Voice of Revolution

Organize for a New Direction

Strengthen Independent Organizing As
Central to the Fight for Change

As the 2008 elections unfold, many people are organizing in various ways to take their stand for rights and challenge the Democratic Party. Everywhere, people are making use of their experience, where Democrats have repeatedly refused to end the war, joined in the attacks on rights and refused to take action against President George W. Bush for the crimes of the government at home and abroad. They also have the repeated experience that as they step up the fight for change that favors the people, the Democrats attempt to mirror that fight and become its voice. Experience is showing that strengthening the independent organizing of the people is central both to challenging the Democrats and making certain real change is achieved.

Senator Hillary Clinton, for example, is now fond of saying, “After seven years of a president who listens only to the special interests, you’re ready for a president who brings your voice, your values and your dreams to your White House.” These comments show she can no longer go on speaking mainly about herself and her “leadership.” She necessarily has to reflect the motion developing where people are demanding change that favors the people. She then tries to assert the leadership of the Democrats over the people, by saying she will be a president that brings the voice of the people to the White House. By doing so, she deftly blocks the new direction being demanded, that says it is the people themselves who should be inaugurated into power, not the Democrats or Republicans.

As well, that are few being fooled into thinking that Clinton, long an establishment figure of the Democratic Party, is now going to abandon the rich and their values and their funding and submit to the people. No, she, like the Democratic Party more generally, instead tries to convince everyone that it is possible for there to be shared values, of the rich and poor, of the workers and capitalists — shared values and shared prosperity. As she put it on Super Tuesday, February 5, “I see an America where our economy works for everyone, not just those at the top, where prosperity is shared.”

Clinton and the Democrats perhaps forget that we are all living in the real world and experience directly that prosperity for the rich is always and necessarily more impoverishment for the people, here and worldwide. As just one small indicator, workers here and worldwide are not “sharing” the massive record profits of ExxonMobil. Far from it, wars for the benefit of the monopolies and their empire building are continuing and a massive war machine is being made even larger. The values of the rich and their system to make the most profits and rule the world cannot and have never been values of the workers.

It is this reality and conclusions stemming from it — on the necessity for a new direction for the economy and the government — that the Democrats seek to hide. And they seek to divert the independent striving of the working class and people for this new direction for the country.

The aim of the people is not to take America back, it is to take it forward, in a new direction where society is organized to meet the needs of the people here and abroad. It is from this starting point that many are making use of the Barack Obama campaign to challenge the Democrats. Obama too has had to speak to the demands for real change and also tries to be its voice. On February 5 he said, “The voices of the American people can finally be heard again…This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It’s different not because of me. It’s different because of you — because you are tired of hearing promises made and plans proposed in the heat of a campaign, only to have nothing change when everyone goes back to Washington. But in this election, at this moment, you are standing up all across this country to say, ‘Not this time, not this year.’”

Obama here accurately reflects that people are in motion precisely because they recognize that change is not a dream, it is a necessity and that it is the people themselves who can and must realize this necessity through their own independent organizing. The Democrats are hoping Obama and Clinton can be used to block this independent development and direct the fight instead to “taking America back” to “shared values and shared prosperity.” But this fight is now engaged, and Obama will have great difficulty maintaining credibility among the people while submitting to the dictate of the Democrats. People are closely watching precisely this issue, and going toe to toe with the Democrats on it. If Obama is seen to submit, it could serve to eliminate not only the credibility of the Democrat Party, but the credibility of all the undemocratic institutions for elections.

Whether people are participating in the Obama campaign, preparing for anti-war actions, standing up for Palestine, defending immigrant rights, all the many forms the struggle for change is taking, what is critical is the pro-active character of this fight. Building up the people’s own forces, strengthening unity in action, engaging together in discussion about the existing institutions of democracy and the necessity to change them, all are required. Let us together elaborate on the danger of submitting to the program of the ruling class for “shared prosperity” and “one America” of, by and for the ruling class. Join in the on-going investigation of the existing institutions. Deliberate on the new institutions of political empowerment needed, the new and modern constitution needed, a constitution that can, in fact, guarantee the rights of the people. Let us together celebrate our achievements, our own organizations and step up the work to bring them forward in united action. Together, relying on our own forces, on the leadership of the working class — not the ruling class, not the Democrats — we can bring forward a new direction for the U.S.

[TOP]

Super Tuesday Primaries and Caucuses

People Continue Challenging the Democratic Party

February 5, called Super Tuesday, saw 23 states holding primaries or caucuses. Nineteen states held them for both Republicans and Democrats. An estimated 27 percent of registered voters participated. While this is a record level for primaries, it is clearly a small minority of all voters. The U.S. has an estimated 203 million eligible voters, with about 60 percent of those registered to vote. To date about 18.6 million people have voted in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, and about 12.8 million in the Republican. This means about 31.4 million in total, out of more than 203 million.

