Fidelismo
Although I am in no way an expert, I had the privilege of studying Fidelismo - the term generally associated with Fidel's brand of socialism - during my final semester at Maryland. I had an insightful professor, able peers, and a gentleman's share of provocative reading assignments. I learned a great deal, and came away with an entirely new perspective on Cuba.
Studying Cuban history is similar to looking through reflective glass: the whole picture is impossible to grasp, and what you can see is painfully distorted. History of Fidel’s Cuba involves a great many actors, four continents, and (at least) five decades. Like most histories, it's offered through countless interpretations, all of which draw markedly different conclusions. To simplify, therefore, I would describe Fidelismo best as "no one is poor if no one is rich," and only in the social sense of the word. Money has next to nothing to do with Fidelismo; it's about a proud, intelligent people who have the right to work and live comfortably. Socialism, as a political theory, then, is not necessarily part of Cuban history. It’s more of a tangential issue retrofitted to an early ideal.
And this complicates how one places Cuba in a modern socio-political context. I don’t think Castro is a dictator, so I don’t think the Cuban government is a dictatorship. Indeed, I fundamentally disagree with the “popular” American view of Cuba as a haven for backward socialist theories enforced by an autocratic regime. Rather, Cuba is a nation plagued by stagnation, limited commercial infrastructure, and, yes, an international embargo.
So how does one solve these problems? I have a few ideas, but I don’t really know. The best I can do is guess.
First and foremost, Castro should go, as should any discussion of an appointed executive. Castro, due to age and fatigue, is a dying figurehead of a bygone era. He was once a man of ideas – in his famous History Will Absolve Me speech he accused then-ruler Batista of being “devoid…of ideals and of principles, and utterly lacking the faith, confidence and support of the masses.” – but now he is a man presiding over a myth. The Cuba he dreamt of is gone, and will not return as long as the present government exists.
The next step is open elections. I fully recognize the limitations of a “young democracy” – I suggest reading on Nigeria – but Cubans are a diverse people who will undoubtedly spark more than enough competition in order to bring out their best and brightest. Cuba, as a nation, is self-aware and capable of acting in its own interests.
With transparent democratic elections, I would hope that the United States revisits its already obsolete policy towards Cuba. The embargo should go, as should a generation’s worth of propaganda. The next generation of Cubans deserves a fair, open, and productive dialogue with the international community. Without assistance from abroad, a modern Cuba cannot exist.
Finally, in line with elections, Cuba needs a strong national vision. Cuba, once dubbed “America’s playground,” was ravaged by one hundred years of foreign influence (money) and private interests. It’s why Castro came to power in the first place, and why his revolution was so effective in terms of mass response. As Castro leaves, the threat again exists for short-term policies that have the potential to corrupt and destroy. Intelligent, long-term decision-making is absolutely key. Political parties, or some form of pluralism, are an obvious answer.
These simple solutions should help raise the standard of living in Cuba, but only in the immediate, material sense, and for a small sector of the population. Long-term, universal improvement requires an older generation of Cubans (perhaps those who still Believe) who can effectively thwart attempts at unilateral socio-economic control through offers of seemingly fabulous wealth. I am deeply concerned that a new Cuba will be exploited by distant interests and entitled expatriates, and to that I must quote Castro: “We are Cubans and to be Cuban implies a duty; not to fulfill that duty is a crime, is treason.”
Studying Cuban history is similar to looking through reflective glass: the whole picture is impossible to grasp, and what you can see is painfully distorted. History of Fidel’s Cuba involves a great many actors, four continents, and (at least) five decades. Like most histories, it's offered through countless interpretations, all of which draw markedly different conclusions. To simplify, therefore, I would describe Fidelismo best as "no one is poor if no one is rich," and only in the social sense of the word. Money has next to nothing to do with Fidelismo; it's about a proud, intelligent people who have the right to work and live comfortably. Socialism, as a political theory, then, is not necessarily part of Cuban history. It’s more of a tangential issue retrofitted to an early ideal.
And this complicates how one places Cuba in a modern socio-political context. I don’t think Castro is a dictator, so I don’t think the Cuban government is a dictatorship. Indeed, I fundamentally disagree with the “popular” American view of Cuba as a haven for backward socialist theories enforced by an autocratic regime. Rather, Cuba is a nation plagued by stagnation, limited commercial infrastructure, and, yes, an international embargo.
So how does one solve these problems? I have a few ideas, but I don’t really know. The best I can do is guess.
First and foremost, Castro should go, as should any discussion of an appointed executive. Castro, due to age and fatigue, is a dying figurehead of a bygone era. He was once a man of ideas – in his famous History Will Absolve Me speech he accused then-ruler Batista of being “devoid…of ideals and of principles, and utterly lacking the faith, confidence and support of the masses.” – but now he is a man presiding over a myth. The Cuba he dreamt of is gone, and will not return as long as the present government exists.
The next step is open elections. I fully recognize the limitations of a “young democracy” – I suggest reading on Nigeria – but Cubans are a diverse people who will undoubtedly spark more than enough competition in order to bring out their best and brightest. Cuba, as a nation, is self-aware and capable of acting in its own interests.
With transparent democratic elections, I would hope that the United States revisits its already obsolete policy towards Cuba. The embargo should go, as should a generation’s worth of propaganda. The next generation of Cubans deserves a fair, open, and productive dialogue with the international community. Without assistance from abroad, a modern Cuba cannot exist.
Finally, in line with elections, Cuba needs a strong national vision. Cuba, once dubbed “America’s playground,” was ravaged by one hundred years of foreign influence (money) and private interests. It’s why Castro came to power in the first place, and why his revolution was so effective in terms of mass response. As Castro leaves, the threat again exists for short-term policies that have the potential to corrupt and destroy. Intelligent, long-term decision-making is absolutely key. Political parties, or some form of pluralism, are an obvious answer.
These simple solutions should help raise the standard of living in Cuba, but only in the immediate, material sense, and for a small sector of the population. Long-term, universal improvement requires an older generation of Cubans (perhaps those who still Believe) who can effectively thwart attempts at unilateral socio-economic control through offers of seemingly fabulous wealth. I am deeply concerned that a new Cuba will be exploited by distant interests and entitled expatriates, and to that I must quote Castro: “We are Cubans and to be Cuban implies a duty; not to fulfill that duty is a crime, is treason.”
posted by Dr. Cook at 1:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home