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

1. A lot of information on Wikipedia and elsewhere is clear and deliberate propoganda. For example, myself and others have been adding damning quotes from the US state department to the Cuban subarticles - some of it's hilarious in it's transparency. I am no more deceived by the Cuban election results than I am by those reports. Just show the information.
2. Your comparisons with Eastern Europe don't hold much water in 2006 - I don't think you do grasp the nuances of the Cuban "bottom up" electoral system or the unique complexity of Cuban politics. I recommend you to read this which is an excellant thumbnail guide to recent history of the process.
3. Actually I would like to read statistics that Hitler polled 98% in the 1936 Reichstag elections. It is of historical interest.--Zleitzen 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cannot we trust the reader to reach their own opinion as to the legitimacy of the 2003 Cuban election? Censoring facts does not help them reach thier own opinions. BruceHallman 15:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That is my main beef about the whole Cuba dispute since I first glanced at it. It's the attempt to tell rather than show. Adam has been open about his political beliefs and is channelling his work through that. But the results are not what I consider to be intellectual or historical inquiry, and more importantly they're not the point of this exercise. I generally prefer a more detached position of looking for multiple historical paradigms. But I appreciate it's not easy even for historians to get perspective when the red mist falls.

This also leads me to a second point about the view of Cuba and Cuban politics. I think it's worth looking at different understandings of the situation. Here are a few points.

1. Castro is primarily a nationalist and a pragmatist - defined by his drive for Cuban independence and resistance to the US rather than to strict Marxist dogma. Cuba is the opposite of the Soviet satellite states in some respects, where most people viewed the Communist leadership as a dictatorship imposed from abroad. In contrast Cuban political culture has been largely fuelled by fears that Cuba will become another client state of the U.S. and lose its independence.
2. The Cuban Communist party are a mixture of political idealists, the usual professional types, various corrupt authoritarian characters and thugs (ie a political party). Castro has used them for his own ends, suppressing them at times and giving them free reign at other times. They bear some ideological similarities to Mao (on occasion) and Lenin, but have mostly made it up as they’ve gone along. It should be noted that the 2003 jailing of 70 activists (many since released) was the worst authoritarian crackdown since the 60's, so we're not talking about the Khmer Rouge or the Cultural revolution here.
3. Castro justifies the restrictions on Cuban society in context of an island under siege, not unlike Britain during the Second World war (which had far harsher ground rules and a lot of similarities in the structure of society – a war cabinet vanguard – rationing - black market – curfews – repression). Whether these restrictions are necessary in Cuba and the comparisons are valid is obviously open to question. But given the harsh conditions that most Latin Americans and Carribeans have endured for decades, that view should not pass without some examination of its merits.

If we're serious about writing about Cuba then we have to view give the situation due analysis. Rather than seeing the C word and having visions of Pol Pot or the Commissars.--Zleitzen 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with some of that and I disagree with some, but again that is not the point at issue. The point is whether selected and partial figures from a bogus election in a one-party state are worthy of inclusion at this encyclopaedia. My position is that they are not. Adam 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is about a particular election. You're saying the results of that election are not relevant?!? To me, this is basically arguing that we don't need an article about this specific election at all. Friday (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. Adam, I agree with you that we do not want to give the impression that most people consider the election "legitimate democracy". But, this is already made clear in the article. I don't see how reporting the official results means we're in any way endorsing the official results. Friday (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Even if this was an article about a genuine election, I would argue that the inclusion of selected constituency results was inappropriate. Election articles should give either (a) a summary of the national voting and seats won, or (b) complete constituency results.
• Since this was not a genuine election, but a bogus election in which all candidates ran unopposed and polled 90% or more of the vote, there is no point and no value in including selective "results," clearly designed to suggest how fabulously popular F Castro is.
• Friday suggests abolishing this article altogether. I would have no objection to that. It was only created to deal with the rubbish that Carl Renner was including in the Elections in Cuba article. Adam 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam's expressions bogus election and not a genuine election appear to be original research and/or influenced by political bias. And even if not, why shouldn't we describe the election in all it's gory detail and let the reader reach their own conclusion whether it is bogus or not? BruceHallman 15:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Friday's description "...most people consider the election" should be qualified. You appear to be actually describing ...most Liberal Democratic outside observers? A type of systemic bias. I question whether you are echoing the 'conventional wisdom' assumption about perceptions of elections in Cuba by Cubans, and assumptions need to meet WP:V which is difficult considering massive amounts the pro and anti propaganda obscuring our vision. BruceHallman 15:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam, your objections suggest that the info could be fixed. But I don't see that you've made an effort to fix it, you just keep removing it. You've reverted several other editors, and I haven't seen that anyone agrees with your reasoning here. Stop trying to own this article. Friday (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] real/fake election data revert war

