In the heart of Cuba, a severe epidemiological crisis is unfolding, driven by the relentless spread of the Aedes aegypti mosquito and the alarming rise of arboviral diseases that threaten public health across the nation, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of the tactics and implications behind this emergency. An article published in Granma, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba, authored by journalist Wennys Díaz Ballaga, attempts to address this pressing issue. However, rather than offering a transparent examination of the situation, the piece reveals a calculated effort by the regime to shift the narrative. The focus moves away from potential governmental shortcomings and instead places the burden of responsibility on ordinary citizens. This approach raises critical questions about accountability and the state’s role in managing a crisis that impacts an already struggling population.
State Narrative and Deflection of Responsibility
Shifting the Focus to Individual Failures
The Cuban government’s stance, as articulated in the Granma article, hinges on a deliberate pivot away from institutional accountability toward individual blame. While there is a cursory nod to the Ministry of Public Health (MINSAP) sharing some responsibility for the crisis, this admission is swiftly overshadowed by a barrage of criticism directed at the public. Citizens are accused of negligence, such as failing to maintain clean water storage tanks or blocking access to fumigators, which the regime claims exacerbates the mosquito-borne disease outbreak. This framing conveniently sidesteps systemic issues like insufficient funding for health initiatives or poor infrastructure that could be contributing to the crisis. By emphasizing personal failings over structural deficiencies, the narrative seeks to absolve the state of deeper scrutiny, portraying the epidemic’s severity as a consequence of public inaction rather than a failure of policy or planning at higher levels.
Beyond the surface accusations, this deflection serves a broader purpose of maintaining governmental control over the crisis narrative. The Granma piece avoids delving into whether MINSAP has adequately prepared for or responded to the outbreak, instead focusing on how individuals have supposedly let down the collective effort. This tactic not only minimizes the visibility of institutional lapses but also fosters a sense of guilt among the populace, subtly discouraging dissent or demands for better state intervention. For a population already grappling with daily hardships, this added layer of blame intensifies the burden, redirecting frustration inward rather than toward the authorities who hold the power to enact meaningful change. The result is a carefully curated story that protects the regime’s image while leaving systemic problems unaddressed and unresolved.
Leadership’s Evasion of Scrutiny
A striking feature of the Granma article is the complete absence of accountability for those at the helm of Cuba’s health and political systems. High-ranking officials, including Health Minister José Ángel Portal Miranda and President Miguel Díaz-Canel, escape any form of criticism or even mention in the context of the crisis. This omission is not accidental but rather indicative of a long-standing pattern where the regime shields its leaders from public reproach during times of hardship. The lack of discussion around their roles or responses to the outbreak ensures that no direct responsibility is attributed to decision-makers, preserving an image of infallible authority even as the health emergency escalates and impacts countless lives across the island.
This silence on leadership accountability has profound implications for public trust and crisis management. Without visible engagement or answers from top officials, the Cuban people are left with little clarity on how the state plans to tackle the epidemic or why certain failures have occurred. The Granma narrative, by ignoring these critical gaps, reinforces a culture of impunity where those in power remain untouchable, regardless of the crisis’s severity. Meanwhile, the burden of responsibility is disproportionately placed on citizens who lack the resources or authority to effect systemic change. This dynamic not only undermines confidence in the government’s ability to lead during emergencies but also perpetuates a cycle where genuine solutions are delayed in favor of maintaining political control and deflecting blame.
Propaganda and Control Tactics
Media’s Role in Shielding the State
Granma’s coverage of the epidemiological crisis starkly illustrates its function as a state-controlled entity rather than an independent source of information. Far from providing a balanced or investigative report, the newspaper acts as a protective barrier for the regime, glossing over MINSAP’s potential shortcomings and refraining from questioning the effectiveness of health policies. The article promotes a narrative of collective responsibility that dilutes any specific blame on governmental bodies, ensuring that those in power are not held accountable for the outbreak’s escalation. This controlled portrayal stifles public discourse, leaving little room for alternative perspectives or critical analysis that could push for real change in how the crisis is managed.
