No thanks, I don’t want the West’s narrative on Fidel Castro’s legacy

The first post I wrote and published, to start what would eventually become iamalaw, was on Cuba. Following a trip to the island (long before the relaxation of US sanctions), I discussed whether the Cuban revolution could outlive Fidel Castro. With the ever-burgeoning private sector, and subtle changes that would have still been unthinkable at the time of my visit, some might argue that the answer is no. Indeed, some would opine that Fidel Castro’s death came at a time when capitalism had ever-so-slightly started to permeate Cuba’s once staunchly communist economy.

When I visited Cuba, it was void of American visitors (and thankfully that included the Kardashians) other than those few who were willing to take the risk to travel there via other neighbouring countries. Other than that minority, special dispensation was required for Americans to make the trip there.

The internet was available but much too expensive for the typical Cuban wage and incredibly slow at that. Therefore it was largely the privilege of foreigners. Nevertheless, Cubans were increasingly aware of the world around them. And many younger Cubans’ views on their then leader (Raul Castro was yet to be become president) was in contrast with the adulation the older generation held for Fidel Castro.

Speaking to many younger Cubans at the time, they were aware of the restrictions that life in Cuba had placed upon them. They maintained an indignation for being unable to travel, make money and access the lives that they glimpsed of the tourists they interacted with and those they saw in their rare access to the internet and western media. They were also aware of the propaganda, censorship, human rights violations and imprisonment of political prisoners that occurred under the regime.

With our awareness of the world, we can acknowledge that the Cuban revolution hasn’t been a bastion of human rights. Nor can we belittle this in a lack of empathy for those that have been subject to it. Nonetheless, when we compare this to that of American imperialism and European colonialism, the Cuban revolution seems like human rights utopia.

Unless I’m mistaken, Cuba hasn’t been responsible for a slave trade of an entire race for which the legacy endures centuries later. Nor has it invaded countries on account of their sovereign governments maintaining a different ideology or in seeking to pillage their natural resources. However, I can think of a few countries that have. In the wake of Fidel Castro’s death, commentators and politicians from said countries really need to take a long, hard look at themselves and their countries’ histories for their audacity in showing their opprobrium towards the former Cuban leader.

Cuban American exiles in Miami’s ‘Little Havana’ celebrated the death of Fidel Castro. They and their families understandably have no love lost for Castro given they were driven out of their country and many persecuted. Although to see some championing Donald Trump at the same time beggars belief. Donald Trump? If you want a conversation about human rights, this is the man who said he’d bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'. Similarly, for the right in America, 2016 was their year. First Trump and now this? It was like a Fox News wet dream.

At least history won't record Fidel Castro bragging about his desire to "grab 'em by the pussy"...

To lament human rights in Cuba and celebrate the death of Fidel Castro, while ignoring American imperialism and European colonialism, and in the same breath championing Donald Trump, then you're an idiot. Alas, there are an awful lot of idiots.

Dialogue around Fidel Castro is always bound to include the violations on human rights and that’s understandable. Yet we don’t discuss the legacy of American and European leaders, who have been responsible for much more heinous crimes against humanity, in the same context. Is it because capitalism provides a convenient distraction from their wrongdoing? Or, more likely, because they’re white?

Fidel Castro refused to continue the narrative of American imperialism and he was a comrade to many leaders who sought to improve the lives of their people in ushering an era of equality. He was a champion of African liberation; effectively seeking to overturn centuries of European colonialism. Castro was a sponsor of Angolan independence and a vociferous opponent of apartheid in South Africa. Cuba supported the ANC’s resistance when America had declined to actively support the resistance movement.

In Jamaica, Prime Minister Michael Manley and Fidel Castro became friends and allies and Cuban doctors and nurses were sent to support the Jamaican health system along with builders and engineers to assist in construction and public works programmes. Jamaica, like the wider region, was subject to European colonialism and latterly American imperialism. Fidel Castro showed there was another way. And he was willing to show solidarity to those who sought to free themselves of the shackles of their colonial and imperialist oppressors.

