THE TABLET THE I NTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY
Founded in 1840
THE FUTURE FOR CUBA
Important though it was to Mexican Catholics, Pope Benedict’s first visit to a Central American country was remarkable mainly for the stamina the 84-year-old pontiff displayed after a long and tiring journey. He made one remark that raised eyebrows, saying it was not right that the laity “should feel treated as if they hardly count in the Church”, and calling for an end to “sterile divisions, criticism and unhealthy mistrust”.
His visit to Cuba, on the other hand, had the potential to make history. Cuba is at a turning point, the old – in every sense – Castro regime manifestly cannot continue much longer, and reform is in the air. China has taken over from the former Soviet Union as the most important foreign influence, yet Cuba has not yet followed China in opening up its economy to outside investors and market forces. While it remains a backwater, almost an ideological fossil, it is slowly moving towards the recognition of the right to hold private property, a change likely to help economic development. The Pope prayed that the country should “advance along the ways of renewal and hope, for the greater good of all Cubans”. One octogenarian president having been replaced by another, a new generation of leadership – the best prospect for renewal and hope – cannot be long postponed.
The Pope was careful not to be overtly political. But his pleas for the Catholic Church to have greater freedom to make a contribution to Cuban life really meant an end to the repression of dissent of all kinds, for it was in effect a call for the opening up of civil society, free of government or party control. The Pope did not meet dissidents, and in any event many of them had been rounded up before his visit. Cuba’s human-rights record is poor – on a par, paradoxically, with the worst of the right-wing dictators whose era in Latin American history has gone.
If a reconciliation could be brought about between Cuba and the United States, one of the principal threats to its stability would be ended and so would any grounds for regarding political opposition as subversive. It is not to President Barack Obama’s credit that the United States embargo on trade with Cuba is approaching its 40th year in operation. Europe and Latin America have long since welcomed Cuba back into the international community. The embargo, only slightly modified to allow limited American tourism, increases Cuba’s isolation precisely at a time when it needs reducing.
The Catholic Church is not without influence in Washington, and it would be advancing the cause of hope and renewal in Cuba if it pressed for the end to this unjust embargo. If the President had to pay a political price in Florida, where tens of thousands of anti-Castro Cuban exiles still exert their influence, he may well gain favour among the large and growing Hispanic population elsewhere in the United States.
The Catholic Church in Cuba has many problems which state restrictions exacerbate, chief among them the need for a pastoral response to the rise of syncretism – elements of Catholicism blended with pagan religion – and the growth of Pentecostalism. It needs freedom of manoeuvre, for instance in education. But so does the rest of the population. What is good for the Church would undoubtedly be good for the whole country.
TOO EASY-GOING BY HALF
Sometimes a week is not just “a long time in politics”, as Harold Wilson remarked, but also a critical turning point when a long run of political good weather gives way to a long run of bad. As Tony Blair found to his cost, the end of an affair with the electorate can leave behind an irreversible sense of alienation and disillusion.
the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, who told the Financial Times: “The problem is that policy is being run by two public schoolboys who don’t know what it’s like to go to the supermarket and have to put things back on the shelves because they can’t afford them for their children’s lunchboxes. What’s worse, they don’t care, either.”
David Cameron has allowed a series of setbacks to overtake his leadership, and he is widely accused even by the party’s friends in the media of being disengaged, not quite on the ball. A relaxed air of easy charm, which the public initially warmed to in the Prime Minister, not least as a welcome change from Gordon Brown, has its own drawbacks.
The most serious worry for him as Tory leader is that his key long-term strategy – the so-called “detoxification of the brand” – has started to unravel. The theory was that the Conservatives were so much associated with issues the majority of the population found repellent that they would only be returned to power when these had been erased. Of the various kinds of toxicity the party suffered from, none was more damaging than the impression of being “toffs” – on the side of their friends, the rich and privileged few, and indifferent to the many.
George Osborne’s recent Budget, with its tax cut for the nation’s wealthiest, alongside the now notorious “granny tax” and another £10 billion of benefit spending cuts, fuelled the perception of a leadership that did not know how the other half (or other 99 per cent) lived. This came after an astonishing attack on the Prime Minister and the Chancellor from
Nor is it difficult to write a list of the other things they seem not to care about. There was nothing in the Budget to address youth unemployment. Indeed, there is nothing in government policy as a whole designed to tackle the problems described by the commission which investigated the causes of last summer’s urban riots, the story of a lost generation in which unemployment was only a facet.
On top of that came the scandal of the Tory Party treasurer, Peter Cruddas, running a “pay per view” racket with rich party donors, offering them not only the chance to dine in the No. 10 kitchen, but to let them feed their pet notions into the government policymaking machine.
It is a pity none of the lobbyists has so far managed to bribe Mr Cameron towards one policy that rich and poor are alike crying out for – a policy for growth. The latest quarter’s GDP figures have been revised downwards, suggesting the country is again in recession. The country would like to see Mr Cameron a little less phlegmatic, laid back and disconnected, and a little more hungry. But is he capable of it? The impression grows that he is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get politician, and his reputation as an “easy-going sort of chap” is fast becoming his fatal weakness.
2 | THE TABLET | 31 March 2012