Adam Carr for sixth time deleted out the table, instead revert warring, lets discuss this and perhaps find a compromise. The most recent edit comment by Adam was ' (if u can't tell the difference between a real election and a fake one, i can't help u pal)'. Although real and fake are subject to opinion, even granting the opinion that the elections are 'fake' why should data from 'fake' elections not be in the encyclopedia. If, for no other reason, to allow the reader to reach their own conclusion that the elections were 'fake'? If it is so obvious to you, it will also be obvious to the reader, correct? BruceHallman 14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a little snippet from the article on Iraqi elections:

On October 16, 2002, after a well-publicized show election, Iraqi officials declared that Saddam had been re-elected to another seven-year term as President by a 100% unanimous vote of all 11,445,638 eligible Iraqis, eclipsing the 99.96% received in 1995. The United States and others outside Iraq said the vote lacked any credibility. Stories later surfaced stating that voting was compulsory and that the "yes" box had already been checked for voters in advance.

I think this election could and should be characterised in similar terms. Xtra 14:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba is not Iraq, why should they be characterised in similar terms? BruceHallman 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Cuban electoral system bears as few similarities to the Iraqi elections as it does to the US presidential elections they can't seriously be characterised in similar terms. --Zleitzen 15:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Realy? 1 party state. No freedom of speech. No real democracy. I somehow see the similarities flowing. If you support the ideology of the regime, that is your business, but do not pretend that Cuba's elections come anywhere near, free-fair-or democratic. Xtra 01:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't "support the ideology of the regime", Xtra. I just know about the subject matter and take it seriously. I can also back up anything I write with notable, verifiable, international sources. Sadly, myself and BruceHallman appear to be the only users on this subject who do this. It is the motivation of other users that should be of concern here. --Zleitzen 09:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are not refering to Adam Carr. Someone who is an expert on elections. Would you describe the election as "free and fair"? Would you say that nominations were open to the general public? Would you say that there was the ability to speak freely without fear of reprisals? Would you say that the election presented an actual choice to the citizens of Cuba of whether they wanted to keep Fidel or kick him out? I think the answers to all those questions can only point to the "election" being a show election and not democratic in any real way none the less. Xtra 10:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt to link this to the page "show election" in POV, unverifiable, original research and extremely unencyclopedic. Here is a summary of the 1998 elections which may give yourself and Adam Carr (who clearly is not an expert on the Cuban electoral system by the way) some idea of how to present this election. : "Elections were held for the national and municipal assemblies on January 11th, following unprecedented electioneering by the government. The vote is an endorsement of pre-selected candidates rather than a choice between rivals. Half of the candidates are nominated at public meetings before gaining approval from electoral committees, while the other half are nominated by official mass organisations (such as trade unions, farmers organisations and students unions). A turnout of 98.4% of registered voters was reported. Of the total votes, 5% of ballot papers were left blank or spoiled. The sum of abstentions, spoiled and blank votes was therefore only 6.5% of the total electorate. A further 5.6% chose to vote for some of the candidates (a 'selective vote') rather than endorsing all of them on a slate (a 'united vote'), as called for in the election campaign. Subtracting all the possible choices which might be interpreted as rejection of the government, 88.2% of the electorate were reported to have obediently opted for the united vote". "The government claims that the elections represent a show of popular support, but its critics have attributed the result instead to fear or apathy on the part of those who do not support the government. They suspect that the result may reflect electoral engineering (in constituencies known to have a high proportion of voters who are more inclined to express dissatisfaction by registering blank or spoiled votes, the candidates offered tend to be highly respected local figures not associated closely with the government), the lack of independent supervision of the count or the barrage of propaganda. They also point out that the system of selection of candidates effectively excludes any truly independent voices.

