Fidel Castro, The Man, The Book—Kole Omotoso

He reluctantly became Prime Minister and then President of Cuba sometime in 1960 and remained there until July 2006. He saw ten US Presidents and met every other politician, intellectual and notables of the 20th century. He survived 641 assassination attempts and where he is, his is the only voice heard. He is not known to have any intimate friendship or an intellectual companion. He lives monk-like, frugally and now devotes his old age to writing in defence of ecology and the environment, fighting neo-liberal globalisation and internal corruption in Cuba.

kole-omotosho.jpg

The country that Castro’s Revolution has ruled since 1959 is Cuba, about 100,000 square miles in area with a population of 11 million people. It has, under the Revolution, achieved great things in health, education and culture with a literacy rate of 98 per cent. Ruled through the structures of State (Council of State), Party (Communist Party of Cuba) and the Cuban Armed Forces, Fidel Castro, until his stepping aside from the presidency was (1) founder of the Nation, (2) theoretician of the Revolution, (3) successful military leader of the armed forces, (4) author of the policies of the country and (5) great critic of what is badly done by his government. “He makes all the decisions, big and small. Although he consults the political authorities in charge of the party and the government very respectfully, very professionally during the decision making process, it is Fidel who finally decides.” Thus when Ramonet asks whether the United States might drift into an authoritarian regime Castro gives the opinion that US “institutions, traditions . . . and political values would make that virtually impossible”. It is best to place here what we have at the end of this book. In the final chapter, ‘After Fidel - What?’, Ramoney asks what happens to Cuba after Castro, to which Fidel replies: “the Yankees can’t destroy this revolutionary process, because we have an entire nation that’s learned to handle weapons, an entire nation that despite our errors, has such a high degree of culture, knowledge and awareness that it will never, ever, again allow this country to become a colony of theirs.”

The book FIDEL CASTRO: MY LIFE with Ignacio Ramonet has been described variously as ‘a book conversation’, ‘a biography in two voices’, ‘half autobiography, half official press conference’. It is the publication of an edited manuscript of over 100 hours of conversations with Ignacio Ramonet, Spanish-born editor of the influential French left-wing publication Le Monde Diplomatique. At over 700 pages it is a fantastic read, a problematic read.

Much of the reviews of the English translation from the English-speaking conservative newspapers and newsmagazines such as the Telegraph and the Sunday Times of London can be safely ignored because they are simply vexatious vituperations of traditional enemies of any form of radicalism. Moreover, these reviews complain of the fact that they do not get to voyeuristically enjoy Fidel Castro’s private life and personality. The serious and consequential criticisms have come from radical publications such as socialist internationals and third world views and reviews. One review makes the point that ‘many of the problems which plagued Cuba prior to the revolution have returned, including sex tourism, race-based economic inequality and corruption… The most damning criticism that can be levelled at a revolution is not that it was repressive but that its repression was for naught.’ Castro’s Revolution created no institutions, no physical infrastructure to match the ethical and moral infrastructure he tried to infuse into the Cuban people.

More ideological critics push issue back to the particular version of revolution that Castro wished for and with which he achieved state power - the small elite of armed guerrillas who occupy strategic physical command positions from which they run the government of the country. Furthermore, it is said that the reason this happens of course is because Fidel Castro neither understands nor makes provision for the role of the working class in his revolution. This is neither here nor there. Mao Tse-tung did not bother with the working class either in his revolution in China because there was none. What confounds the serious friend of Cuba and of Castro is the failure to establish enduring institutions that would guarantee for the Cubans what Castro says guarantees the impossibility of ‘an authoritarian regime’ in the United States of America - institutions, traditions and political values. Besides its subject matter, the book in itself is far more interesting than any reviewer has bothered to comment upon. The book has been called an autobiography as well as a biography. Is this the future of the writing about important individuals in human history, from country to country? If so, what’s its strengths and its limitations? How would it relate to writing about the living as well as writing about the dead? The rest of this piece attempts to answer these questions.

There is no doubt that this Q & A format has worked wonders for this book on Fidel Castro. Every question leads to an answer that is a new narrative or a further narrative in aid of the previous one. Scene-setting atmosphere is lost no doubt but it will come only if it is part of the narrative not some gratuitous addition but an over-enthusiastic writer. The Questioner/Writer also has the opportunity to seek further and further clarification from his/her subject as the need arises. Furthermore the Questioner/Writer can also seek even further afield in nailing down the smallest detail by speaking to those who have had anything to do with the Subject. The Questioner can also permit himself/herself the liberty of commenting on what he is finding as he/she writes along.

In the case of the book under discussion, there has been no critical distance and nobody else to do with Fidel Castro has been questioned to firm statements and narratives as delivered by the man himself. Perhaps it is not possible to have this critical distance in this case. It is what the author pays for the privilege of writing the book. Perhaps, it should have been agreed that there would be other voices in the process. How would such a method work if we were to write about Ibrahim Babangida, Yakubu Gowon, Odumegwu-Ojukwu, Olusegun Obasanjo and all those living of Nigeria who still have lots and lots of stuff to explain?

If this method of question and answer can be used to write about the living can it be used for those icons who have died? How would it be if we could do a Q & A on the following people for instance: Sani Abacha, MKO Abiola, Dele Giwa, Bola Ige and many others whose lives, especially the way they ended, still need to be explained to us all? What we learn from this book and what we can learn from any public life is its contribution to building institutions, creating traditions and growing political values that make human existence sustainable. But dictators do not do any of these things. If they did, they would not be dictators.

– Prof. Omotoso is the author of Just Before Dawn.

Did you Enjoy this story? you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Random Post

• July 14, 2008 -- When Providence Intervenes (0)
• June 9, 2008 -- The Elder Goes Home, But The Beat Goes On (0)
• March 16, 2009 -- My Life At 40 (0)
• May 4, 2009 -- An Umpire’s Dilemma (6)
• July 6, 2009 -- Agonies Of Northern Women: Educated, Unmarried, Divorced, Under Bondage (0)
• October 20, 2008 -- Nigeria Needs A Revolution (2)
• May 4, 2008 -- Yoruba Leadership Is Not For Sale (0)
• March 3, 2008 -- Argungu Embraces The World (1)
• July 14, 2008 -- ABUJA/The Law As An Ass (0)
• December 9, 2009 -- Hello world! (1)

No tags for this post.

Related posts

• No related posts.