The large majority of these votes occurred on February 5. Current available estimates, which do not include absentee ballots still being counted, have 15,417,521 people voting in the Democratic primaries and caucuses and 9,181,297 in the Republican. In the 19 states where both parties held events, more than 14 million voted for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, compared with 8 million for John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. This figures show that far more people are participating in the Democratic primaries, a reflection of the fact that it is the main arena where people are organizing to give expression to their demands against the establishment and for change that favors the people. It is also the case that the majority expect a Democrat to win come November and see participation in their activities as having a greater role. As well, Republicans are generally expressing that they are not satisfied with any of the candidates and are participating in smaller numbers.

People’s Challenge to Democrat Establishment Sharply Felt

In the overall breakdown for Democrats, it is about even. Clinton got 7,427,700 votes, or 48.83 percent, and Obama got 7,369,798 or 48.45 percent nationwide (not including Alaska). John Edwards, who was forced out by the Democratic Party less than a week before the primary, still polled about 3 percent.

Obama won all seven state caucuses (Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota). American Samoa went to Clinton. Obama's wins are generally a reflection of the fact that newer activists in the Democratic Party, especially among the youth, are turning out for the caucuses and that Obama has built up an electoral machinery that brings these forces out. Many are supporting Obama as their means to reject the establishment Democrats, as represented by Clinton. Clinton has relyied on the old party machinery in the various states, and lost. She has complained about the caucuses, saying, “Caucuses historically draw the most activist members of a party. And that is fine. But they are not the most democratic way of letting people express their preferences. Primaries are far more democratic, small “d” democratic…I am more interested in what happens when a large number of people get to vote.” She has made no proposals to change use of caucuses, or speak to the undemocratic character of primaries, like those in her home state of New York, that exclude independent voters and those registered to parties other than the Democrats, from voting.

In the states with primaries, some, like New York, were closed, meaning only registered Democrats or registered Republicans could vote in the respective primary. In others, like California, independents are allowed, and in still others, like Missouri, independents and people registered for another party can also vote in one or the other primary.

In terms of the popular vote, no candidate received a majority of the eligible vote in any state. Indeed with anywhere from 10-27 percent of voters participating, it cannot be said that any candidate “won” any of the states. It is reported in that manner to give the impression that a majority of voters are making a decision, when in fact a small minority is actually voting. As well the votes are not what decide the outcome — the parties, with their arbitrary delegate counts decide.

For Democrats, in terms of the popular vote, as the facts above show, it remains about equal. In terms of each state, Clinton got more votes in the following 9 states: New York, her home state, California and Massachusetts among the big states; Arkansas and Tennessee among southern states; Arizona and New Mexico from the southwest; and New Jersey and Oklahoma. While Clinton secured more votes in both California and New York, the two largest states population-wise, in both places Obama secured 40 percent or more of the vote cast.

Obama got more votes in 13 states, (7 of them caucus states, 6 primaries) including his home state of Illinois, and the larger states of Minnesota and Colorado; the southern states of Alabama and Georgia; western states of Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota and Utah, as well as Connecticut, Delaware and Alaska.

Missouri, considered a significant indicator, as it has voted for the candidate chosen since 1950, was split just about even, with slightly more votes going to Obama 405,284 (49.28 percent) compared to 395,287 (48.06 percent) for Clinton.

In terms of the home states, Obama got a more decisive vote in Illinois, 65 percent to 33 percent, than Clinton did in New York, where the vote was 57 percent to 40 percent. The Democrats are also watching states that are considered swing states in the general election — meaning they could go Republican or Democrat — to see which candidate is more likely to secure the most votes in November. These states include Missouri, Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico and Tennessee. Missouri, which Obama got, was very close, as was New Mexico, where Clinton got more votes (48.51 percent to 48.35 percent). Arizona went 50.5 to 42 percent for Clinton; Colorado 67 to 32 percent for Obama; Minnesota 67 to 32 percent for Obama; New Jersey 54 to 44 percent for Clinton; Tennessee 54 to 41 percent for Clinton.

Overall, the popular vote is an indication both of how the candidates are doing as vote getters and how the people are doing in terms of using the primaries to express their opposition to the establishment. In that respect, the fact that Obama is securing about as many votes as Clinton is an indication that the people are going toe to toe with the Democratic Party. Their challenge to them to select Obama is being sharply felt and is one that cannot be ignored. This is particularly true given that Clinton had been expected to secure the nomination by now. Instead the battle, between the people and the establishment, remains engaged.

McCain Emerges as Candidate for Republicans

For the Republicans, John McCain emerged as the main candidate, with 3,611,459 votes overall (43.1 percent). Mitt Romney secured 2,961,834 (35.4 percent) and Mike Huckabee 1,796,729 or 21.5 percent.

