Fidel: The quintessential rebel
Inever met Cuba’s maximum leader Fidel Castro nor even had the privilege of seeing him from a distance and yet now that he is gone I feel as if I have lost a family member. In 1959 as an impressionable eighteen year old in Kingston, Jamaica (an island nation that lies just over 90 miles south of Cuba) I listened eagerly, andwith admiration for his daring bravado,to radio announcements that signaled his victorious seizure of power in Havana.
Since then my assessment of his relevance has mellowed into qualified critical acceptance of his validity as a role model for leadership in a post-colonial world. Nevertheless at no time have I been able to convince myself that he was either the superhuman being that the most loyal “Fidelistas” avow, or as evil as his most vehement adversaries claim. Instead Fidel’s image has grown increasingly vulnerable as the flawed hero of a forgotten era in my assessment of his achievements not because he failed in any particular venture but because as time moved on he appeared to remain frozen in the past.
If one studies the true history not of the Cuban revolution but rather of the Cuban people it cannot be denied that Fidel changed the lives of millions of Cubans for the better. He struck at the heart of a feudal system parading as a mock democracy and brought it to its knees. He did this by co-opting a tradition of profound disenchantment with the legacy of the old slavebased economic model. This economic formula had survived emancipation and become the core motivation of the Cuban plantocracy. However in doing this Fidel appeared to ignore some fundamental elements of the historic role of racial prejudice, especially of the oppression of Cuba’s African majority by its Latin minority, in creating the national character. As a consequence over the decades while I admired his success in breaking the cycle of ignorance and social debility that had created the circumstances that first brought him to prominence as a rebel and then to power as a statesman leader, I was also disappointed by his installation of a stagnant authoritarian dynasty. And yet in spite of this he remained a credible hero for me because of his sterling achievements in creating opportunities for his people, and his nation, to excel.
In the end Fidel remained a rebel even in his manifestation as a statesman and in that guise he was an icon of the memorial foundations both of my youth and my maturity. For me, and I am sure for millions of Caribbeanborn people, and many in Africa and Asia, Fidel represented the possibility of change that they desired in their nations but which they knew was likely to remain a dream rather than a reality because this change would not be acceptable to the USA, and its western allies, their former colonisers.
Fidel’s commitment to the transformation of the governing class from privileged elite to a proletarian partnership outstripped his failings as a democratic leader. This enabled him to assert that his authoritarian traits were necessary elements in the struggle to build a better Cuba. When he turned his attention to the affairs of other nations especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America he was able to articulate a credible set of principles that had been tried and proven in the crucible of his own experience. As a consequence even while we questioned his actions at home we were forced to acknowledge and commend his actions abroad.
It is instructive to note that although he was born into privileged circumstances these were not conventional. He was born out of wedlock on a sugar plantation owned by his father, a former soldier from Spain who remained in Cuba after the Spanish-American War. His mother, a former housemaid, was later to be legitimized as the wife of the plantation owner.
All indications are that while he had a healthy respect for his father he was profoundly attached to his mother and solicitous of her approval as a young man. There is a legendary tale that seals this perception, and even though the story is idealised in a novel written by a friend of his who became an adversary of his later years it has the ring of truth. It asserts that before his eventual victorious entry into Havana on 3rd January 1959 he visited his mother in spite of the grave danger of being captured by Fulgencio Batista’s army.
According to the fictional account she gave him the blessings of the traditional Santeria religion, but other accounts based on actual Even after his health failed and he was forced to acknowledge his inability to continue to guide the revolution he wrote impeccable defences in its favour and continued to provide advice to his successor for a time records suggest that Fidel went to see his mother because he believed that he might be killed in the forthcoming battle. He survived to become the most resilient Cuban leader, escaping hundreds of assassination attempts. The last story about his private family life to appear in Cuba’s state run media concerned his mother’s death several decades into his rule.
The sense that his personal destiny and that of the Cubannation were intertwined from the beginning of his life was encouraged as much by his conduct in office as by the almost mythical accounts of his exploits as a revolutionary. These accounts inspired the support of the masses of underprivileged Cubans who, through his intervention, gained an education that once seemed unattainable.
Recollections of the legendary trajectory of his career as an advocate of the welfare of the underprivileged are replete with examples of his selfless adherence to objectives that were more beneficial to the fortunes of the people than to his person. He did not show the predilection for displays of triumphal posturing, which became normal in his heydays as Head of State, when he was leading protests against corrupt regimes as a student leader or a young lawyer.
These highly theatrical events, which were characteristic of the early and middle periods of his rule, attracted excited followership at home and admiration abroad. His oratorical strengths were allied to impressive skills as a creator of fine and memorable phrases. He was undoubtedly one of the twentieth century’s iconic public speakers who could hold a crowd spellbound for hours, and give the impression that his own ambitions and desires were akin to those of most of his listeners.
Fidel’s legacy will be shaped by the very manner in which he has reflected on the contradictions that infected the character of his revolution. Here was a man who sent thousands of soldiers to fight against colonial tyranny several thousand kilometres away from their home and yet was accused of holding hundreds of opponents of his regime in abject conditions in his jails.
He produced brilliant arguments in favour of the overthrow of tyranny but installed a tyrannical regime, at least in some fundamental areas of conduct towards those who disagreed with him. The same Fidel sought forgiveness publicly for some of his acts of governance and control in his later years but continued to assert that these had been necessary at the time that they were taken. He believed to the end that his revolution had been an unavoidable process for unleashing the energies and potentials of the Cuban people.
Even after his health failed and he was forced to acknowledge his inability to continue to guide the revolution he wrote impeccable defences in its favour and continued to provide advice to his successor for a time. He remained convinced that rebellion was a fundamental principle in the process of establishing the rights and privileges of the many over the few, and whatever we feel about the nature of his own tenure as leader we cannot deny that he succeeded in proving his point.
He made rebellion a fundamental principle of governance,at least in building a new Cuban nation, and whatever the future holds in that island nation will forever be influenced by the quintessential character of this rebellious Father of the Nation.