Michael Manley and Fidel Castro

Along with one of the highest literacy rates in the world and a world class national health service (while America has a health care system based on insurance), Cuba represented an alternative in the Caribbean and beyond. It showed that former colonies didn’t need to run into the arms of America to provide for their people. Castro put education at the forefront of the country and for the West, it’s probably why Cuba was deemed so dangerous. He created a highly intelligent country that, at times perhaps to the revolution’s detriment, has established a society with an insatiable thirst for knowledge and awareness of the wider world.

Further reform in Cuba is likely and the society that the revolution birthed will continue to be eroded as has already begun. Despite the growing momentum for it, the Cuban government has managed to avoid any revolution to effect change. Though with the death of Fidel Castro, and all he represented of the revolution, it’d be difficult to say that his death will not hasten that.

Raul Castro may offer concessions to Cubans to slow down any further economic and social shifts, as he effectively already has with existing economic reforms. But the zeal for change amongst an apathetic youth is too great to hold off indefinitely. Furthermore, with Raul Castro as a man also in the twilight of his life, he too may be running out of time to stall it.

Fidel Castro will continue to be a divisive figure in history and understandably so. Although I shan’t accept the biased and ideologically driven narrative of him from the West. Juxtaposed with their own history, the West really aren’t in a position to criticize Castro and history will judge him much more favourably than they might hope.

Cuba is ripe for change but not quite ready for its own ‘Carib’ spring

The Arab spring was motivated by a number of factors. Rising unemployment, a disaffected population (especially amongst the educated youth), poverty, the respective governments’ poor record on human rights and government corruption all contributed to the Arab spring. An age of social networking also advanced the protests, enabling the protesters to organise and inspire others.

Across the Atlantic Ocean, another country shares the attributes that led to the Arab spring – Cuba. Cuba ticks all the boxes that lead to a disaffected population but has not experienced a revolution since that led by Fidel Castro. Reforms in early 2011 have removed many government subsidies and brought unemployment for many; hardly ingratiating the government with those Cubans already disaffected and those that expect the government to continue its paternalistic role.

An educated youth that cannot relate to what some older Cubans may consider as the halcyon days of the regime (largely contributed by the government being bankrolled by the Soviet Union), are also increasingly frustrated. Younger Cubans are disillusioned with modern day Cuba and while Cubans are restricted in using the internet, they are becoming increasingly worldly with the limited access they have. Add poor human rights and a ‘them and us’ perception of party officials into the mix and there’s little difference between Cuba and the Arab states that experienced protests and were forced into regime changes. So why is Cuba not ready for its own ‘Carib’ spring?

I previously wrote an article questioning the longevity of the Cuban revolution. Based on my experience in Cuba and the experiences of Cubans themselves, it was questionable how long the regime could survive without Fidel Castro at the helm. At the time, Fidel Castro’s ill health had not long become public knowledge. He had become notably absent from public life but was still President, even if not fully discharging his presidential duties. Now Castro has officially stepped down as President, only to be replaced by his brother Raul, the regime has seen some changes such as the reforms announced in early 2011. But fundamentally, little has changed to suggest a departure from life in Cuba under Fidel. Indeed, Fidel Castro in many ways personifies the revolution and despite any disdain for him from some Cubans, the regime is arguably more cohesive while he is still alive.

Modern day Cuba has China and Venezuela to replace the benefactor it once had in the Soviet Union. However, China is said to desire a similar approach for Cuba to that taken by its own government in moving towards a mixed economy. This might be reflected in the recent economic reforms but China will be keen to see more. The economic reform in Cuba under Raul Castro might be considered significant for Cuba but it’s not exactly a mixed economy.