McCain secured more votes in the February 5 primaries and caucuses, including the larger states of California, Illinois and New York, as well as Arizona (his home state), Connecticut, Missouri, New Jersey and Oklahoma. In most of these he secured 45-55 percent of votes cast.

Huckabee secured more votes in southern states, including, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia. Romney got more in his home state of Massachusetts (51 to 41 percent for McCain). As well, he got more in Colorado than McCain (59-19 percent), Minnesota (41-22 percent), Montana (38-22 percent), North Dakota (36-23 percent), and Utah (90-5 percent).

Taken overall, McCain has secured 4,867,159 of votes cast for Republicans (38 percent) while Romney secured 4,139,460 (32 percent) and Huckabee 2,411,287 (19 percent). However, given that Republicans use a winner-take-all method for delegates in many states, the delegate count is far more uneven. McCain has an estimated 683, while Romney has 133 and Huckabee 156. About 41 percent of delegates have so far been allocated. While a majority of states have now voted, several large ones, including Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, remain.

While by popular vote, Romney would certainly be considered a contender, he chose to “suspend” his candidacy February 7. “Suspending” means he is still able to hold on to his delegates, for potential use in securing influence at the convention. However, at this time, it is likely that McCain will go into the convention with more than enough delegates to secure the nomination. This does not rule out back room deals, for Rudolph Giuliani. for dropping out and endorsing McCain, as well as for Romney.

[TOP]

Green Party Primaries in Four States

Nader Wins California,
McKinney Leads in Arkansas and Illinois

Green Party of California News Release, February 6, 2008

Two-time Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader won the Green Party presidential primary here Tuesday — despite not yet being a declared candidate. He outdistanced six rivals (including two who had already withdrawn) in what was the most competitive Green Party presidential primary ever.

However, the election was marred in California, and other states, by claims that Green Party voters found it difficult to get ballots.

With 98.5 precincts reporting, Nader collected about 61 percent of the vote in California, with former six-time Democratic Party congressperson Cynthia McKinney, now a Green, garnering about 26 percent.

Other vote totals included Kat Swift, a Texas organizer, 3 percent; Kent Mesplay, a California environmental engineer, 2 percent; Jesse Johnson, a West Virginia actor and producer, 1.8 percent. Former Black Panther Party leader Elaine Brown had 4.6 percent, although she quit the race in January. University hip-hop professor Jared Ball also withdrew. He had 1.6 percent.

Green Parties participated in four state primaries Tuesday, with Nader winning California (168 delegates) and McKinney in the lead among candidates in Arkansas (8) and Illinois (44). Results from Massachusetts (32) are pending. Greens have ballot access in 21 states. Their nominating convention is in Chicago in July.

Just receiving a ballot was difficult for some Greens. In San Francisco, Greens reported difficultly in getting ballots, and in Illinois, Greens said they were given Democratic Party ballots, and if they managed to get a Green ballot, it couldn’t be read by voting machines.

And, in one mostly black Los Angeles County precinct, people faced challenges to their status to get Democratic Party ballots. “These people, life-long Democrats, were unable to vote because they were being told they were Republican voters,” said Daniel Brezenoff, a Green Party of California spokesperson and precinct inspector.

Contact: Crescenzo Vellucci, State Press Office, 916-996-1970, greenparty-press@comcast.net, www.cagreens.org

[TOP]

Democrats and Republicans Dominate System

Delegates, Votes and Decision Making

The results from the February 5 vote, like those before it, are ones that make clear that the popular vote does not decide the outcome. Instead, the two parties and their delegates decide the outcome. These delegates are used in primaries and caucuses. The primaries involve a larger number of voters than the caucuses, but both involve voters casting votes. The caucuses also commonly involve several steps. First, are the caucuses at the precinct level — these are the ones reported on election day for that state. After that there are commonly county-level caucuses, then state-level. At each level the party restricts who can be a delegate, so that by the state level, it is mainly known party activists and functionaries. Independents, for example, do not become delegeates.

In a complex system, designed to hide the fact that votes do not decide, the Democratic and Republican parties determine the number of delegates each state receives, and in many cases, the number of delegates for each congressional district in each state. The primary and caucus “vote” is not actually for the candidate, but rather for delegates pledged to vote for that candidate at the state party convention. These state conventions then elect delegates to the national convention. Depending on the state, delegates to the state convention can change their pledge, particularly those committed to candidates who have withdrawn, or in the event of a tie vote at the convention. In some states, delegates for withdrawn candidates are required to vote for the winner of that state. In others they are not.

In addition, the manner that Republicans and Democrats calculate delegates is an arbitrary one that varies from state to state. For Republicans, some states are winner-take-all, as occurs in the general election. In others, it is proportional. Based on the winner-take-all method, which itself is a means for discounting votes, John McCain now has far more delegates — even though the popular vote is still fairly close. So while McCain has about 4.8 million votes and Mitt Romney about 4.1 million, the delegate count is 683-133 in favor of McCain. Clearly, votes do not count.

