It is increasingly likely that the answer will be the affirmative. A simple assessment of recent events is enough to arrive at this fatal conclusion. It might even be able to have a notable influence, although not determinant one, on the final cycle of a determined dictatorial state by forcing both the dialectical calculations and the historicos in honour of legitimizing an ideological architecture that they have wanted to establish for eternity.
The tragic outcome of a hunger strike, which already has gone to the point of needing medical assistance, is something that cannot remain outside of the realm of possibilities. Guillermo Fariñas insists on maintaining his protest in demand of the release of the 26 prisoners of conscience and on the other hand the government continues to ignore what it considers a spurious petition.
The absence of an environment that favours dialogue and the possibility of an agreement, makes it easy for pessimism to touch everything. At the same time, the days are passing by as are the illusions about moving the matter toward rationality, which means that we could soon encounter an announcement of another death by voluntary starvation, as occurred with the opponent Orlando Zapata Tamayo, February 23 last, after 86 days in hunger strike.
Although Fariñas continues to receive an intravenous diet in an intensive care unit at the Arnaldo Milian Hospital, located in the city of Santa Clara where he resides, his life is hanging by a thread. He has neither consumed food nor water since February 24th. According to reports by independent specialists, his physical state could deteriorate towards irreversible organic complications at any moment.
To this must be added, the consequences leftover from his previous hunger strikes, something that facilitates debilitation in a shorter term of time.
A new death under such circumstances would increase several times over the feelings of contempt in the civilized world, even among many followers that still prefer to opt for silence or to join an endorsement that seems to have greater affinity for nostalgia and compromise than objectivity and decency.
Amidst a scene of notorious complexity, an almost exact replay of what happened on the afternoon of February 23 with Zapata Tamayo is taking place, with the only differencing being that one death took place in captivity and this one would not. It could rekindle the means for refuting the state to an unforeseen degree and this could smooth out the obstacles regarding the agreed upon politics of prison sentences and political sanctions against the main bulwarks of power on the Island.
In principle it does not seem that these possible costs in the ethical and moral aspect, they have repercussions on the adoption of other related politics to some type of acquiescence. There is show of yield not an apex, in the petitions formulated by Fariñas.
Nevertheless it is still premature to offer a conclusive report about the situation. For now it is only feasible to figure things out as it happens hypothetically with the corresponding load of subjectivities.
If Fariñas dies, the State would be reinforcing an image of brutality and disregard for human life. The most unpleasant news for the totalitarian Bosses is that Fariñas does not show the least intention of putting aside his protest.
However it ends, the government has guaranteed its downfall. This conclusion is infallible.
The nomenclature is burning up in its own fires. In keeping to the sequence of events, it would be wrong to think of this as an accident. The image is clear. The suicide is carried out behind the walls of paralysis and arrogance.