User talk:Zleitzen/Cuba Government Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to add any points below, But I reserve the right to remove comments. Please ensure that discussion is inclusive and constructive, and please show respect to the views of other users. It is my belief that discussion and the sharing of ideas on talk pages is important, so please feel welcome to introduce any ideas and thoughts you may have on the subject matter. --Zleitzen 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Government and politics sections

Cuba (present version from page)


France


Vietnam


Colombia


Iceland


Iran

[edit] Disscusion

I went ahead and edited in some information--tell me what you think! Mystork 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, one point at a time
They are both in a sense correct. It's to do with the constitution, if memory serves me, it used to say the above. But now says something along your lines (something to do with the vanguard?). But the situation still applies that it still is the sole legal political party and there is a fairly uncontroversial source to back that up. For information purposes I prefer the above. --Zleitzen 01:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Either way is fine, I just suggested that for cosmetic reasons, because the prior version is a little more long-winded (as legal documents usually are.) Mystork 01:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The president of the council of state (Fidel Casstro) and the president of the National Assembly (Ricardo Alarcon) are both elected by secret ballot from deputies of the National Assembly. no issues, it's more informative.--Zleitzen 01:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering about this section that you removed "The Party leadership profess that Cuba is a centralized democracy, meaning that decision-making and popular participation occurs within mass organizations, institutionalized by the state". Is it better in or out? There are good arguments both ways.
I think it would be better to just stick to the facts. This doesn't really say anything new, other than perhaps hint at the influence of popular organisations on government, I could try to find factual reference to that. (I'll be back online in a few hours to continue this discussion) Mystork 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, expanded a bit more. Look okay? Mystork 05:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 97% of Cubans are eligible to vote I'm not clear about that one!--Zleitzen 01:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Right I ment to add "of voting age" I suppose the other 3% are felons and recent immigrants. Mystork 04:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We could do with more sources really to defend the statements, the consitution can be found on the cuba page--Zleitzen 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have my severe doubts that a secret ballot in a one party state is a genuine secret ballot - as Z mentioned, it is, along with the permitted nomination of temporising (or outright stooge) "independent" candidates, something designed to maintain a fiction of democracy (see National Front (Czechoslovakia)). I also have my doubts that there will not be a power struggle after Fidel and Raul are both gone - that's just the way things work. PMA

That's a legitimate point PMA. Do you have any info on the secret ballets? --Zleitzen 05:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That is what i plan to research - Not that i expect to find much against my view that they are a device for assisting a fiction as above, PMA 05:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
They have inspectors but I can't remember off the top of my head who they are. --Zleitzen 05:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, Cuba successfully did their version of glasnost and perestroika, whereas eastern europe failed... Cuba today is nothing like eastern europe 15 years ago. For what its worth, the mainstream media does not challenge the validity of Cuban elections. Nor did I hear anything of the sort when I was in Cuba, nor does the Carter center say anything about it on its webpage Mystork 05:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Section 2

Hi PMA, I prefer the factual "in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party" wording which can be cited from the source. This is generally supported by editors including Adam. Would you object if we kept it that way? The secret ballots still needs some research, I don't think we can link it another Wikipedia article, have you any more info on this?--Zleitzen 21:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me though i thought you agreed with my point that secret ballots in such a one party state are not really genuine and exist like the nominal "independents", only to help maintain a fiction of political pluralism. PMA 22:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there a source you have that supports that view PMA?--Zleitzen 22:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That is what i am researching - but we agreed that it would be pretty likely to be the truth. PMA 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Although not on this exact topic, this is very interesting - http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2003eng/chap.4a.htm PMA 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's more for the human rights section, notably "On March 18, 2003, Cuban authorities began a week-long crackdown on human rights activists and independent journalists that culminated in the arrest of about 100 activists." which is an issue that is still unresolved today I believe, with 70 activists still incarcerated. --Zleitzen 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I still think we need some kind of evidence to prove the elections are a sham. You would probabaly be suprised how popular Castro is in Cuba.Mystork 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
We need a source, and then we need to evaluate the source in relation to the article.--Zleitzen 00:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This from Human Rights Watch, again about human rights violations - http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/americas/back1108.htm - other sites say the obvious "Critics say that Cuban elections are a sham while supporters say that Castro is genuinely popular" (in my opinion the latter is impossible to gauge with only one legal political party and a handfull of nominal independents). Also given the evidence from Human Rights Watch et al i would err on the side of probability and not give much credence to the Cuban government line on pretty much anything. PMA 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)