The Democrats use a proportional method for counting delegates. However, how the proportions are calculated varies. In some states, the vote is weighted, with more delegates given to particular districts that had a higher vote turn out, or where a Democrat was elected, etc. These are known as “bonus” delegates and are not based on population of the district. This is one of the reasons that the popular vote and delegate vote can vary, so much so that a candidate can lose the popular vote and win more delegates, as occurred with Obama in Nevada.

In addition, as is now making the news, there are what are called superdelegates for both parties, though rules for each vary for each party. The majority of these delegates are elected officials, while some are non-elected party functionaries, former congresspeople, etc. These superdelegates can back candidates during the primary, but their votes are not actually counted until the national convention itself. Their votes are not tied to any popular vote. They represent about 20 percent of delegates, which in a close election like this one, can be decisive in the outcome. Most commonly, as needed, the superdelegates are used as a block to ensure the candidate of the party’s top brass secures the nomination, even if they do not secure the majority of the popular vote.

It is important to recognize that the superdelegates are one part of an electoral system that itself is designed to block the voters from deciding. It is the two parties of the rich, the Democrats and Republicans, that decide the candidates, and even from among their own ranks, decide who are “top” candidates and who “fringe,” with funding and media coverage allocated accordingly. The two parties also make all decisions concerning how and when primaries and caucuses are to be organized, which voters can and cannot vote in them, how these votes are counted, and how delegates are decided, including a final decision-making role resting with delegates to each party’s national convention. And generally, there are few legal requirements binding the delegates to the popular vote once at the convention.

In addition, the two parties also determine requirements for getting on the ballot in each state, for what is required to register a political party and what is necessary for that party and its candidates to get on the ballot, as well as for what is required for independents to get on the ballot. All of these requirements are organized to block participation, not provide it. Many people, for example, are probably not aware that the Green Party had primaries in four states, including California and Illinois.

In this manner, many vital decisions that exclude the people from decision making are made long before a single vote is cast. It is an undemocratic system where votes by the people do not count and where decisions by the parties of the rich guarantee that they gain power while the people are deprived of power.

The issue of the delegates, then, comes as one mechanism for the parties to continue their dictate, even if the popular vote goes against the party establishment. They also are a means for the various party factions, in part rooted in the state parties, to have their say.

Speaking to the current situation, the Democrats are caught in a dilemma where Barack Obama was brought forward as a candidate to generate enthusiasm and motion among the people for the Democrats, but not as a candidate expected to win. He was brought forward at a time when the large majority of people are angry with both parties and the direction they have taken the country in. There is broad discontent and the legitimacy of the elections themselves is in question. The Democrats, in particular, have lost credibility given that they were elected as a majority in 2006 to end the war and have not done so. Nor have they stopped torture, gotten Guantánamo closed, or stopped the numerous other attacks on rights here and abroad. Indeed, they have ensured they continue. Obama was brought forward to provide legitimacy and a new and younger face for change. He is someone who could be positioned against the establishment, as a safety valve for them. That he is African American was seen as a plus for playing this role. However, he was not intended to win.

Now, the Democrats have a situation where they cannot suppress the motion building around Obama, a motion that mainly represents the rejection by the people of the Democrats and their betrayal, rather than a vote for Obama and what he stands for. It is generally recognized that he and Clinton stand for the same program of the rich for continued war and repression. The Obama votes, from African Americans and youth especially, show they are coming out to challenge the Democrats, to insist that Obama actually become the candidate. Very few people think the Democrats, and the rulers they represent, will allow this to occur. In fact, many people are already expressing concern about the possibility of assassination or a smear campaign to prevent it.

The Democrats are maneuvering to prevent the need for such action, which would greatly worsen the crisis for the ruling circles. As well, if the Democrats maneuver to resort to the delegate count, and especially use of the superdelegates, to deny Obama the candidacy, their legitimacy crisis and that of the system as a whole will also be further intensified.

In an effort to minimize these problems, Democrats are now talking about changing the rules in mid-stream. They are considering having Michigan and Florida vote again, so those delegates can count. Clinton is expected to get the most votes in both. And they are saying that having the superdelegates vote according to how their state voted will also solve the problem. This means that in the larger states, like New York and California, where Clinton got more votes but Obama got 40 percent or more, these state’s superdelegates would all go to Clinton. Thus the moves discussed favor Clinton.

No one, it should be noted, is calling for the elimination of delegates altogether and use of a straight popular vote. Nor is anyone calling for an end to a set-up where the Democrats and Republicans decide all these matters, against the will of the people and their demand for change that favors the people. To a large degree, the debate about superdelegates is a smokescreen for the fact that the entire delegate system and winner-take-all method is undemocratic and designed to keep votes from counting. And there are also all the mechanisms put in place by Democrats and Republicans requiring voter registration and that registration is party-based, another means of blocking voter participation. There is nothing neutral or democratic about the set-up. The rich and their parties decide.

