His name was Diosbel Véliz Marín. Diosbel made a living driving a bicycle taxi through the streets of Havana. A longtime opposition activist who had endured detentions, fines, and police restrictions for his political activities, he was reported stabbed to death this past August 26. The circumstances remain unresolved, and his killing has not been conclusively linked to the Cuban government.
Those of us who know the history of the Cuban "revolution" and the promises made in its name know what happens when a government claims to speak for the people while denying them the freedom to choose their rulers. That is why Diosbel's name matters here. While American politicians argue over socialism and democracy, a Cuban dissident who spent years challenging a one-party regime is dead. His story deserves to be heard, his death deserves a credible investigation, and his name deserves to be remembered.
The American left works hard at redefining socialism as democracy. Cuba paints itself as a people's revolution… a true democracy, but the language is different from the reality. I have heard the promises before, and I know why we should never accept them without looking at what lies behind them.
Consider Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic socialist who has been making his case to American voters. In his exchanges with Fox News host Martha MacCallum, he has demonstrated a familiar political maneuver: take a word with an established meaning, redefine it to suit your argument, and then accuse anyone who rejects your definition of misunderstanding the issue. Socialism becomes democracy because it is presented as government acting for ordinary people. Government spending becomes proof of compassion. Public control becomes a remedy for private failure. The argument moves from what a policy promises to what its advocates want us to believe about their intentions. But good intentions are not a system of government. A politician's claim to represent working people does not establish that he respects their freedom. And calling something democratic does not make it so.
The question is not whether a government can provide a service, regulate a market, or help someone in need. Free societies debate those questions every day. The question is what happens when the people who exercise power refuse to surrender it, when political competition becomes a threat to the state, and when citizens discover that they can criticize the government only at the government's pleasure. And there is no need for speculation on any of those issues. We can simply look at Cuba.
The Cuban government calls its system a people's revolution. Its constitution tells a more revealing story. Article 5 of the 2019 Constitution establishes the Communist Party as the superior political force of society and the state. Article 4 declares the socialist system irrevocable. Read those provisions carefully. The party is not simply one political organization competing for the public's support. It occupies a constitutionally privileged position. The system itself is declared beyond reversal. What kind of popular sovereignty is that? If the people are the source of political authority, they must be free to remove those who govern them. If they cannot choose another party to lead the country, their choices are circumscribed before they ever reach the ballot box.
A government that cannot be voted out has solved the problem of political competition by eliminating the possibility of losing.
That is the great socialist con. It sells power in the name of the people while placing power beyond their reach.
Cuba's revolution promised dignity, equality, and a new political order, and its current (and past) rulers still invoke those promises. But a promise is not a result, and revolutionary credentials do not confer on a permanent right to rule. The people who made the revolution, or were born into the society it created, do not surrender their freedom simply because the government claims to act in their interests.
Diosbel Véliz Marín understood enough of that reality to oppose the regime. Reports from independent Cuban news outlets describe years of pressure against him, including detentions and fines connected to his opposition activity. His political life was not an abstract argument about economic theory. It was a struggle against a state that does not welcome organized challenges to its authority. After his killing, José Díaz Silva, the head of the opposition movement to which Diosbel belonged, alleged that State Security was involved. That allegation has not been independently established, and the circumstances of the murder remain unresolved. I will not pretend to know who killed Diosbel or why, but I am sure I do. I will insist that his history of political harassment matters, that the killing deserves a credible investigation, that the Cuban government was involved, and that the public deserves answers.
The distinction matters. We do not honor a dead dissident by claiming knowledge we do not possess. We honor him by telling the truth about the country in which he lived, the opposition he joined, the pressure he endured, and by demanding answers to the unanswered questions surrounding his death.
Americans should pay attention because the language used to sell a political system can conceal the reality of how that system operates. The word "democracy" carries enormous moral weight. So does revolution. Both can be used to suggest that a government belongs to ordinary people, even when those people have little power to challenge it. The test is not what a movement calls itself. The test is whether its citizens can speak freely, organize against those in power, publish criticism, and replace their rulers without fear of punishment. Diosbel's life gives that test a human face. He was not a slogan or a talking point. He was a man who made his living on the streets of Havana and chose to oppose a government that had made political dissent dangerous. His name should be spoken here, not because every detail of his death is known, but because we know what his struggle was about.
I have heard the promises of the Cuban revolution. I have also watched the American left wrap socialism in the language of compassion, fairness, and democracy. The packaging changes. The question remains: who holds power, and what can the people do when they want it back?
We should ask that question before accepting the sales pitch. We should ask it when a politician redefines democracy to make his preferred policies sound inevitable. And we should ask it when a government insists that its revolution is the people's will while denying the people a meaningful choice.
Diosbel Véliz Marín deserves to be remembered by name. His story belongs in the American debate over socialism because it reminds us that political freedom is not a decorative feature of democracy. It is the thing that makes democracy possible.
The people do not own a revolution when they cannot challenge its rulers. The rulers own the people.
Image: Pixabay
Source link
