why the cuban regime is self-contradicting?

one reason that the Cuban revolution was supposedly undertaken was to allow Cubans to become dignified human beings;and the Cuban revolutionaries accomplished that through mass-education; and I recommend them for this colossal achievement. However, it is unethical not to allow educated people to think for themselves as to how they should be governed. *While it may be argued that uneducated people cannot be entrusted with the future of a nation*, no such arguments can be reasonably made with regard to educated people. if the Cuban regime is afraid that their people would be taken advantage of in the future if it were to allow a gradual process of democratization, then the regime would have no respect for the dignity, and the capacity of the Cuban people to reason; for one cannot brag about how many doctors one has per capita while at the same argues that these brain-surgeons are incapable of directing the future of their government. Therefore, the more autocratic the revolutionary regime remains, the more it contradicts itself; for revolutions are not meant to create a status quo of a different ideology or a different philosophy imposed perpetually. a true revolution is a means to an end, and that end is the restoration of human dignity in terms of economic, intellectual, political, cultural and sexual freedom. In light of this, I think that the cuban regime has way overstayed its welcome.

* I do not personally believe that uneducated people should not be entrusted with the future of a nation in terms of their ability to choose their leaders; however, I agree with david brooks that democracy is not average people ruling average people, but rather democracy is average people having the wisdom to choose the best and the most capable to lead them. keep in mind that I am not talking about elitism or oligarchy here because I do not intend to allow any misunderstanding with regard to what I truely believe , but the ability of the common people to recognize merit wherever it may arise(from the rich or from the poor). I am a firm believer in meritocracy and demonstrated govermental wisdom.

"but rather democracy is average people having the wisdom to choose the best and the most capable to lead them. "

Who told you that the Castro brothers are not the better and the more capable to lead them?Are Georges Bush and Dick Cheney the better and more capable to lead the people who were victimized by Katrina and millions of people who are worried about their savings and their homes?

I do not believe that having an election every four years or 6 years is a manifestation of democracy.Do we have democracy in Haiti since 1986?it takes some time to consolidate the power of the people.I would not have any objection to have a true government of the people ,by the people and for the people for some time in haiti without any election if it were working to alleviate the sufferings of the masses.I know some people will say I want a dictartorship in haiti;it is true as long as the dictator is not a thief and a criminal.The past 22 years show me clearly that democracy is not an ideology that you can impose on some people anytime you want.Democracy ,in my opinion ,is a political culture that needs to be nurtured.I do not think the so called haitian "elite" is ready for true democracy in haiti.Therefore I believe it is the duty of the people to choose the form of government that can alleviate their miseries ,and it is their duty to do it by all means necessary. Vive la revolution. Yes we can.

Joel, your counter-arguments in fact strengthen my points. the Castro brothers can no longer morally explain their self-appointments as the leaders of the nation. their paternalism is no longer morally sound. to say that a few men have better wisdom than an educated nation is ridiculous. if they think that they are the best In the nation, then they should allow the people to determine that via fair and open elections. Dictatorship for the good or for the bad, is still dictatorship. I can tolerate dictatorship as transitional since extreme circumstances require extreme measures, but not as a perpetual system of governance. it is the different views expressed with civility that spring a country forward. do not let the Chinese anomaly confuse you. true democracy remains the best means for a country to move ahead. the Chinese miracle is an historical fluke. now, the communist revolution may have taken Cubans out of extreme poverty and extreme ignorance, but it cannot take them to great nationhood and great intellectual productivity because such accomplishments require dissent at every level whether it be political or economic. go to Africa and you will see democratic Ghana, and Botswana, and Rwanda are much better than their autocratic neighbors. with all its problems, the process of democratization that is happening in Haiti will turn out to be the best approach. One does not have the right to self-appoint as the sole protector of a nation for life. what you rather be a robot who knows everything or an ignorant humans being? I will take an ignorant human being anytime. you say that when they feel that they are free from a threat, then they will be given the right to choose their own future. what kind of double-headed condition is that where the goal sought is also the condition for the goal itself?

sans malice, I have clearly said "gradual process of democratization", you are sometimes so antagonistic. they can do that by making the national congress half-appointed and half-elected. they can open up their economic system by allowing some form of land privatization. they also need new thinkers, guys that are not too stuck in the past; sometimes memory is good for defense, but it can also handicap you with fear to the point of you becoming a prisoner of your own past. life is a gamble. you have to risk to make it. if Cubans take democracy over autocracy, they will be risking something because democracy can bring instability, chaos and infighting, in the short-term but it is also more likely to bring wealth, productivity, respect, and true freedoms in the long-term. just as baby who is learning how to walk will fall, so will nations trying to play by the democratic rules. take a bridge for example, it is risky because it can collapse while you are driving on it, but it is a great thing for transportation where the benefit outweighs the risk. Nations that do not take risks end up unwittingly taking the miscalculated risks of others. this is not 1961, this is 2008.
The position of the Castro brothers no longer have moral legitimacy, and no one can convince otherwise. they had legitimacy at one point in time, but they are dead wrong now.

yes, Joel, we know the racism that led to the crushing of the Cuban colonial revolutionaries back in their history; but the same country of which you are speaking has espoused different rules. the same country has elevated a black family to the white house. if America was the same as it was in the past, both Venezuela and Bolivia would have had different presidents by now. you know that the CIA can no longer assassinate a foreign leader, that is great change my friend.
we cannot judge America by the standards of its past! I love this country, and it is the most benevolent superpower that the world has ever seen even if one takes slavery, McCarthyism, jimcrowism, and racism into account. They are all bad things, but if I were to judge America as a nation, I would still claim that it is a benevolent nation.