What is needed in the situation is not only the elimination of superdelegates, but elimination of an old and illegitimate electoral system that does not meet the needs of modern society — where it is the people themselves who must govern and decide and their electoral system must serve that need. Voice of Revolution encourages all to continue using the primaries as an arena to challenge the establishment and carry forward the program of the people to discuss and organize for a system where votes by the people do count, and where the will of the people decides. Send in letters, discuss on blogs, forward materials to our webpage, participate in public forums — join in!

[TOP]

Another World Is Possible

Victorious Full Slate Vote Expresses
Cuban People’s Unity of Action

The victorious general election held in Cuba on January 20 culminated the call to go all out to vote for the full slate of candidates for election to the provincial assemblies and the National Assembly. The full slate general elections were held based on the premise stated by Cuban National Hero José Martí “A lot can be done if we stick together,” reiterated in President Fidel Castro’s recent statement that the full slate vote “expresses the Cuban people’s unity of action.”

President of the Cuban Parliament Ricardo Alarcón said that the full slate vote guarantees a comprehensive representation of Cuban society in the assemblies of people’s power. Speaking during the January 16 episode of the Cuban prime time TV show “The Roundtable” dedicated to the January 20 general elections, he said the full slate vote is a strategy that guarantees the inclusion in all government bodies of political leaders, representatives of social, religious organizations as well as academics, artists, workers, students, housewives, retired people, men and women in general, blacks and whites.

The parliamentary president said that adopting such an electoral strategy also guarantees the continuity of a political system in which all the people can exercise their right to vote and participate directly or indirectly in the nomination of candidates.

Those elected will have no personal privileges at all, as has been the case for the thousands of others previously elected as district delegates, provincial assembly delegates, or parliamentary deputies over the course of 30 years, Alarcón stressed. He said the men and women elected to legislative positions do so on a volunteer basis, as they do not receive a salary (they maintain their regular job). They are responsible to their constituents to whom they must report about their work, who are empowered to recall their representative at any time. He underscored the fact that in Cuba the vote is free, easy to exercise. In the case of provincial delegates or deputies, voters have the right to vote one, two, three or none of the candidates, and may even abstain if they wish, as voting is not compulsory.

Emphasizing the aim of maximum participation in the election, Alarcón noted that the vote took place in over 38,000 voting stations, not on a weekday but on Sunday.

The desire of the majority of the Cuban people to participate in the vote for the full slate of candidates is based on the fact that in Cuba all citizens can vote — something, Alarcón said, that seems to be as commonplace and simple as the right to education and health care. However, it is not the same in other parts of the world, like in the United States, he added. That wish is expressed in Cuba by means of the automatic, universal and free registration of voters; the list of voters is public and is under the people’s control, “because here we know who can vote and where,” he said.

At 9:00 am on Election Day, Comrade Fidel Castro sent a message to the Cuban people as they turned out across the country to vote, saying, “I cast the full slate vote as a matter of conscience.” In his message, Fidel noted he did not have to get soaked in the rain pouring in the western part of the country as a representative of the electoral commission picked up the sealed envelope containing the ballots and took it to his corresponding voting station. Instruction No. 3 from the National Electoral Commission stipulates that in those cases where an elector cannot attend the polling station due to physical impediment, they may request the assistance of the Electoral Desk to allow them to exercise their right to vote in their home or other location. The President of the Desk acts accordingly and appropriately, always ensuring that the Electoral Law is fulfilled and that the regulations concerning respect for secrecy are upheld. The two ballots completed by Fidel were deposited in the ballot box by Migdalia García, president of the Desk, who explained to the press that another 15 neighbors from the area had also requested the same cooperation.

Alarcón spoke to reporters after casting his vote. “I have voted as my conscience dictated me to,” he told reporters gathered at the voting station. Addressing the characteristics of these general elections, Alarcón said that like in previous polls, renovation is a key ingredient. “Approximately two thirds of the candidates are first time nominees,” said the leader. “This is what guarantees the continuity of the Cuban Revolution.”

The head of Cuba’s National Assembly spoke about the candidates of his voting station, one of which is Ramón Labañino, one of the Five Cuban anti-terrorist fighters held in U.S. jails since 1998. Alarcón told the press “I voted for him and although the vote is secret, I openly say that I voted for the full slate of candidates.”

Alarcón said that in the short lapse of time he was alone in the ballot box to cast his vote, he thought of those who cannot cast theirs for one reason or another, and he thought of the Cuban Five.

“By March 5, the Parliament will have met to elect the Council of State and Cuba’s President,” Alarcón announced. A question from the media regarding whether Fidel would be re-elected as Cuban President, moved him to say, “As a deputy I should be consulted on that decision, and my answer is “Yo voto por el con las dos manos (two hands up for him).”

Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque said the general elections make the Cuban Revolution invincible. After casting his vote in a Havana, Pérez Roque stressed the high consciousness the Cuban people have developed over the past 49 years, resisting constant U.S. threats and aggressions. These elections not only strengthen socialism, they also are a proof of national unity, which reveals the patriotic and justice-seeking spirit of the people, he said The new parliament will have to adopt important laws that strengthen the Cuban state and take decisions that ratify issues addressed by First Vice President Raúl Castro last July 26, in eastern Camaguey City, he added. It will be a parliament faithful to the mandate that the people have given it, a mandate of work to strengthen the Revolution and Socialism, he said.

Buffalo Forum expresses its warmest congratulations to the Cuban people on their successful election. Unity in action in defense of their nation-building project is the guarantee that it will prevail

[TOP]

Results of Full Slate Election

On January 20, 8.23 million Cubans participated in the full slate general elections to elect delegates to the provincial assemblies and the members of the National Assembly (Congress). Maria Esther Reus, President of the National Electoral Commission described the vote as very successful, saying that this figure represents 96 percent of the total 8.5 million registered Cuban voters.

In the Commission’s preliminary report, announced during an episode of the prime-time TV show “The Roundtable,” Reus explained that all 614 deputies to the National Parliament and all 1,201 delegates to provincial assemblies were elected as a result of the massive vote. The National Assembly elects 31 of its members to form the Council of State, the assembly’s permanent organ and the highest representative body of the state. Elections to the national and provincial assemblies take place every five years.

Reus explained that out of all 8,230,832 ballots cast, 95.24 per cent were valid, 91 percent favored the full slate of candidates, 3.73 percent of the ballots were blank and 1.04 per cent were annulled. She pointed out that the results are very close to previous ones held last October 2007 and proved the commitment and participation of the people in the electoral process.

The administration of the elections can be evaluated as more than satisfactory, given the enthusiasm of the population and the discipline of all the electoral structures, said Reus.

The final result of the elections will be released in the coming days after all the counting of ballots is concluded. The final percent of voters could still increase as a result of these further tabulations, Reus pointed out.

As part of preparations to ensure a smooth process and maximum participation, a dynamic test was run January 11 across the island, which confirmed that the infrastructure was in place and ready for the elections to take place in all 38,353 electoral colleges of the country.

All 614 deputies elected, plus the 1,201 delegates to form the provincial assemblies were backed by over 2 million consultations made to the population and different social and grassroots organizations.

The January 20 vote was the second round in the Cuban elections that began in October 2007. Deputies to the city-level assemblies were elected in the first round.

[TOP]

Information on the Cuban Electoral System

Laws governing Cuban elections have developed over time, serving to increase the role of the people in them. The current election was based on the constitutional reform of 1992. It takes place in two parts. The first, last October, was general elections for delegates at the municipal level, to local assemblies. These delegates are elected by direct vote and serve terms of two and a half years. The second part of elections, for provincial (state) legislatures and for the National Assembly, took place January 20. These representatives, at the state and national level, serve a term of 5 years. Elected representatives in Cuba maintain their regular jobs and are not paid to be representatives — serving is done on a volunteer basis.

In the case of delegates to the municipal assemblies, citizens vote for only one of the candidates or none. When it comes to the provincial delegates and deputies, a voter can vote for all, various, one or none. Members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces and other armed forces institutions have the right to be elected.

Cuba’s municipal and provincial bodies elect candidates for the National Assembly. Then, in March 2008, the elected legislature will select the 31 members of the Council of State, which in turn will choose Cuba’s president and head of state. It took months of hard work to conclude this project of candidatures for the provincial assemblies and the National Assembly across the island.

To vote in Cuba is a constitutional right and people 16 and older are automatically included in the electoral rolls, except the mentally ill or those serving prison sentences, even when on parole. Grass-root organizations such as the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), the Cuban Workers’ Confederation (CTC), the Cuban Women’s Federation (FMC) and the Federation of University Students (FEU) nominated 50 percent of the candidates while municipal delegates nominated the other 50 percent.

There are 1,815 seats contested to form the National Assembly and the 14 Provincial Assemblies of People’s Power; 614 of them for the National Assembly (Cuban Congress) and 1,201 for the provincial governments. The list of candidates voted on in the January 20 general elections in Cuba showed an increase in the number of young people standing for election.

Of the 614 candidates for the congress, 374 (60.91 per cent) were born after the triumph of the Revolution in 1959. Another 134 (21.82 per cent) were under the age of ten at that time. Only 106 candidates (17.25 per cent) experienced capitalism in Cuba.

After expressing their interest in running for election, the candidates were proposed by the electoral commissions from the 169 municipal assemblies (city councils) based on the careers and human qualities of the possible candidates before submitting them to the people for the January 20 vote.

