Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world

> What is being discussed in Cuba goes beyond anything existing in the rest of the world, but the most astounding thing is how democratic the process is.

We had something similar to discuss Education in Argentina in 1984-1988, it was called "Congreso Pedagógico Nacional". There were a huge number of meetings in each school and they selected delegates for the next step, and after a few steps all the delegates were members of the different political parties or the church. So the final steps were more political and with very few grassroots participation.

Some articles about it in Spanish:

* https://www.lanacion.com.ar/cultura/en-los-80-mas-politica-q... autotranslation https://www-lanacion-com-ar.translate.goog/cultura/en-los-80...

> Twenty-seven years after that call, in which 400,000 people participated, two conclusions emerge. In these meetings, little is said about pedagogy and much about educational policy (and generally more about politics than education). The second lesson is that already at that time there was talk of a profound educational crisis.

* https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_la_educaci%C3%B3n_... autotranslation https://es-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Historia_de_l...

> Raúl Alfonsín entrusted the organization of the congress to his educational team, headed in 1984 by Minister Carlos Alconada Aramburú , and Deputy Adolfo Stubrin, both with statist approaches. The Statist Approach was driven by radicals and communists ; and the non-statist approach, which was finally the one that triumphed, was defended by the Argentine Episcopal Conference , the Christian Democratic Party , the Justicialist Party , the Union of the Democratic Center , the Integration and Development Movement and a huge mobilization of parents who had their children in private schools. 400,000 people participated in that call.

Why are you assuming there would not also be women with 2 or more husbands?

>A comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. Almost all of the few polyandrous societies practice what anthropologists call fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers shares a wife. Nonfraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men shares a wife, is virtually nonexistent in human society. Why is nonfraternal polyandry so rare? [0]

While human nature can change, something as fundamental as human sexual family unit preferences radically change from favoring polygny over an order of magnitude more than polyandry seems unlikely to be overthrown simply because of changes in democratic opinion on legitimacy of polyamory. Using history as an imperfect precedent, one could make an educated assumption the balance will tip towards leaving lots of unmarried men on the sidelines rather than unmarried women. Evolutionary constraints may also push against having women on the sidelines, since the sexual reproduction throughput is rate-limited by females. There is little evidence to suggest polyandry is as common as polygny.

[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-funda...

How could that legislation be democratic if it goes against the established 'culture' the majority is in favor of? A democratic outcome would be one that follows the majority opinion that has been established. An outcome against the vote of the majority would not be 'democratic' (although it may be more equitable or better protect rights of minority).

Of course, on the democratic side it's hard to really call a system democratic when merely conveying ideas results in jail time, such as "Ladies in White" who have been arrested for activity like holding up a sign in a park that says "stop hunger."

One has to wonder at naivety of some people.

Listen, I know modern media made us jaded and mistrusting by default, so this might get brushed under carpet as "Well all politicians lie." but countries like Cuba take propaganda to another level.

The default stance when reading any of their official news source, as it was in Czechoslovakia several decades ago, is to believe the opposite.

And all news sources are official news sources. There are no evil capitalists, remember? So no privately owned printers, TV studios etc. By default everything is state owned or controlled. And state has a single party in charge, by law.

Calling any process in that sort of state "democratic" is about as sensible as calling Amazon union friendly.

Actually, that's a fitting analogy. Consider a company town, single employer, running everything. Mayor and councilors are managers on company payroll. And nobody can start a new business unless they have a go ahead from them. The town also makes it's own laws. By the way, the town has a jail and people can be, and routinely are, locked up in there for disagreeing with how things are run.

What kind of democratic debate can you have in a place like that?