Here is the view from "election expert" Adam Carr's website - "There have been no elections in Cuba since 1948" : [1] - perhaps this conflict of interest is his motivation for contesting this issue, who knows? But his POV here is conclusively incorrect, and bears no relation to any serious study of Cuban political culture. --Zleitzen 13:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Adam says that on his website because there have been no real elections in Cuba since 1948. An election without choice is not an election. It is a dictatorship. There may be a "vote" takin, but the surrounding sittuation makes the "vote" inconsequential. Hence it is to all extents and purposes a "show election". Xtra 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Xtra asked: "Would you say that nominations were open to the general public? " Per the book by Arnold August (1999). Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-1998 Elections, Montreal:Canada-Cuba Distribution. ISBN 0968508405, who spend considerable time observing the nomination assemblies, and wrote of his observations in great detail, yes, the nomination assemblies are indeed open to the general public. BruceHallman

[edit] Interpreting election data

The election data here[2] uses the words "Voto unito" (united vote) and "Voto Selectivo" (selective vote), from Cuban Spanish, does that translate as 'Yes vote' and 'No vote'? BruceHallman 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think thats block votes and individual votes, Bruce. The majority of time pressured Cuban would tick approval for the whole lot and be done with it. Whilst the selective voter would go through only ticking candidates that they approved of. In the early 90's I believe there was a drop in these figures to something like a 75% average, as Cubans thought the game was up. So Castro relaxed a load of conditions, suppressed the party and opened a safety valve as he is wont to do. --Zleitzen 16:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The 'wont to do' actions you describe are that of a polititian, more than an authoritarian, I think. Also, there is certainly some interesting 'polling' information to be gleened from that data. Not that I am advocating original research, but I do think that the data could be presented better so the readers could see it clearly and reach their own conclusions. BruceHallman 17:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Show Election

Xtra and PMA have inserted a link to "show election" on three occasions. The reasons given appear to be original research, ignoring Wikipedia policies on verifiability. As we have not been provided with any evidence that these elections are "show elections" - the article should not be linked in that manner. To echo comments higher up the page, I am quite happy to engage in any serious discussion about the Cuban electoral system - and the body of scholarly work analysing this process. However it is not possible to discuss these points with editors who have not quoted any primary or secondary sources, and appear to be relying solely on personal opinion. --Zleitzen 00:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

PMA has unilaterally removed requests for citations - and reinserted unverified material. Again without any attempt to discuss the Cuban electoral system on this talk page. It should also be noted that PMA has inserted a misleading, unverifiable, inaccurate and POV sentence to the "Show elections" page - stating "Cuba's ruler Fidel Castro, in repeated attempts to give legitimacy to his one-party regime, periodically has held presidential elections, invariably "winning" them all (ballot choices are a simple "yes or no" choice to Castro, the only candidate.) This sentence is also directly against wikipedia NPOV and Verifiability policies. --Zleitzen 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Xtra has unilaterally removed requests for citations again. And as yet has not provided any verifiable evidence for the claims on the page, nor engaged in any discussion concerning verifiable sources. The only discussion provided involves original research. --Zleitzen 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Again? I never did before. I reverted because the edit summary said one thing and the edit actually changed more. Xtra 03:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please address the issues of requests for citations and discuss this matter before reverting the page.--Zleitzen 03:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me of something and then ignore my reply? Please! Xtra 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am asking you to provide verifiable sources to substantiate the claims made on the page. It's a simple as that Xtra, and it is the golden rule of wikipedia.--Zleitzen 03:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Again ignoring my reply to your accusation. I did not add the things you are requesting a citation for. I do not know where they specifically cam from. However, many of them can be found elswhere and are general knowledge. Xtra 03:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is getting rather off topic, eh? Per Zleitzen, it will be appropriate to note that the Cuban elections were a sham as soon as there are sources provided to support that assertion. Personally, I agree with that perspective, but there do need to be citations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of people on the WWW with opinions about whether the Cuban elections are a 'sham' and not. 'Sham' is a value judgement, relying upon, in a large part, which type of democracy you prefer. To achieve WP:NPOV you need to describe the subject matter neutrally, with verifiable facts. Just exactly how do you prove a value judgement as a fact? BruceHallman 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't report on the Truth, because there isn't anybody here who has it. We present, instead, the verifiable opinions of appropriately credentialled individuals and organizations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly the only way to present any factor relating to the presentation of Cuba. Cuba is a completely unique nation. From the island's geographical, political and economic relationship with the world's largest superpower, down to it's entirely homegrown political structure. What many people assume is "the truth" about Cuba actually turns out be something contradictory and problematic based on often deliberate misinformation. Therefore there can be no room for "received wisdom". We must stick to verifiable sources and scholarly research for everything. --Zleitzen 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)