Chinese and Venezuelan assistance in the Cuban economy prevents a bad situation from becoming worse. Take their assistance out of the equation and the consequent increased poverty and intolerable austerity measures would surely compel Cubans to revolt out of desperation more than anything else. So far, Cubans have not reached that level and Raul Castro will be conscious that financial support from the Chinese especially cannot be taken lightly. To assume subjecting Cubans to further poverty would not threaten the cohesiveness of the regime would be folly and naïve. Raul Castro will therefore be aware that the government cannot permit the economy worsening beyond current levels.

Further economic reform in Cuba is likely. Yet in the first instance it is likely to be out of obligation to further reduce the untenable role of the state within the Cuban economy or to satisfy Chinese desires.

As Cubans experience the impact of the economic reforms, they may develop an appetite for free market principles that the modest offerings of private enterprise are unable to satisfy. This will depend on the success of the economic reforms and the consequent standard of living for Cubans that embrace them.

Coupled with China advocating a mixed economy for Cuba, the economic reforms may unintentionally pave the way for concessions to be made. Should the government be unwilling to make such concessions as fast as Cubans desire, the reforms could even be a catalyst for vocal opposition towards the regime.

Unofficially, the Cuban economy already possessed many of the offerings that the economic reforms will bring. The black market in Cuba has long existed alongside the ‘official’ economy. Many Cubans have covertly embraced private enterprise and circumvented the state in their activities. The relaxation on buying and selling property and further sanctioning of small businesses now means the government can tax transactions in these areas which many Cubans are unlikely to appreciate. If the economic reforms put a squeeze on the black market, it will be met with indignation that could also lead to opposition towards the government.

Such scenes are nonetheless unlikely to be imminent and it is too early to assess the effect the economic reforms will have on Cubans.

Considering the similarities with the Arab spring, Cubans do have a disadvantage in their restricted use of the internet. The internet in Cuba is slow, expensive and inaccessible for most Cubans. The use of social networking sites to organise protests as seen in the Arab spring is therefore currently beyond Cubans. This limits their ability to mobilise meaningful and coordinated protests. Particularly given the stance of the Cuban authorities towards those that oppose the government, and in the context of Cuba’s record on human rights, safety in numbers is crucial for any uprising in Cuba.

The restrictions in using the internet also limit the global awareness of Cubans. Cubans largely rely on state run media and interaction with foreigners for an insight into the wider world and this has perhaps meant their ambitions are bridled by relative ignorance. That said, being able to make more money as a waiter than a doctor or other highly skilled profession, largely due to tips, makes it apparent to educated young Cubans especially that the status quo is unsatisfactory. Many young Cubans are also increasingly able to critique the regime with the increasing awareness they possess.

A significant distinction between the circumstances that led to the Arab spring and those in Cuba is the impact of the US embargo. While the traditional Cuban economic model has been proved to be unviable without foreign financial assistance, blame for Cuba’s economic woes cannot wholly be attributed to the regime.

The US embargo has had a tangible effect on Cuban society and the Cuban economy, most notably with the lack of food and medicine available in the country. The Cuban government needs little propaganda to illustrate the United States’ contribution to Cuba’s economic ills and commentators beyond the island condemn the embargo for the unjust impact it has on ordinary Cubans.

The embargo provides a convenient and somewhat justified opportunity to shift some blame for the social and economic problems in Cuba from Havana to Washington. In contrast to the Arab spring, the regime in Cuba is not wholly culpable and the Cuban government will be able to argue this as long as the embargo remains. Ironically, ending the embargo could therefore be more effective in threatening the cohesiveness of the regime than the embargo itself.

Cubans that speak candidly of their disdain for the regime express much of the frustration shown by protesters before the Arab spring. The hallmarks of dissatisfaction with the government are already apparent and have long been burgeoning amongst the Cuban population.

Speaking to younger Cubans especially, this disaffection and frustration is very evident. Like the Arab spring, any forced change in Cuba is likely to come from the educated Cuban youth. Unlike the older generation, they are too removed from the revolution led by Fidel Castro for nostalgia and blind support for the regime to compromise their outlook on the reality of life in Cuba.

