First
of all, compared to most democratic countries, there is a wider choice of
candidates in the Cuban electoral system, since there is no pre-selection
process based on the ability to raise large sums of money for a nomination or
election campaign. Trying to account for the low voter turnout in US election,
for example, UPI recently reported (see "Accounting for the Low
Voter Turnout," November 6, 2002):
Americans
are turned off on campaign politics. Regardless of how they might feel about
the direction of the nation or their personal lives, they are disenchanted
with elections. Large majorities believe that money has more influence on the
outcome of elections than voters do, that candidates spend more time fighting
amongst each other than talking about the issues, and that campaigns are more
like theater than like serious efforts to address the nation's problems.
With the low voter turnout, even in the quasi-two-party US system, governments are routinely elected without the support of the majority. In most cases, the only real prerequisite seems to be not the support of the people, but the support of sufficient numbers of wealthy backers. (This is also the case in Canada--especially at the federal level.)
In Cuba, every citizen, regardless of their economic circumstances, has the equal right and opportunity to win public office. Candidates are nominated not by any political party or elite political action committees, but by the people themselves in open public meetings in each neighbourhood, or by their democratically elected representatives who themselves were nominated in this way. And it costs nothing to win public office, even at the highest level.
Secondly, without accountability between elections, there often seems to be no real choice at all in many so-called democracies. Consider, for example, the issue of national health care in the US. As a first-term presidential candidate, Bill Clinton promised a national health care program. On his winning the presidency, however, private insurance and medical companies launched a massive propaganda and lobbying campaign that quickly snuffed out any such possibility. On such an important issue, was there any real choice for the American people? To this day, they still do not have a national health care program!
In Canada, we see a similar lack of accountability on important issues. Liberal prime minister, Jean Chretien, campaigned for his first term in office on a progressive platform based on opposition to many terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and in favour of enhanced spending on health, education and other social programs. Once in office, however, his government immediately proceeded to enact NAFTA with no significant changes at all, and to slash spending in all areas including health care and education – exactly the program of the conservative opposition. Even today, several years later, opinion polls consistently show that Canadians' spending priorities remain health care and education. The number one spending priority of this and various provincial governments, however, is tax cuts for corporations and the well-to-do. Any increases in health and education spending are, at best, token amounts insufficient to meet current needs. On such important issues, is there any real choice for the Canadian people? Both health and education remain in a perpetual state of near crisis in Canada.
Part of the problem in the US and Canada is that those who actually control the economy (the trans-national corporations) are not accountable to the people there. They are accountable only to their wealthy shareholders and owners. In a democratic socialist system such as Cuba's, the elected government controls economy and is fully accountable to the people. The top priorities of the Cuban people--health and education--are, quite naturally, the top priorities of their government, even during the time of severe economic collapse of the early 1990's. (In the US and Canada, in order to minimize the impact on the elite, health and education are often among the first things to be cut in a crisis.)
In Cuba, with ongoing accountability of elected delegates, it seems there is a real choice and the people have a real say in government policies on an ongoing basis. Delegates to the Provincial and National Assemblies are accountable to the Municipal Assembly who nominated them. (About half the Provincial and National Assemblies are also delegates to their respective Municipal Assemblies.) Delegates to the Municipal Assemblies, in turn, meet regularly with their constituents to account for themselves at public meetings in each neighbourhood. At all levels, delegates are subject to recall at any time during their term in office. (From time to time, delegates are indeed recalled and by-elections subsequently held.)
In
summary, the choices available to the Cuban voter are at least as great, if
not greater, than those in the supposedly democratic US and Canada. Having
multiple political parties is certainly no guarantee of a real choice or a say
in important matters that affect the lives of the people.