In terms of continuity and renewal, 36.78 percent of the candidates (224) are incumbents in the current 609-member legislature. Therefore, a little over 63.22 per cent (385 legislators) are newcomers in the new legislature of 614 members with the additional 5 members reflecting population growth.

42.16 percent of the candidates (265) are women and the majority (481) have university level education (78.34 per cent) with 127 (20.68 per cent) having high school and/or technical degrees.

The Communist Party of Cuba is the vanguard organization of the Cuban nation and orients “common efforts” in support of the objectives of social transformations underway in the country, but it is not an entity that is part of the electoral process. The Party does not propose or elect candidates; as a political body, it does not intervene in competitive elections, but serves as the organizer and guarantor of transparency and true democracy in the process.

In Cuba, the people nominate and elect their representatives, taking into account the individual social merits of its citizens and not their party affiliation. The Cuban electoral system constitutes a genuine expression of participatory democracy through which the people nominate and elect their representatives.

Ricardo Alarcón, President of the Cuban National Assembly expressed that the constant threats of the U.S. government against Cuba and its insistence in harming our nation and dividing our people, is one of the main reasons to vote for all candidates in the upcoming national general elections on January 20, the Ambassador said.

“This plan created half a century ago — aimed at causing unease, dissatisfaction, problems and difficulties — is still in place and that is why it is so necessary that revolutionaries stay united and fight our own deficiencies,” Alarcón said.

[TOP]

National Assembly Sets Work for 2008

On December 28, the Cuban National Assembly after two days of work in its 10 permanent commissions, met to sum up the achievements of the past year and discuss and vote on the main economic and social projects for 2008. The meeting was the tenth and last ordinary session of the Sixth Legislature, which began in 2003, before the election of its new members on January 20.

On December 27, Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque affirmed in the International Relations Commission that 2007 was a year of important victories for the Revolution’s foreign policy, and of failure on the part of the United States to isolate Cuba.

Pérez Roque said that in 2007, Cuba’s strategic victory over U.S. imperialism’s attempts to isolate the Cuban Revolution was expanded, deepened and consolidated. Likewise, he said, opposition grew to the U.S. blockade against the island, given that in 2007, 184 countries — one more than in 2006 — in the UN General Assembly asked Washington to end that nearly 50-year-old policy.

Minister of Culture Abel Prieto affirmed that education, culture and sports are essential tools in the emancipation and development of human beings. In statements to journalists, he highlighted the idea recently put forward by singer-songwriter Silvio Rodríguez about taking art to the prisons, because it represents the antithesis of the models of exclusiveness currently in style in the world.

Alfredo Morales, minister of labor and social security, told members of the Economic Affairs Commission that in 2007, Cuba continued to qualify for the category of full employment given that for the fourth straight year, it had an unemployment rate that was under two percent.

Morales said that there are jobs in industries like construction, agriculture, educational and health services that must be filled in order to continue raising the country’s social development. He said it was necessary to maintain an appropriate relationship between increased growth and average wages.

The December 28 meeting of the National Assembly was also addressed by acting head of state Raúl Castro. Cuban President Fidel Castro, while physically absent, addressed the National Assembly via a speech presented by Assembly President Ricardo Alarcón.

[TOP]

Cuban President Fidel Castro’s
Message to Cuban National Assembly

Dear Comrade Alarcón:

Please read the following message, addressed to the National Assembly, when you open the morning session. A heartfelt embrace,

Fidel Castro Ruz
December 27, 2007

***

Comrades of the National Assembly:

You have no easy task on your hands. On January 1st, 1959, surrounded by the accumulated and deepening grievances that our society inherited from its neo-colonial past under U.S. domination, many of us dreamed of creating a fully independent nation where justice prevailed. In the arduous and uneven struggle, there came the moment when we were left completely alone.

Nearly 50 years since the triumph of the Revolution, we can justifiably feel proud of ourselves, as we have held our ground, for almost half a century, in the struggle against the most powerful empire ever to exist in history. In the Proclamation I signed on July 31, 2006, none of you saw any signs of nepotism or an attempt to usurp parliamentary powers. That year, at once difficult and promising for the Revolution, the unity of the people, the Party and State were essential to continue moving forward and to face the declared threat of a military action by the United States.

This past December 24, during his visit to the various districts of the municipality which honored me with the nomination of candidate to parliament, Raúl noted that all of the numerous candidates proposed by the people of a district famous for its combativeness, but with a low educational level, had completed their higher education. This, as he said on Cuban television, made a profound impression in him.

Party, State and Government cadres and grassroots organizations face new problems in their work with an intelligent, watchful and educated people who detest bureaucratic hurdles and inconsiderate justifications. Deep down, every citizen wages an individual battle against humanity’s innate tendency to stick to its survival instincts, a natural law which governs all life.

We are all born marked by that instinct, which science defines as primary. Coming face to face with this instinct is rewarding because it leads us to a dialectical process and to a constant and altruistic struggle, bringing us closer to Martí and making us true communists.