I am not antagonistic.We're a product of our experiences.We do not have the same view of the world because our experiences have been different.Why do you think the dictatorship of Franco in Spain lasted so long.?As Chavez said the best form of government is the one that does the most good for the majority of the people.Sometimes it takes many generations to change a society.

Your arguments would be valid if true democracy could be realized by elections only.Yes Cuba could be better off if the cubans had a more democratic regime .but it could be worst also.The haitian example shows it is not by organizing elections regularly that you install democracy in a country.I am not saying the situation in Cuba is ideal.However,considering the risks involved with a violent coup in Cuba I am willing to accept the status quo until the death of the Castro brothers.It is the cuban people which will decide what form of govenment is best for them.Not you, not me.not anybody else.

They're not robots as you seem to insinuate.They're the first people in the Americas which decided to live free or die in the 20th century.Despite everything ,they stick to their form of government;they did not choose mercenaries instead of the Castro brothers why?They could overthrow them the same way they get rid of Batista.Don't you think it is because they prefer stability instead of instability.Compare to the anarchy we have in haiti which is better?

It is a fallacy to advance that Democracy is the best form of government anywhere.
This system, designed by europeans to meet their need and ambitions has evolved in different directions and has adopted various forms to accomodate the sociology of the countries where it is practiced.

Democracy has many faces depending on the countries: USA, France, Italy, Great Britain, India, etc...

First example will be the country that is the loudest and sometimes violent proponent of that system: The U.S.A.

They have circumvented the principle of:one man, one vote and the gouvernment of the people, by the people, for the people, by defining the term people according to their vision which is predominently racist.

And the result is a society where, although the institutions are in place,the services and the benefits are dished out according to your origin.

The second most proeminent and the biggest democracy is India.

They have all the institutions in place. Their elections are held regularly.
But an enormous number of outcasts, which outnumber the population of all countries, are not eligible to postulate for an elective position. This is exclusion at its most vicious level, where people are condemned to remain in the same social limits from generation to generation.

But, those are cited as the bastions of Democracy and examples to be followed.

Democracy is not a European ideal. It is a politically evolutionary ideal. it is what one does when one values human dignity, otherwise one negates humanity. the idea that some are not suited for democracy is a white supremacist fallacy; and it always benefits local selfish autocrats. Haiti may be poor, but if Haiti maintains its course with democracy while Cuba maintains its course with autocracy, I can bet beyond my grave that Haiti will far surpass Cuba in terms of productivity of all kinds. Every group is potentially suited for democracy, all that is needed is a period of preparation. all cultures respect merit and demonstrated capacity; the only reason that they would tolerate the king or the chief is because they have been led to believe that these figures are the best characters to govern them. sometimes, those lies are based on divine right or other psychological legends. but if given the choice without coercion of any kind, the people will choose to elect their own government; the beauty of democracy is that it is self-correcting in that if it produces garbage, it can remove the garbage; but autocracy does not have that mechanism. autocracy produces stability, but that stability is negative because it is based on fear and oppression. and true progress cannot occur in fearful conditions. if a benevolent dictator turns malevolent, there is no mechanism in autocracy to rectify the situation, but democracy alone can get rid of a demagogue or a lying populist; and that self-correcting mechanism is sufficient enough to keep political recidivists from committing the same error over and over again without paying the consequences. now, I agree with you that some hypocrites have historically subverted the democratic principle, but that is a result of human imperfection, not a result of a somewhat democratic fallacy. that is to be expected. since almost anything in life can be abused or misused. similarly, one cannot reasonably argue that knives are bad in the kitchen or cutting meat because knives have been used in some cases to murder people.
now, do not get me wrong, i am capable of accepting a transitional dictatorship made of a group of humans that are using their temporary position as a means to an end, that is the creation of a true self-directing democracy; because sometimes, that kind of condition is required to move ahead just as infants need to be led until they can walk on their own; but the minute that a leader thinks that he is indispensable to the well-being of a nation, then that nation is in a lot of trouble. I will accept a revolutionary dictatorship as a transition, as a processor for true democracy, but the goal should always be that power must be given back to the people. one cannot claim to be a great parent if one plans to make all decisions for one's kids no matter their age or capacity. the goal of parenthood is to make adults out of kids capable of making the right decisions in their parents' absence. one cannot claim to stand for the people while at the same reject their most basic right, that is to choose their government. As i said democracy is a risk, but it is a risk with many potentially great benefits that it is irrational to even mention the risks because those risks are tiny islands surrounded by an ocean of benefits.

Democracy has its origins in ancient Greece.
However other cultures have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as the American Indians ( Weatherford 1990) Ancient Rome, Europe, and North and South America.

Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.
Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard to disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.

As much as the Olympics, Democracy has evolved from Greece in the 5th or 6th century.
However, the concept remained dormant for nearly centuries 10 centuries and started to be implemented in the 19th century.

Greece, itself, never practiced that form of government until
the departure of the bloody dictature of the colonels, in the latter part of the 20th century.

Yes, Democracy is evolutionary to the point that it is questionable. There is no country, where it is practiced in its purity..

The evolution reached the level of misrepresentation when we had the the Democratic Republic of Germany and of China, while the Soviets used the same terms.