Change of Course

North American economist Milton Friedman said that a society’s economic arrangements play a dual role in promoting freedom. First of all, economic freedom is an essential part of personal freedom, and, therefore, it is an end in itself. Secondly, according to Friedman, economic freedom is an indispensable step towards political freedom. Although the paths to economic freedom and political freedom are not exactly the same, we are essentially talking about only one type of freedom. The ability to choose, without coercion, what to produce and what to finance is not fundamentally different than choosing which political program to support with your taxes. In Cuba, economic freedom, despite gaining momentum, still has not been able to open the door to the political freedom that the locals need, but, little by little, the situation could change.

For more than five decades, the Caribbean nation has lived with a fierce communist dictatorship, with a government that has plunged its residents into anachronistic, international ostracism. Cuba is a country in which the Castro brothers determine practically every aspect of life and in which dissidence and criticism are still not permitted.

Despite the harsh repression, Barack Obama’s administration recently decided to resume diplomatic relations with Cuba and leave behind years of economic embargo and political isolation. Without a doubt, the decision was historic for Obama’s feeble government, and it might be one of his greatest legacies.

The relaxation of Cuba’s economic conditions will not be enough to move the island towards a true democracy, especially since the conditions demanded by the United States to resume relations were not substantial, but it may move the island in the right direction. The embargo, imposed half a century ago with the alleged purpose of weakening the Cuban government, has actually and principally undermined the economies of Cuban families and supplied the Castrists with, on the one hand, a justification for their weak efforts as governors and, on the other, a motive for national union against an “external enemy.”

Several reforms in Cuba timidly indicate greater economic freedom. The mobile telephone, almost nonexistent until recently, now has more than three million users; the automobile and property markets have relaxed; and, between this year and next, more than 3,000 restaurants will become privately managed. The hope is that these changes in economy and connectivity will empower Cuban citizens, give them a greater understanding of their civil rights and, eventually, create a demand for political reform.

Of course, there is also the risk that this relaxation will somehow legitimize the Castro dictatorship and strengthen its power even more. However, after more than half a century of communist regime and failed attempts to shut down the Cuban administration, it would be foolish not to think about creating a different path to facilitate the way for Cuban families to discuss ideas, organize themselves and advance economically. Only when Cubans begin to feel responsible for their own destiny will they have the incentive to demand a voice in their government and representation from their authorities.

In fact, the state’s role is to preserve individuals’ freedoms, protecting them from those who would intimidate them, including, on many occasions, the governments in power. Thinking about Cuba’s situation and many more, John F. Kennedy’s maxim about citizens’ responsibility to their country could be restated in a way that we do not ask ourselves what we can do for our country, but rather what we can achieve through our governments as free citizens. That will be, in the end, the true measure of our community’s political progress and the great Cuban victory.