In Cuba, citizen criticism is treated as a threat rather than a legitimate right, worsening the social and economic crisis. The 2019 Constitution guarantees freedoms of expression and movement, but reality involves arbitrary use of laws to punish dissent. This blocks participation channels essential for correcting errors and solving problems.
Dissent in any society serves to highlight problems, question political decisions, and hold leaders accountable. In Cuba, amid a prolonged crisis featuring food and medicine shortages, recurrent blackouts, and declining quality of life, managing the situation requires reviewing decisions and opening participation channels. Yet, any citizen criticism is viewed as a threat, heightening existing tensions.
Cuba's 2019 Constitution states: “The State recognizes, respects and guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and expression to all individuals.” It also ensures due process and the freedom to enter, remain, cross, and leave the national territory. Despite this, a significant gap exists with daily reality: terms like “disobedience” and national security regulations are applied expansively and arbitrarily to legitimate rights exercises.
Cases such as the detention of entrepreneur William Sosa and the travel ban on historian Alexander Hall exemplify this. The government's handling of independent media outlet El Toque, linked to island collaborators and entrepreneurs, has been highly questionable. Legal actions proceed only for specified conducts like disseminating fake news causing verifiable harm or libel, but they demand a rule-of-law state protecting press freedom, which Cuba lacks.
Labels like “media terrorism” lack basis in international treaties and appear as police responses rather than legitimate critiques. Distinguishing government criticism from country attacks is vital; the former often stems from collective welfare concerns.
Public interest restrictions are not unique to Cuba, but must follow clear rules and due process. Using national security to suppress peaceful dissent erodes institutional trust and trivializes the concept. External hostility does not absolve internal duties in economy and services.
Criminalizing dissent breeds extremism, polarization, and institutional delegitimization. The case of former Economy Minister Alejandro Gil shows this: economists and journalists warned of economic decision risks on social media and independent outlets, dismissed as “enemy agendas,” until official probes confirmed issues. Silencing dissent proves counterproductive; safe spaces for criticism are needed to enable corrections and crisis resolution through dialogue, not coercion.