Cuba appears an ideal candidate for anti-government protests on a widespread scale. But despite the parallels, Cuba faces further challenges in uprising than the Arab countries where the Arab spring took place. Nonetheless, frustration for the regime is growing within Cuba and while reform may be able to postpone further change, it cannot hold if off forever. And if the government decides against facilitating this, Cubans may eventually be compelled to demand it for themselves.

Viva la revolución? - Does the Cuban revolution have the cohesion to outlive Fidel Castro?

Regardless of who you choose to believe about the status of Fidel Castro’s health; either the US Government and anti-Castro émigrés or the Cuban Government and the Fidel Castro supporters within and beyond Cuba, it’s undeniable that Castro is in the twilight of his life at 80. Castro’s tenure as one of the longest serving heads of state in the world is likely to end sooner rather than later. With Fidel Castro having ceded power to his brother Raul Castro on 31 July 2006, it’s arguable that the elder of the two siblings may not return to power in the same capacity that he previously performed his presidential duties. Indeed, Fidel Castro may not return to power at all.

With the US Government, the Latin American bloc, commentators of the region and of course Cubans, all eagerly speculating on life after Castro, it begs the question if the Cuban revolution can continue without Castro at the helm. Will the revolution end with Castro or as Castro et al would have you believe, will the revolution live forever?

In 2006, a US envoy to Cuba held talks with Cuban officials. The US envoy, and many commentators, optimistically believed the talks could be the embryonic start of a new era in the two states’ frosty relationship. Yet upon their return to the US, the envoy conveyed that such optimism was somewhat premature given their talks with Cuban officials. According to the envoy, the Cuban officials were very reticent when it came to discussing any possible economic or political changes in Cuba. Old habits die hard and it would appear that change is not on any agenda for the Cuban Government.

Ultimately, the hegemony and longevity of the current political regime in Cuba prefigures life after Castro. Herein lies the answer to the question of the extent of cohesion to the revolution. Moreoever, is there any cohesion to the revolution in Castro’s 21st century Cuba? On a recent trip to Cuba, I found myself questioning this.

The cult of the personality is apparent in Cuba. Billboards displaying Castro’s image and banners celebrating his 80th birthday are still present from the planned celebrations last year. Castro himself was unable to attend these celebrations due to poor health.

Castro clearly personifies the revolution but a widespread adulation for him is far from perceptible. One could conjecture that the present day Cuban society, particularly the younger generation, don’t relate to Castro nor the revolution. To them, the regime of Batista is a distant history lesson. They therefore lack any reference upon which to perceive the current regime as an improvement, and a desired one at that. Instead, many Cubans yearn for a change that Castro’s Cuba cannot and will not offer them.

Prior to visiting Cuba, I was unsure what to expect with regard to support for Castro. Of course, he has his supporters and they are visible. The older generation, who may remember a time of vast social and economic inequalities and a lack of basic provisions that in today’s Cuba are readily available, are content with the current regime to say the least. They value the country’s literacy rate, the free healthcare and the provision of homes. And in many instances they attribute this to Castro and close their tales of laud for the regime with an exclamation of ‘Viva la revolucíon!’ Yet this support is not widespread.

Many of the younger generation are not as compelled to share the appreciation for Castro that is shown by many of their elders. This is largely attributed to their increasing awareness of the wider world. Furthermore, they possess an intelligence that is uncharacteristic for many developing countries where the provision of basic education is not present. However, most Cubans do not realise how fortunate they are to possess the minds upon which to opine their circumstances as below par by western standards. It is this intelligence and awareness that provides them with the ability to critique life in Cuba and to subsequently criticize it. And along with the criticism is a covert yet noticeable disdain for Castro. It appears that for both Castro and many Cubans, education has been a gift and a curse.

