User talk:BruceHallman/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bruce, I think there's a more thorough BBC quote out there, which talks about the spoiled papers being explicitly called for as a protest against Castro. Speaking of the BBC, I was listening to an in-depth piece on the radio about Cuba the other day. They archive a lot of stuff on their site for a week so I recommend having a listen, it was on Radio 5 - but there are often shows related to Cuba on radio 4 in the archives. --Zleitzen 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, here is a sandbox for amending the human rights section. I'd like to complete a new version, and then ask for external third opinion from neutral editors outside the compound of the main page. [1]

It's amusing to find a Bletch quote halfway down that "pro" list!--Zleitzen 20:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope that being amusing is not being sarcastic. The reality is that our dispute is about the defintion of 'democracy'. Bletch seems to believe that only pluralist democracy is 'democracy'. Actually, Cuban democracy has a name, it is called 'direct democracy' and is a type of democracy. BruceHallman 17:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, I hope you don't mind my additional explanation about democracy. I was thinking in terms of the Cuban NPOV manual. --Zleitzen 16:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind. I welcome the constructive collaboration. BruceHallman 17:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Government paragraph

Bruce, have been thinking about what I want from the Government paragraph. There has to be a watertight exploration of these views, otherwise editors from all sides will sweep in and cut the whole article to ribbons.

Notes for proposed paragraph

  1. -Due to the particular nature of Cuban electoral system there are differeing views on relationship with democracy
  2. -Cuban leaders describe "direct" or "centralized" democracy - pointing to UN resolution that there is no fixed democracy
  3. -Political Supporters and some analysts also attest to Cuban democracy (Chavez quote)
  4. -Others disagree (Peru)
  5. -Many contemporary political scientists define democracy in a certain way. Cuba doesn't fit that model.
  6. -US particuarly disagree (freedom house etc) classify as not a democracy.
  7. -Some kind of clause to putting no.5 and 6 in context ?????

How does the above sit with you?--Zleitzen 05:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] hmmm

1. -Due to the particular nature of Cuban electoral system there are differeing views on relationship with democracy

The topic is goverment, why lead with 'electoral system'? The structure of the government is defined in their constitution, so that would be the best data source, I guess.

Agreed, the importance of my wording was nominal when I wrote that.--Zleitzen 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

2. -Cuban leaders describe "direct" or "centralized" democracy - pointing to UN resolution that there is no fixed democracy

It is not only a description, but it appears to me that it is also close to reality. The smoke of the opposition focuses upon the top, but there is a clear reality of a grassroots on which governmental power resides. Cubans in Cuba are proud people. A large part of this grassroots power is collective solidarity against outside threat, I observe.

Your observations are the elephant in the room! --Zleitzen 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that I know that UN resolution you refer to, please cite.

I've put the UN resolution in the "Pro citations" section. I noticed that Cuban authorities point to that to help explain their system.--Zleitzen 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

3. -Political Supporters and some analysts also attest to Cuban democracy (Chavez quote) 4. -Others disagree (Peru)

The section should end with summaries of support and opposition arguments, sure.

5. -Many contemporary political scientists define democracy in a certain way. Cuba doesn't fit that model.

Probably necessary, but this could easily degrade into an article about what Cuba is not.

I think it needs to go in to protect the article. but you're right. the wording needs to be careful. --Zleitzen 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

6. -US particuarly disagree (freedom house etc) classify as not a democracy.

Not their 'favorite type' of democracy. I don't know how to explore this, but in a large part the 'picture frame' around the Cuban government is the hostility from the north. Also, in a large part, solidarity against the threat from the north holds the Cuban governmental system together. Somehow the context of the US:Cuban conflict in relation to the government might be explored.

That's what I'm thinking in relation to no.7. Again the US:Cuban conflict is the elephant in the room. It would be safest to at least infer that the "freedom house" analysis should be viewed in respect to the US:Cuban conflict.--Zleitzen 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

7. -Some kind of clause to putting no.5 and 6 in context ?????


Also. The concept of an attempt at a socialist government is a very alien concept to people weaned in western socializatoin and subjected to the western political political paradigm. Cuba has its own alien societal/governmental paradigm, and sticking such a square conceptual peg into the round hole of western sensibility is a tough task.

[edit] Proposed Democracy paragraph (without citations, decent punctuation and maybe British spelling)

The distinct nature of grassroots political participation in Cuba has fostered much international discussion concerning the nature of modern democracy. In 2000, Cuba sponsored the adopted UN resolution (55/96) which affirmed the recognition that “while all democracies share common features, there is no one universal model of democracy”"[2] . Some international analysts have also suggested that Cuba’s constitution describes a Direct democracy[3] or “Centralized democracy”. In 2006, the discussion gained additional attention after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez referred to the Cuban model as a “revolutionary democracy”[4]. Peruvian presidential candidate and fellow Bolivarian leader Ollanta Humala responded, arguing that by Peruvian standards “Cuba does not qualify as a democracy"[5]. Modern Western political theory as advocated by groups including Freedom House, an organisation funded jointly by US Government and private investment budgets, demands more exact requisites to distinguish the criteria of electoral democracy. These include a competitive, multiparty political system, open political campaigning and independent media. Consequently such groups determine that Cuba cannot be considered a modern functioning democracy, and frequently campaign to promote the implementation of these criteria to the island.

[edit] Points of interest

Hi Bruce, a few points of outside interest; there was a 2-page interview with Hugo Chavez in my newspaper yesterday which is to be found here [6]. The interview touches on exactly the key subjects of the Cuba democracy debate. I also spotted an interesting/extraordinary comment made on a BBC page by a reader stating "shall the will of the people prevail if the majority wishes to return to privatization of the national economy and its institutions, as would be the case in a democracy? [7]. Another piece that caught my eye was this which touches on perhaps the most important global issue of the last 3-4 years (more so than the war on terror) that barely gets a mention. It's the gradual shift by OPEC nations from the Dollar to the Euro. This will have a huge impact on Cuba, and even more so on the United States. I'm amazed that this doesn't get more coverage.--Zleitzen 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)