Moreover, the absence of rigorous journalism in Granma’s reporting deprives the Cuban populace of essential information needed to understand the full scope of the health emergency. There is no exploration of whether resources have been adequately allocated or if past health campaigns have failed due to mismanagement. Instead, the focus remains on citizen compliance, reinforcing the regime’s authority while neglecting to address root causes. This media strategy not only limits transparency but also hampers the ability of communities to engage meaningfully with the crisis, as they are fed a one-sided story designed to protect state interests over public welfare. The consequence is a population left in the dark, unable to demand accountability or advocate for better solutions.
Enforcing Compliance Under Civic Pretense
The language used in the Granma article reveals a troubling undercurrent of coercion disguised as a call for civic responsibility. Phrases like “organized social mobilization” sound collaborative on the surface, but the context makes it clear that this is more about enforcing compliance than fostering community involvement. The piece explicitly warns that refusing fumigation efforts is a punishable offense, turning public health measures into tools of state control. This approach prioritizes discipline over dialogue, framing non-compliance as a crime rather than addressing why some citizens might resist, such as due to mistrust or lack of resources to support such interventions.
This coercive rhetoric extends beyond mere warnings, reflecting a broader intent to maintain authority during a crisis. By presenting health initiatives as mandatory rather than participatory, the regime undermines any sense of partnership with the public. The focus on punishment over education or support suggests a lack of interest in addressing underlying reasons for non-compliance, such as fear or logistical challenges faced by households. Instead, the state leverages the crisis to reinforce its dominance, placing additional pressure on an already strained population to conform without question. This tactic not only alienates citizens but also diminishes the effectiveness of health campaigns, as genuine cooperation is replaced by forced adherence, potentially fueling further resentment.
Broader Implications of Crisis Management
Recurring Strategy of Diluting Accountability
The narrative crafted in the Granma article mirrors a historical pattern within Cuba’s governance, where crises are consistently framed as shared failures to avoid pinning responsibility on the state. The notion that “everyone is responsible” for the epidemiological emergency effectively translates to no one in power being held accountable for systemic lapses. This blame-shifting strategy serves to neutralize criticism that might otherwise target governmental inefficiencies or lack of preparedness. By distributing fault across the population, the regime diverts attention from critical issues such as underfunded health systems or inadequate mosquito control programs, ensuring that structural reforms remain off the table while public frustration is misdirected.
This recurring approach has deeper consequences for how crises are resolved in Cuba. When accountability is diffused, there is little incentive for those in authority to implement meaningful changes or acknowledge past mistakes. The Granma piece exemplifies this by avoiding any discussion of previous health campaign failures or current resource shortages, instead focusing on citizen behavior as the primary issue. This not only delays effective responses to the outbreak but also perpetuates a governance model where the state remains insulated from scrutiny. Over time, such patterns erode public confidence in institutional capability, leaving communities to bear the consequences of unresolved systemic flaws while the regime maintains its unchallenged position.
Burden on a Struggling Populace
For the Cuban people, already enduring severe shortages of food, medicine, and electricity, the regime’s tactic of assigning blame adds an unbearable layer of hardship. The Granma narrative exacerbates their plight by holding them responsible for a health crisis they are ill-equipped to manage alone. Many lack the means to maintain sanitation standards or comply with fumigation demands due to economic constraints, yet the state offers no solutions or support to bridge these gaps. Instead, citizens face both the physical toll of arboviral diseases and the psychological weight of being scapegoated for a situation largely outside their control, deepening their sense of helplessness.
The impact of this approach extends to the social fabric of Cuban communities, straining trust between the government and its people. Without independent media or platforms to voice grievances, there is no outlet for citizens to challenge the unfair distribution of blame or demand accountability from leaders. The silence of figures like the Health Minister in public discourse, as noted in Granma’s reporting, further isolates the population, leaving them without answers or assurances during a critical time. This dynamic not only worsens the immediate effects of the health emergency but also sets a precedent for future crises, where the state’s refusal to take responsibility continues to place the heaviest burden on those least able to bear it, perpetuating a cycle of neglect and frustration.
