Well, the news from Cuba is, well, mixed. The latest pictures of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro do not look good. After three operations, he still looks like he is dying. Some reports have him being fed intravenously, but of course, most of this is being withheld from the Cuban public. Power currently resides in his brother Raul's hands, but Castro himself has not been seen publicly since July. President Chavez last week produced a letter with a firm signature as "proof" that the aging dictator is indeed improving. According to official sources he is up and walking. (BBC article) Still, even with improvement -- Castro is 80 and he is not immortal. Consequently, the question of what follows Castro for Cuba is becoming more and more interesting. Speculation is rampant across the net and the media.
If you're interested some of the links are: "After Castro". The Observer/ Guardian has an entire special edition on the possibilities for Cuba after Castro. Link Then there's the Canadian Dimension. And there are a host of others.
Of course, speculation is inevitable. As an historian, though, I have been struck by the irony of Castro's situation and in some ways that it is a bit unique. The amusing/ ironic part is that after surviving the numerous attempts on his life through Operation Mongoose, Castro may get the luxury denied to many revolutionaries -- to die an old man in his bed. It truly is a luxury. In fact, most conquerors and revolution makers die on the field, not because of ill health.
Think for a minute with me. Who got to die in their beds? The American revolutionaries did -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Henry. Yet their French counterparts largely didn't. Jean Paul Marat -- assassinated. Robespierre -- Madame La Guillotine, and the same for George Danton. Oliver Cromwell died of old age, but was exhumed rather quickly, and many of his contemporaries did not survive until that point. Those who survived Cromwell and were responsible for voting to execute Charles I were hunted down by Charles II after the Restoration. Julius Caesar -- revolutionary and conqueror but dies from those famous stab wounds. Hitler, Mussolini, -- not peaceful deaths. Franco in Spain died as an old man. So, amazingly did Lenin & Stalin.
So what is the key? Well, obviously the revolution has to be successful -- otherwise you're just rebels. The other part -- which is a bit scandalous suggestion in this day and age -- is that the revolutionaries who died of old age were often those who were the most pragmatic. Some principles, but were often more about power and stability than about ideology. The rule is not universal, but does apply in many cases. Even in the American Revolution, there were practical compromises made for the sake of stability. They could not solve slavery in the Declaration of Independence or with the Constitution -- a practical compromise, distasteful and stomach-churning for many, but critical to survival.
Castro's option for Communism was not a foregone conclusion when he seized power in 1959, and neither I think is it a foregone conclusion that the government that follows will be communist. In fact, I'm not sure that is even a valuable question. The question is whether or not it will be totalitarian like Castro, and like those before him --- or maybe just maybe, democracy could take root and grow. A new revolution for Cuba and maybe this time they'll get Washington and not another Bonaparte.