Fidel Castro speaks at his own trial while charged with treason and this excerpt is from his defence speech of 'History Will Absolve Me.'
“Honorable Judges, has been recognized from the
most ancient times to the present day by men of all creeds, ideas and doctrines.
It was so in the theocratic monarchies of remote
antiquity. In China it was almost a constitutional principle that when a king
governed rudely and despotically he should be deposed and replaced by a
virtuous prince.
The philosophers of ancient India upheld the
principle of active resistance to arbitrary authority. They justified
revolution and very often put their theories into practice. One of their
spiritual leaders used to say that 'an opinion held by the majority is stronger
than the king himself. A rope woven of many strands is strong enough to hold a
lion.'
The city states of Greece and republican Rome not
only admitted, but defended the meting-out of violent death to tyrants.
In the Middle Ages, John Salisbury in his Book
of the Statesman says that when a prince does not govern according to law
and degenerates into a tyrant, violent overthrow is legitimate and justifiable.
He recommends for tyrants the dagger rather than poison.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica,
rejects the doctrine of tyrannicide, and yet upholds the thesis that tyrants
should be overthrown by the people.
Martin Luther proclaimed that when a government
degenerates into a tyranny that violates the laws, its subjects are released
from their obligations to obey. His disciple, Philippe Melanchton, upholds the
right of resistance when governments become despotic. Calvin, the outstanding
thinker of the Reformation with regard to political ideas, postulates that
people are entitled to take up arms to oppose any usurpation.
No less a man that Juan Mariana, a Spanish Jesuit
during the reign of Philip II, asserts in his book, De Rege et Regis
Institutione, that when a governor usurps power, or even if he were
elected, when he governs in a tyrannical manner it is licit for a private citizen
to exercise tyrannicide, either directly or through subterfuge with the least
possible disturbance.
The French writer, François Hotman,
maintained that between the government and its subjects there is a bond or
contract, and that the people may rise in rebellion against the tyranny of
government when the latter violates that pact.
About the same time, a booklet - which came to be
widely read - appeared under the title Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, and it
was signed with the pseudonym Stephanus Junius Brutus. It openly declared that
resistance to governments is legitimate when rulers oppress the people and that
it is the duty of Honorable Judges to lead the struggle.
The Scottish reformers John Knox and John Poynet
upheld the same points of view. And, in the most important book of that
movement, George Buchanan stated that if a government achieved power without
taking into account the consent of the people, or if a government rules their
destiny in an unjust or arbitrary fashion, then that government becomes a
tyranny and can be divested of power or, in a final recourse, its leaders can
be put to death.
John Althus, a German jurist of the early 17th
century, stated in his Treatise on Politics that sovereignty as the
supreme authority of the State is born from the voluntary concourse of all its
members; that governmental authority stems from the people and that its unjust,
illegal or tyrannical function exempts them from the duty of obedience and
justifies resistance or rebellion.
Thus far, Honorable Judges, I have mentioned
examples from antiquity, from the Middle Ages, and from the beginnings of our
times. I selected these examples from writers of all creeds. What is more, you
can see that the right to rebellion is at the very root of Cuba's existence as
a nation. By virtue of it you are today able to appear in the robes of Cuban
Judges. Would it be that those garments really served the cause of justice!
It is well known that in England during the 17th
century two kings, Charles I and James II, were dethroned for despotism. These
actions coincided with the birth of liberal political philosophy and provided
the ideological base for a new social class, which was then struggling to break
the bonds of feudalism. Against divine right autocracies, this new philosophy
upheld the principle of the social contract and of the consent of the governed,
and constituted the foundation of the English Revolution of 1688, the American
Revolution of 1775 and the French Revolution of 1789. These great revolutionary
events ushered in the liberation of the Spanish colonies in the New World - the
final link in that chain being broken by Cuba. The new philosophy nurtured our
own political ideas and helped us to evolve our Constitutions, from the
Constitution of Guáimaro up to the Constitution of 1940. The latter was
influenced by the socialist currents of our time; the principle of the social
function of property and of man's inalienable right to a decent living were
built into it, although large vested interests have prevented fully enforcing
those rights.
The right of insurrection against tyranny then
underwent its final consecration and became a fundamental tenet of political
liberty.
As far back as 1649, John Milton wrote that
political power lies with the people, who can enthrone and dethrone kings and
have the duty of overthrowing tyrants.
John Locke, in his essay on government, maintained
that when the natural rights of man are violated, the people have the right and
the duty to alter or abolish the government. 'The only remedy against
unauthorized force is opposition to it by force.'
Jean-Jaques Rousseau said with great eloquence in
his Social Contract: 'While a people sees itself forced to obey and
obeys, it does well; but as soon as it can shake off the yoke and shakes it
off, it does better, recovering its liberty through the use of the very right
that has been taken away from it.' 'The strongest man is never strong enough to
be master forever, unless he converts force into right and obedience into duty.
Force is a physical power; I do not see what morality one may derive from its
use. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; at the very least,
it is an act of prudence. In what sense should this be called a duty?' 'To
renounce freedom is to renounce one's status as a man, to renounce one's human
rights, including one's duties. There is no possible compensation for
renouncing everything. Total renunciation is incompatible with the nature of
man and to take away all free will is to take away all morality of conduct. In
short, it is vain and contradictory to stipulate on the one hand an absolute
authority and on the other an unlimited obedience ...'
Thomas Paine said that 'one just man deserves more
respect than a rogue with a crown.'
The people's right to rebel has been opposed only
by reactionaries like that clergyman of Virginia, Jonathan Boucher, who said:
'The right to rebel is a censurable doctrine derived from Lucifer, the father
of rebellions.'
The Declaration of Independence of the Congress of
Philadelphia, on July 4th, 1776, consecrated this right in a beautiful
paragraph which reads: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness; That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or abolish it and to institute a new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'
The famous French Declaration of the Rights of Man
willed this principle to the coming generations: 'When the government violates
the rights of the people, insurrection is for them the most sacred of rights
and the most imperative of duties.' 'When a person seizes sovereignty, he
should be condemned to death by free men.’
No comments:
Post a Comment