Perhaps some will interpret today's column as an intrusion into fields that are not my own. They might believe that I am interfering in problems of social psychology, in mysteries of the conscience or of human behavior. If they think that Im interfering in politics, maybe theyre right: my analyses are usually political, although I must ask who can set erect barricades to ideas, or opinions about the life, people, the acts... Everything is linked. So maybe the journalist is destined, by habit, to be an intruder.

Therefore if I separate that presumed definition. Im being political in my writings because I guide myself by a fundamental concept: politics is the art or science that concerns itself with the matters of the city "from its Greek root of polis" and, by extension, with matters of society in general. Indeed, it is at the same time art and science. To represent people, to guide them, to facilitate them the solutions to their concerns, or to lead them to the resolution of their problems, there needs to be an interweaving of knowledge of the entire human fabric, including history. This requires particular tact and respect.

Where am I going? Im speaking of politics. Im saying that in general my column is political because I comment on problematic aspects of our society. This is true much more now that we have been discussing our problems while repeating Fidel Castros essential phrase: «to change all that must be changed.» It occurred to me to ask if we all share that perception - if, indeed, we all want to change.

In this aspect, it is necessary to delve into in the individual conscience. Do I want that my society to change; and with this, will I change my way of understanding my duties and rights? However, firstly, does society have to change for me to change? Well, maybe that is interfering in philosophy, in psychology, but Ill continue with politics. What choice do I have? What do I do?

We are entering the realm of the dialectics. Society changes so I must change, although a bit behind, consistent with the law that outlines how social conscience lags behind social being. So then, for one to change all that must be changed, one has to want to change, to desire that everything that now seems not to serve or proceed correctly be modified.

The other day I referred to faulty decisions that some people make, and how despite their errors, their decisions remain intact. They stick to going against the grain only to damage the economy, the ecology and the people themselves. It seems that some do not pay attention to the value of laws, of politics; and their tactics are those which are opportune and convenient... it is clear: they find very little difficulty in deciding harness their will to those who really decide.

Now then, one of the things that our country needs to re-impose is legal conscience, so that all citizens and their representatives comply with the law, accept the rulings of the courts, respect the norms and the political theory that the Revolution and socialism extended based on dignity and human freedom. Control "that so many exalt" and the execution of the laws, and even the rendering of accounts cannot be for some and not for others...

For this, we will have to admit that, whatever the re-adaptations that our society undertakes, they all need our convictions - before and after. For some it will be hard: it is more comfortable to take refuge in authoritarianism that does not require arguments; taking account in the negative, so that we remain undisturbed; in rigid visions that shield us from debate and worry...

Some of us will have to change to preserve all that is positive and creative that we have constructed. ...or will we have to be changed? Well, you tell me.

(www.juventudrebelde.co.cu)