After nearly five decades as the revolutionary leader of Cuba, 81-year-old Fidel Castro announced his resignation as leader of the island nation last week.
I talked on Saturday with José Antonio Lucero, a political science lecturer who specializes in Latin American politics, about what Fidel's announcement means for the region and what role future U.S. presidents could play in bringing democracy back to Cuba. Our conversation took place before Fidel's brother, Raúl, had been officially named his successor.
Jamie Bologna: Now that he's stepped aside, what role do you think Fidel will play in the government?
José Lucero: As long as Fidel is on the island, he will play a big role. Ideologically ,he'll always be influential, and he'll always be behind the scenes. I think the biggest restraint on his role will be his own health. I think the reason he's stepped aside is he physically can't keep up with the demands of the office. [In particular,] if his brother [Raúl] is the one who is going to be in control for the next few years, then I think we can expect some influence, but I think it will be much limited by his poor health.
JB: Sunday the national assembly is set to select Fidel's successor, and everyone is suggesting it will be Raúl. Would this represent a major change in the government, or would it just be business as usual?
JL: It will represent a change, but I don't think it will be a major change. The Castro brothers have ruled almost jointly since the revolution [in 1959]. Raúl is, I think, the longest-serving defense minister in the world. So his control over the armed forces is very important. But [Raúl] has had differences with his brother. I think Raúl was much more inclined to think about reforms that the Chinese, for example, put into effect to liberalize certain parts of their economy. He's also been fairly open to the prospect of negotiating with future U.S. administrations. I think there are some signals that a Raúl Castro regime might be a little bit more flexible than one led by Fidel.
JB: Some stories have reported that there is a bit more dissent in recent days in Cuba. How strong is the regime's grip on things?
JL: I don't think it is slipping. Raúl has been in power since about 2006 when Fidel really got ill. Since then, I haven't noticed much public dissent. And often when there was it was caused by Raúl - he has actually been fairly open to hearing university students voice their criticisms. So there's been an exceptional amount of criticism from younger people in Cuba. That said, there's still quite a large security apparatus, so there's a lot to worry about in terms of human rights on the island. And I don't think that that grip is in any way loosening. Though some anecdotal things that I've heard seem to indicate that there's a lighter sense of what that control means. One observer I heard talking recently described the rounding up as more of a catch-and-release. People are held for interrogation and then they're let go instead of being held in jail for years. That doesn't necessarily mean that things are different but people are optimistic that things will continue to be a more or less orchestrated transition. It isn't a one-man show by any means, so I don't think things will come unraveled anytime soon.
JB: What type of effect is the U.S. embargo having on the island?
JL: It's a complex question. One of the clear effects, and perhaps ironic effects, is it was one of the main foundations of Castro's staying power. Had the United States pursued a more flexible foreign policy, they wouldn't have given Fidel Castro an excuse to [blame] any problem he would have [on the United States]. Having a huge economy just 90 miles north constantly hostile gave Fidel incredible legitimacy on the island and throughout Latin America. The fact that he could stand up to that and survive was a main source of his endurance.
In terms of empirical hardships, I think that's real. I think there's a lot to be lost in not having those economic ties between the United States and Cuba. But it is worth pointing out that many other countries did not follow the United States' example. There's been plenty of tourism from Europe and from Canada; I think tourism is now the largest source of revenue for the Cuban economy. That said, life on the island has been economically difficult but it's been difficult throughout Latin America. And if one looks at the kinds of human development indicators that the U.N. and other use, Cuba is in much better shape than most of the region. In terms of literacy, in terms of education, in terms of health, Cuba has done extremely well.
JB: How far off is a democratic Cuba?
JL: I wish I had a crystal ball. The honest answer is, I don't have an answer. It really does depend on what a transition will actually look like. I think that's still very much up in the air. What we can say with certainty is that it's not going to be the kind of transition that many in the Bush administration expect, the idea that once Fidel is gone that everything crumbles and that it was a one-man show. And I think, if anything, since his health started deteriorating in 2006 until now demonstrated that it is much more complicated than that.
There are a lot of people who are unhappy with the way Cuba has been ruled; I think there's a lot of discontent with the economy and with the lack of freedom. But at the same time there's a recognition that there is food, there is education, there are those sorts of social elements that many parts of Latin America don't have. If Raúl is picked to be the successor, he's no spring chicken, so depending on how long he stays in and when he decides to step aside for a next generation, then I think we can start talking more about a transition. My sense is that it is going to be medium term, but not very soon. People have been wrong about Cuba for 50 years, so it is kind of difficult to predict what could happen there.
JB: In terms of the relationship between Cuba and Venezuela, what could a more democratic Cuba mean to Hugo Chávez?
JL: It is complicated because that relationship is very important; it's a two-way relationship. On the one hand Venezuela has been a huge lifeline to the island's economy, in terms of oil and other economic help that Chávez has been able to give his friend Fidel, [which] has been a huge help in terms of keeping the Cuban economy afloat. Chávez has also benefited from the legitimacy and popularity that Castro gave him. I don't think we should forget that Castro remains a very iconic figure in world, not only in Latin America. The creation of that alliance helped legitimize Chávez as a real world leader. So that relationship may be a part of the answer to your question [of] what happens in the future in terms of any kind of transition.
I think Venezuela has its own ideas about what should happen on the island and I don't think that they would sit idly by and see the U.S. or Miami Cubans try to push too hard.
JB: Cuba is definitely, then, something that McCain, Obama or Clinton will have to deal with in the future.
JL: That's actually another good point. Of the surviving candidates right now, Obama has been the only one that has signaled a real change in the status quo policies toward the island. McCain would continue with the existing policies, and Clinton has also signaled that she would more or less [support] the policy of her husband. I don't think she or McCain would be much of a change. But I think Obama has indicated a much more open mind to meeting with future Cuban leaders, to eliminate travel restrictions and limits on our businesses. So I think if anyone will try to change the policy, Obama is the most likely to do that.