What the international press has emphasized most in its reports on Cuba in recent days is the statement I made on the 17th of this month, in a letter to the director of Cuban television’s Round Table program, where I said that I am not clinging to power. I could add that for some time I did, due to my youth and lack of awareness, when, without any guidance, I started to leave my political ignorance behind and became a utopian socialist. It was a stage in my life when I believed I knew what had to be done and wanted to be in a position to do it! What made me change? Life did, delving more deeply into Martí’s ideas and those of the classics of socialism. The more deeply I became involved in the struggle, the stronger was my identification with those aims and, well before the revolutionary victory I was already convinced that it was my duty to fight for these aims or to die in combat.

We also face great risks that threaten the human species as a whole. This has become more and more evident to me since I predicted, for the first time in Rio de Janeiro — over 15 years ago, in June 1992 — that a species was threatened with extinction as a result of the destruction of its natural habitat. Today, the number of people who understand the real danger of this grows every day.

A recent book by Joseph Stiglitz, former Vice-President of the World Bank and President Clinton’s chief economic advisor until 2002, Nobel Prize laureate and bestselling author in the United States, offers up-to-date and irrefutable facts on the subject. He criticizes the United States, a country which did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, for being the largest producer of carbon dioxide in the world, with annual emissions of 6 billion tons of this gas which disturbs the atmosphere without which life is impossible. In addition to this, the United States is the largest producer of other greenhouse gases.

Few people are aware of these facts. The same economic system which forced this unsustainable wastefulness on us impedes the distribution of Stiglitz’ book. Only a few thousand copies of an excellent edition have been published, enough to guarantee a margin of profit. This responds to a market demand, which the publishing house cannot ignore if it is to survive.

Today, we know that life on Earth has been protected by the ozone layer, located in the atmosphere’s outer ring, at an altitude between 15 to 50 kilometers, in the region known as the stratosphere, which acts as the planet’s shield against the type of solar radiation which can prove harmful. There are greenhouse gases whose warming potential is higher than that of carbon dioxide and which widen the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica, which loses as much as 70 percent of its volume every spring. The effects of this phenomenon, which is gradually taking place, are humanity’s responsibility. To have a clear sense of this phenomenon, suffice it to say that the world produces an average of 4.37 metric tons of carbon dioxide per capita. In the case of the United States, the average is 20.14, nearly 5 times as much. In Africa, it is 1.17, while in Asia and Oceania it is 2.87. The ozone layer, in brief, protects us from ultraviolet and heat radiation which affects the immune system, sight, skin and life of human beings. Under extreme conditions, the destruction of that layer by human beings would affect all forms of life on the planet.

Other problems, foreign to our nation and many others under similar conditions, also threaten us. A victorious counterrevolution would spell a disaster for us, worse than Indonesia’s tragedy. Sukarno, overthrown in 1967, was a nationalist leader who, loyal to Indonesia, headed the guerrillas who fought the Japanese. General Suharto, who overthrew him, had been trained by Japanese occupation forces. At the conclusion of World War II, Holland, a U.S. ally, re-established control over that distant, extensive and populated area. Suharto maneuvered. He hoisted the banners of U.S. imperialism. He committed an atrocious act of genocide. Today we know that, under instructions from the CIA, he not only killed hundreds of thousands but also imprisoned a million communists and deprived them and their relatives of all properties or rights; his family amassed a fortune of 40 billion dollars — which, at today’s rates, would be equivalent to hundreds of billions — by handing over the country’s natural resources, the sweat of Indonesians, to foreign investors. The West paid up. Texan-born Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, was then the President of the United States.

The news on the events in Pakistan we received today [referring to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto] also attest to the dangers that threaten our species: internal conflict in a country that possesses nuclear weapons. This is a consequence of the adventurous policies of and the wars aimed at securing the world’s natural resources unleashed by the United States. Pakistan, involved in a conflict it did not unleash, faced the threat of being taken back to the Stone Age.

The extraordinary circumstances faced by Pakistan had an immediate effect on oil prices and stock exchange shares. No country or region in the world can disassociate itself from the consequences. We must be prepared for anything.

There has not been a day in my life in which I have not learned something. Martí taught us that “all of the world’s glory fits in a kernel of corn.” Many times have I said and repeated this phrase, which carries in eleven words a veritable school of ethics.

Cuba’s Five Heroes, imprisoned by the empire, are to be held up as examples for the new generations. Fortunately, exemplary conduct will continue to flourish with the consciousness of our peoples as long as our species exists.

I am certain that many young Cubans, in their struggle against the Giant in the Seven-League Boots, will do as they did. Money can buy everything save the soul of a people who has never gone down on its knees.

I read the brief and concise report which Raúl wrote and sent me. We must not waste a minute as we continue to move forward. I will raise my hand, next to you, to show my support.

[TOP]