IDENTIDADES 1 ENGLISH IDENTIDADES 7 ENGLISH | Page 131

explained the reasons manipulated for
the devaluation of citizens’ mechanisms
for political control, and the sources
those in revolutionary power employed
to block their participation:
“The desire for the Revolution’s institutionalization emerged among its leaders
during the very earliest days. One should
recall that Fidel Castro spoke about elections from the Presidential Palace’s balconies very shortly after the revolutionary reconstruction process began. To the
surprise of all those committed to that
Revolution, a unanimous cry of “No!
No! No!” erupted from the impressive
crowd. It was obvious that the people
were more interested in the revolution it
had before them, than the old appearance
of there being democratic-representative
institutionalism, a lie through which they
had live, endured for more than half a
century”1. Taking a public outcry in a
massive, outdoor act as a legitimate desire is somewhat questionable, but taking
that outcry as a reference for occasionally disavowing belonging to a democratic
system, legitimating a form of government that stripped citizens of their power, and reducing the ways in which they
could participate politically, ended up
being a significant act of manipulation.
Carlos Rafael does not mention the February 1959 Fundamental Law as proof of
a desire for institutionalism. Instead, he
offers as proof the so-called mass organizations and the apparent citizens’ mandate garnered from massive revolutionary meetings in public plazas. This
omission is not strange, even though that
law was the primary text with normative

criteria. In reality, the little attention that
was paid to its mandates and the fate of
republican institutions conserved in it,
demonstrated that it was more about a
document aimed a dispelling doubts
about the real goal of the revolutionary
elite than about a real commitment to
follow its pronouncements.
Republican institutions consecrated in
the Fundamental Law of 1959: the
Court of Constitutional Guarantees
It is illustrative to see how the Court of
Constitutional Guarantees survived
much the way republican institutions did
during those years. Its powers are described in Article 182 of the 1940 Constitution: the Court of Constitutional
Guarantees The tribunal of constitutional
and social guarantees is competent to
accept jurisdiction in the following matters: “Appeals of unconstitutionality
against laws, decree-laws, decrees, resolutions, or acts that may deny, diminish,
restrict, or violate the rights and guarantees embodies] in this Constitution, or
that may impede the free functioning of
the organs of State…” “The following
may appeal to the tribunal of constitutional and social guarantees without the
necessity of posting a bond: […] All
persons individually or collectively who
may have been affected by an act or provision that they consider unconstitutional” (Art. 183, section F). The February
1959 Fundamental Law reproduced these functions in its Articles 160 and 161,
that is, the Revolution seemed to consecrate the independence of the Judiciary
and citizens’ powers in facing sentences
that somehow harmed their constitution-

131