The death of Fidel Castro at 90
has sparked a huge debate in the developing world whether to call him a
dictator or revolutionary. A departmental colleague Jess du Plessis tagged me
on her Facebook post of the 26th of November 2016: “Cuban Diaspora. A tribute to an unwavering
human…Give me your thoughts…Charlotte Visagie, Tamuka Charles Chirimambowa and
Larry Onyango please? I pondered on what to say to her, as I got caught up
between remembering Fidel Castro as a revolutionary or dictator. It looks like I
will be engaged in an endless and inconclusive soliloquy, as it is a neither-nor
question but Janus faced. This raises challenges for democrats particularly in the
Third World, where people of colour had to wage wars or struggles of
decolonisation from Western powers. Fidel Castro was instrumental to the waging
of wars of liberation within the Third World yet at the same time, a
significant population of Cubans have complained of his authoritarian rule. The
Cuban Diaspora is a stain on Fidel Castro’s history and its size maybe
debatable but the fact is that there are many Cubans who strongly view him as a
dictator. Yes, Fidel Castro had many positive contributions but his greatest
weakness has been how to manage or deal with opposing views. My colleague Jess
posed a very good but challenging question for democrats in the Third World and
my simple answer is: It is not what it ought to be, but what it is. In this
case, Fidel Castro was neither a revolutionary/liberator of the people but one
of the many Cubans that fought imperialism and colonisation, yet at the same
time had his limitations. His main challenge was overstaying in the office and
seeing the revolution as him. Che Guevara’s advice that the people have no
liberators but are their own liberators could have been useful to Fidel Castro
and those who may want to understand the struggles for Liberation by the
Underclass in the former colonised worlds.
History across all humanity and
geography is replete with teachings, stories, personalities or values that have
always sought to defend society’s underprivileged or poor (underclass). From
Robin Hood, Oliver Twist, Cinderella, Aristotle’s conceptualisation of arête in
contrast to that of the Epicureans to the tortoise’s victories over the hare in
African folklore; the message has always been about giving dignity and
protection to the poor or less privileged in society. Humanity acknowledges and
is aware of the trepidation of the exercise of power and how this may create a
dangerous society to the poor. The positive eulogies for Castro in the Third
World when viewed from the perspective of fighting in the corner of the
underclass are understandable and Takura Zhangazha’s blog article articulates this well and needs
further emphasis. The Cuban Leader, Fidel Castro’s contribution to the
improvement of the underclass is unquestionable yet at the same time had its
many faults. Castro managed to successfully establish an education and health system
that sought to cater for everyone regardless of one’s class. The contribution
of Cubans to the fight against imperialism and colonialism in the Third World
remains unquestionable. Castro and Cubans have been known to have vigorously
and religiously pursued the fight against imperialism and at the same time
faced an onslaught from the West, especially the United States of America.
However, the question to Castro’s
legacy is not his contribution towards the underclass but how do progressives
manage dissent in a non-authoritarian manner. It would be irresponsible for
democrats in the Third World to argue that there were no challenges of repression
to dissenting voices in Cuba. The challenge for democrats in the modern world
go beyond creating a society for one class only but for all classes (the poor
and the rich). The underclass needs protection from the powerful or the haves
but at the same time, the privileged need protection from tyranny of the underclass.
It this dilemma that we are caught in today; how do we remember the
contributions and contradictions of our gallant fighters in a sea of cacophony
as argued by Emmanuel Sairosi. Can we envision a democracy or progressive
politics that can arbitrate our differences and at the same time remain on the
path to a political Nirvana?
The discourse of democratisation
within the Third World has always been pitched between the poor vs. the rich.
Democracy is reduced to a struggle between socio-economic rights vs. civil and
political rights. Yet, a close analysis shows that these rights are inseparable
and mutually inclusive. You can’t enjoy socio-economic rights at the expense of
civil and political liberties. Shivji conceptualisation
of the struggle against colonisation as part of the democratic equation in
Africa may assist us to begin to envision a new society and return to
democracy. Attempts at splitting rights traps us within the binaries of
benevolent dictators and cruel dictators. At a Trust Africa, UNECA and OSISA
organised conference on developmental states in Africa, I had an exchange with
Baffour Ankomah after justifying Mugabe’s excesses during Fast Track Land
Reform. His argument was to make omelette, you need to break eggs. I immediately
quipped if he would like to be the first one to sacrifice his life so that he
may enjoy social economic rights from the coffin. The whole conference room
giggled, but the thorny question was how do we realise progressive politics
without resorting to authoritarianism. Do we need to torture, rape and maim
those with dissenting voice to give land to black people or address historical
inequality? Similarly, for Castro’s Cuba, was it necessary to torment the many Cubans
into exile to implement Socialism? Does socialism or the Left need
authoritarianism to deliver a good life. The Cuban Diaspora remains an eyesore
to Castro’s legacy. Despite the arguments of sell outs and revolutionaries, some
of the Cuban Diaspora may have collaborated with imperialist forces, but it is
not all of them. Some have genuine questions to be addressed and it seems the
Cuban Project failed on that aspect. This poses challenges to the left and
democrats within the Third World: How do we manage dissent without resorting to
authoritarian tendencies? Does it mean we need benevolent dictators as opposed
to cruel dictators to address the question of the poor?
No comments:
Post a Comment