How much do you think Fidel's sweatsuit would go for on EBAY?

One cannot call themselves a serious student of Latin America or democracy if they fail to consider the impact of Fidel’s “resignation” on Cuba’s future. On the surface, the event means little. In fact, the owner of the Caribbean’s most famous beard relegated himself to wearing sweatsuits and authoring op-eds for the last year and a half. Thus, other than the fabrication of new business cards and stationary for Comrade Raúl, little has changed. However, I think if one thinks of the longer term; Castro’s resignation may mark the beginning of Cuba’s transition to democracy.

I sincerely doubt that there will ever be what Jorge Domínguez has called, a “poof moment” in Cuba’s history. That is, there will never be a day when all of a sudden the dictatorship collapses and democracy begins. Instead, the transition will be slow moving. Opening will occur but not at the pace that Washington or the exile community in Miami desires. Understanding this, it is obvious that the U.S. embargo is an ineffective tool to help speed democratization. In fact, with the full force of U.S. policy against it, the regime has survived. This leaves Washington with zero leverage on the island.

Throughout Cuba’s slow transition toward democracy; reformers will emerge within the regime and popular pressure will encourage reform. Moreover, FDI and commercial interests can serve to strengthen such actors and validate the value of the free market. Nonetheless, until Cuba is a full-fledged western-style democracy, the U.S. will be a mere bystander.

Indeed as various analysts have noted, the transition will most likely resemble that of China. There, the international community is able to make credible threats because they have credible investments that can be withdrawn. As such, they are occasionally able to drive change. Beyond the fact that the embargo is inhumane, immoral, and hypocritical the U.S. should normalize relations with Cuba so that it can help to shape change and deliver a dose of democracy that the island’s residents deserve.

In consequence, Castro’s resignation is insignificant. It is an official end to a role that was already finished. Nonetheless, it marks a key moment in which the hardest of hardliners has now left the regime. Raúl seems more approachable and perhaps even reform minded; overall the opportunity offers a new U.S. administration the chance to engage and encourage the island’s democratic transition.

Meanwhile, if Raul is interested in establishing relations with the U.S., he must be willing to give something up - all those political prisoners might be a good place to start.

Will history absolve him?

OK, I haven't read the speech, but it's a good question to start off with, and I wonder if Fidel has asked himself the question recently.

My answer to the question is "no," with a "but." No, history will not absolve Fidel of his larger body of work, the totalitarian Cuban state as we know it. But he should also be remembered for doing a service to the Cuban people by tossing out Batista. Does this make up for 49 years and counting of his brand of totalitarianism? No. When he overthrew the government with popular support in 1959 did he tell anyone that in a few years he'd go back on his plan to hold elections and instead favor repressive Communism? No. Had he told his supporters that that this would be the lasting legacy of the Revolution, would he have had the support that he did? Well I leave that one open.

Fidel has always been a dilemma for liberal-minded folks because he's not as bloodthirsty or overtly personally consumptive of public resources as some of his bretheren in the Latin American and Communist dictator circles. (Well when those are your friends, I suppose the bar is pretty low.) And of course there's the healthcare and education (see Luis' post). But I've always thought that one's revolutionary credentials are tarnished if revolting against the Revolution by peaceful means (i.e. the through the ballot or MLK-style) is actively suppressed, no matter how long one wears a scruffy beard and fatigues.

So in the context of the speech given in 1953 after the Moncada attack, OK, sure, throw off the shackles of wretched oppression, I'm with you to an extent - absolve away. But he went on to substitute one lousy regime for another, which in my opinion is desabsolviable.

Fidel Castro

So Fidel decided not to run for president this time, leaving his brother Raul in charge. For people who follow Latin America, as avidly as the contributors of this blog do, this is one of the most expected moments, if not the most, in the History we hoped to witness. And this is not a politically or ideologically biased thought, we all knew that somehow, sometime, Fidel’s rule was going to end, inevitably. Given the timing, we knew that such moment was not afar. However, until recently, the current situation was not foreseen, instead, we all were waiting for his death.

This is a time for analysis and reflections. Doubtlessly, there will be an avalanche of assessments on this or that aspects. What are the implications of Fidel’s decision on the Island, the region, the hemisphere, etc? What will happen next? Is he really stepping down, or will he pull the strings from the backstage?

For anyone who considers or would like to consider him/herself a Latin Americanist, the time that will be devoted to read, write, talk about this issue will be considerable. Due to this, and my limited knowledge on the subject I would only to briefly touch on two issues that will certainly be addressed more in depth elsewhere. I would like to provide some food for thought, so to speak.

Despite all deficiencies that can be highlighted about Fidel’s regime, there are two issues I would like to remark: education and health. Cuba is a highly educated society with a quite healthy population. These two factors have been constantly signaled as crucial factors for development (see for instance this new report by the World Bank). The question I wish to put in the table is whether Cuba, entering a new stage, will be able to capitalize these factors in order to catch up in the development race.

The second issue relates to the timing of Fidel in announcing his decision in relation to the elections in the US. Had Fidel announced his decision two-three years ago, the resonance within the US agenda would have been considerably lower. Not only US foreign policy was driven by the war in Iraq and instability in the middle-east, but the Bush’s administration reluctance to approach Cuba could have limited the impact of such announcement. In contrast, given the electoral campaigns, “The Cuba Question” (see earlier post by Mainer Chris) will become quite relevant, particularly, if Raul attempts approaching the US.