|
 |
Rethinking
Fidel Castro Would there have been a Russian Revolution, as we know it, without Lenin? Or a Chinese Revolution without Mao Zedong? These are debatable questions. Without Fidel Castro, would there have been the kind of revolution that completely transformed Cuba and its international relations? The answer in this case is an emphatic no. In recent years, however, it has not been fashionable among scholars to give importance to the role of the individual in the making of history. As a result, the centrality of Castro in the Cuban Revolution is often underestimated1. To be sure, Castro is universally recognized as the creator and leader of the successful insurrection that overthrew the Batista dictatorship. But what followed the overthrow is attributed more often than not to a regime or government, or simply to the Cuban nation itself, setting a course in response to internal and external conditions and events. I do not deny that there is a governmental structure in Cuba that maintains law and order, as well as essential domestic and foreign services, a central planning apparatus, and a military establishment. Government makes the bulk of day-to-day administrative decisions; however, I would argue that it is not the Cuban government that has determined policy on major issues, or frequently even on minor ones, but rather the personality of Castro himself. There is also a Communist party in Cuba, closely modeled on that of the classical ruling party in the former Soviet Union. The difference is that in the case of the Soviet party, an oligarchy known as the Politburo actually determined policy. In Cuba, the corresponding oligarchy is an advisory body. Policy is made by the self-appointed and perpetual first secretary, who is concurrently president of the Republic, chairman of the State Council, chairman of the Council of Ministers, and commander in chief of the armed forces. Following the seizure of power in 1959, the Castro regime ruled by decree. Then, in the mid-1970s, a constitution similar to that of the Soviet Union was belatedly adopted, and the First Congress of the Communist party took place. The Cuban Revolution was thereby said to be institutionalized. What did not occur was a change in the locus of power. On the contrary, the primacy of Fidel Castro was legitimized and thereby enhanced. He remained Cuba's "Jefe Máximo." The Fourth Congress of the Communist party was held in mid-October 1991. Fidel Castro said it was "the most difficult moment of the Revolution." Responding to the critical economic and social problems resulting from the collapse of trade and aid from the former Communist states of Europe, the most drastic shake-up of membership in the Central Committee and Politburo in twenty-five years took place. More than half of the 225 members of the Central Committee were replaced. The twenty-five-member Politburo lost several of its most distinguished veterans and added fourteen newcomers (Jornada [Mexico City] October 13, 16, 1991). The grand shuffle of personalities was supposed to inject youthful energy and new wisdom into the top ranks of the party, but no real change could be expected. That is because Fidel Castro and his brother Raúl, minister of the armed forces and his designated successor, were "reelected" first and second secretary, respectively, of the Central Committee, and they, of course, still dominated the Politburo. Fidel's slogan of the late 1980s, "Socialism or Death," was reaffirmed. The central fact in this matter is that the Cuban Revolution is preeminently the creation of an extraordinary individual. What forces shaped the young Castro's personality? What has been the source of his power? What has motivated him in the exercise of his power? What moves him in his refusal to share or relinquish his power? The answer takes us back to 1927, in what was then Oriente Province at the eastern end of the island. A child was born who, through genetic fortune, was endowed with a keen intelligence and robust health. As a youth, he had a commanding stature and handsome features. In addition, he was equipped with an irrepressible ego. Early in life, the child developed symptoms of a personality disorder driving him to rebel against authority and compete ferociously against his schoolmates. Thus, at a very tender age, Fidel threatened his parents and engaged in bitter quarrels with his peers. Even as a child, his perception of what motivated his conduct was "injustice," real or fancied mistreatment by his parents, teachers, and schoolmates2. At the age of ten or so, he began neglecting his school work in favor of a fascination with military history. By the time of adolescence, his imagination was captured by the deeds of great leaders--José Martí, Bolívar, Napoleon. As a young adult, his earlier perception of personal injustice was transformed into a concern for social justice. Significantly, he chose Robespierre as a model dispenser of social justice. In a letter written in the mid-fifties, he declared: "Robespierre was an idealist and honorable until his death. . . . It was necessary to be hard, inflexible and severe. . . . A few months of terror were necessary to do away with a terror which had lasted centuries. We need many Robespierres in Cuba3."
|
|||
|
||||