Interaction with tourists and the internet, access to which is limited due to the high costs, ensures Cuba is not entirely closed off from the west. CNN and other US channels are shown in hotels and, albeit limitedly, Cubans are aware of a world beyond their own shores; a world which many of them are keen to embrace. Those who glimpsed my iPod were fascinated at this small device and upon asking how much it cost, were further intrigued as to how this was an affordable item.

Consumerism and communism cannot co-exist if the two retain their core principles. In this instance, some might argue this creates a dichotomy of the iPod era vs Castro’s Cuba. The iPod era might not have won over everyone but it certainly has its supporters. In 2006, the Bush Administration approved an $80 million fund to support Cuba’s ‘transition to democracy’. Beyond orthodox political efforts, the US is likely to employ consumerism as a tactic in showing what the west has to offer under a democratic regime. Whilst this is an unfounded and idealist notion in itself, there are those in Cuba that yearn for consumerism over communism.

Conversely, there are those that don’t succumb to the allure of the trappings of capitalism. Those that are content with life in Cuba have no reason to oppose the regime. These are the individuals that will toe the line, and for now, will safeguard the revolution.

Taking the locals I spoke to as a microcosm of Cuban society, it would suggest that any cohesion to the revolution is rapidly being eroded. The reality of Cuba is that whilst everyone may have a home, it is often overcrowded with many generations including married couples. There is the provision of healthcare but the US embargo has an inevitable impact on the availability of pharmaceuticals. And whilst the revolution ensured the aforementioned would be available as free for all, Cubans must still find the money to purchase food. A low wage, particularly for those outside the tourism industry where tips can be assured to healthily supplement low pay, won’t go far. Not surprisingly, for many Cubans it’s hard to support a regime where their ability to make money for basic needs, not to mention basic luxuries, is constrained.

Free market ideas clearly go against the principles of communism. Yet in recent years, the Cuban Government have loosened state control and free market ideas have crept into Cuba’s economy with one proviso – the Government want a piece of the pie and a large slice at that. Being that Cuba is a communist state, this is hardly surprising.

Casa particulares are a popular alternative to hotels around the island and an example of Cuba’s changing economy. The scheme of casa particulares enables Cubans to rent rooms in their homes to tourists for a price that suits the pocket of the budget conscious traveller. In exchange, the casa owners pay a monthly fee to the Government to grant them this privilege. Similarly, paladares, non-state operated restaurants or eateries, have become popular for their Cuban owners and tourists alike. Again, operation of a paladare is in exchange for a tax to the Government. This tax may seem fair when compared to the tax that most individuals and businesses in the capitalist west are subject to. But this is where the problem lies – Cuba isn’t a capitalist state and many Cubans I spoke to considered these taxes to be unjust. One local bluntly told me it was unfair. Perhaps the revolution is 'muy caro'?

Illegal practice of free market ideas is punishable. Nonetheless, I encountered many Cubans willing to take this chance. For many it was because operating legally wasn’t deemed financially viable. However, I suspect that some I spoke to merely sought to circumvent the state’s ‘unfair’ taxation.

Cuba has a thriving black market. I met one local who made a living for himself this way and visiting his well-furnished home, he clearly did well from it. He told me how he had previously lost his home for illegally operating a casa and he clearly resented the Government. He spoke of his disdain for the regime and albeit not with hostility, for Castro. From others I spoke to, his tale was not unique either.

Based on my encounters with local Cubans, it’s hard to see the cohesion to the revolution having much more longevity; that is if it exists in modern day Cuba at all. Many Cubans essentially aren’t buying into communism and Castro’s regime. The romanticism that can be opined as intrinsic to Castro’s regime is becoming increasingly apparent to Cubans and from this realisation stems a frustration for the regime and Castro himself.

Indubitably, cult of the personality does play a role in Cuba, as it has done for the duration of Castro’s leadership to date. Without Castro at the helm, there are no guarantees that this will signal the end of the revolution. However, without the man himself, the revolution may never be the same again.