Las Tunas, Cuba.- The first proposal was regarding to the Preamble; it was made by an old man with a firm voice. He wants that the imprint of those who fought in the Clandestinity, against the bandits financed by the United States, also be taken into account within that example that drives the new Constitution.

Then a professor said that corruption should be considered treason to the Homeland and as such is expressed in the Magna Carta. "At whatever level, because it is an element that can destroy the Revolution," he said concerned, and the majority seconded him with applause. Although there was no unanimity. A woman said that perhaps it is better to specify it in the Penal Code because, she explained, "the Constitution outlines the principles, but cannot have everything".

More than just opinions, the titles about citizenship and forms of property raised questions: Does effective nationality means that Cubans with another citizenship when they are here will have the same rights as us? Why trust a foreign investor and not a Cuban who wants to invest?

When the board guiding the meeting opened the space to opinions about Title IV: "Rights, duties and guarantees," and a man with expressive gestures quickly raised his hand. "I think the Article 68 must remain as it is in the current Constitution: marriage is between a man and a woman," he said. Beyond, his neighbor supported him while a lady commented to another sitting next to him. "I do not think that's so important."

However, from her experience in teaching, a teacher disagreed: "I don't think so. This is an inclusive Constitution Project. It would be unforgivable not to recognize that right of those who have been unjustly discriminated against. Her biggest claim, on the other hand, was that the responsibility of parents with their children must be explained more explicitly. "Law must be more severe in this respect," he concluded.

It seemed that the opinions would be over as several of the following titles of the constitutional text passed quickly; but there was time to listen to dissimilar criteria regarding the proposals for changes in the structure of the State. "Why put limit the amount of mandates if who is in office is doing it well?" it was heard. "Fidel warned us that people with a long time in power can deify themselves," we heard in response.

The meeting changed its outlook due to some exalted opinion, but fortunately the common sense prevailed and calm returned. "If there is no other approach, we have finished. Thank you very much to everyone and good night," it was said from the board.

The space, filled for almost 100 people during a little more than an hour, was empty quickly. Back home, families exchanged criteria, somewhat suspicious of the stranger interested in knowing. Finally, they agreed with a valuable reasoning: exercises like this make grow the culture of debate among the people. The Constitution goes on the street and building it collectively is not an easy process, but it will undoubtedly be healthy for the nation.

Twitter