AHC: Fidel Castro takes power by electoral, not armed, means in Cuba

[raharris1973]

That’s the challenge - have Castro win power electorally, rather than through a guerrilla campaign.

Perhaps he does not get amnestied from prison in 1955 but remains there for the rest of the decade, until such time as Batista chooses to yield power and hold competitive elections again. The new govt released him and other prisoners, but he’s not ready for the first round and doesn’t have the moral excuse to go guerrilla against an elected regime right away, but works on political organizing around fundamental discontents, carrying that to a later electoral win?

By the way, was his amnesty just two years after trying an armed uprising (in 53) unusually lenient compared with Batista’s usual MO, prior Cuba political history, or Caribbean or Latin American political habits of mid 20th century? Or were such amnesties of rebels a routine, expected PR gesture by rulers, even authoritarian ones?

 

[Ricardolindo]

That’s the challenge - have Castro win power electorally, rather than through a guerrilla campaign.

Perhaps he does not get amnestied from prison in 1955 but remains there for the rest of the decade, until such time as Batista chooses to yield power and hold competitive elections again. The new govt released him and other prisoners, but he’s not ready for the first round and doesn’t have the moral excuse to go guerrilla against an elected regime right away, but works on political organizing around fundamental discontents, carrying that to a later electoral win?

By the way, was his amnesty just two years after trying an armed uprising (in 53) unusually lenient compared with Batista’s usual MO, prior Cuba political history, or Caribbean or Latin American political habits of mid 20th century? Or were such amnesties of rebels a routine, expected PR gesture by rulers, even authoritarian ones?

Fidel Castro could have won a free election in Cuba but only as long as most people thought he was not a communist. A common belief was that Raul Castro and Che Guevara were communists but not Fidel Castro.

 

[OwenM]

I mean, was Fidel particularly communist at first? Raul definitely was, but my understanding is that to begin with, Fidel was mainly a Cuban nationalist who found the Soviets were his best bet as an ally?

 

[Charles EP M.]

I'm assuming the US is likely to try and coup him anyway, which will look far worse if he's not a dictator

 

[JesterBL]

I think you have to change Castro to the point that he is unrecognizable as Castro. If someone from the rebel coalition were to succeed in a delayed election/resignation by Bautista, it will be one of the urban liberals or moderates. Castro from what we know, wasn't particularly enamored of elections and from what we know, wasn't particularly good at sharing power or compromise. That is why his earlier governments (composed of moderates and liberals) were continually over-ridden and eventually dissolved. He won't have the profile without his campaign in the countryside to go for the top spot, and he won't do well in a position where he isn't there.

We even have an interview in 1965 where he said as much- basically saying that had he gotten an elected position, it would have been a position from which he could agitate and launch a coup/revolution. You have to take Castro's own statements with a grain of salt- he insists he was a Communist from the beginning as well, having hoodwinked everyone, which doesn't really seem to line up with a lot of the other evidence.

As to whether or not his sentence under Bautista was lenient- it absolutely was, whether judged by Bautista's standards, earlier Cuban standards or post-Revolution standards. Why that is is an open question- other members of the Orthodox Party suffered worse fates, as did other members of the Havana student-rebel tradition.

 

[Makemakean]

As to whether or not his sentence under Bautista was lenient- it absolutely was, whether judged by Bautista's standards, earlier Cuban standards or post-Revolution standards. Why that is is an open question- other members of the Orthodox Party suffered worse fates, as did other members of the Havana student-rebel tradition.

And let's not forget those gay guys who were sent to labour camps where the official slogan was (no, really, this was the official slogan) 'Work will make you men!'

 

[Ricardolindo]

I think you have to change Castro to the point that he is unrecognizable as Castro. If someone from the rebel coalition were to succeed in a delayed election/resignation by Bautista, it will be one of the urban liberals or moderates. Castro from what we know, wasn't particularly enamored of elections and from what we know, wasn't particularly good at sharing power or compromise. That is why his earlier governments (composed of moderates and liberals) were continually over-ridden and eventually dissolved. He won't have the profile without his campaign in the countryside to go for the top spot, and he won't do well in a position where he isn't there.

We even have an interview in 1965 where he said as much- basically saying that had he gotten an elected position, it would have been a position from which he could agitate and launch a coup/revolution. You have to take Castro's own statements with a grain of salt- he insists he was a Communist from the beginning as well, having hoodwinked everyone, which doesn't really seem to line up with a lot of the other evidence.

As to whether or not his sentence under Bautista was lenient- it absolutely was, whether judged by Bautista's standards, earlier Cuban standards or post-Revolution standards. Why that is is an open question- other members of the Orthodox Party suffered worse fates, as did other members of the Havana student-rebel tradition.

It's also doubtful that Castro even saw Batista as his main enemy. Castro spent a lot of time during the Cuban Revolution trying to make sure that no one else overthrew Batista.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

It's not impossible for Castro to get into power without a revolution. He was a supporter of the Partido Ortodoxo until the early 50s and tried to run for congress on their behalf (by this point he was sufficiently radicalised by the party leader's assassination that he was only endorsed by an intransigent splinter group, but the key point is that he had years of experience in democratic party politics), and when Batista took over and canceled the elections he brought lawsuits against Batista as his first port of call, so even at this stage I can see him becoming a grandstanding populist rather than a violent revolutionary.

He also had a relationship with Batista from the latter's earlier period of governance - Batista sent him money as a wedding present and tried to recruit his support before the coup, so you could even have an alt-Castro replacing Batista from within the regime.

One of the important things to realise about Castro is that his positions were formed to a large extent by external factors (as evidenced by his taking three years after '59 to get close with the USSR and then constantly changing his views on things like the universality of armed guerilla struggles depending on how confident he felt week by week). Change some of those inputs and you get a different Castro.

 

[Beata Beatrix]

It's not impossible for Castro to get into power without a revolution. He was a supporter of the Partido Ortodoxo until the early 50s and tried to run for congress on their behalf (by this point he was sufficiently radicalised by the party leader's assassination that he was only endorsed by an intransigent splinter group, but the key point is that he had years of experience in democratic party politics), and when Batista took over and canceled the elections he brought lawsuits against Batista as his first port of call, so even at this stage I can see him becoming a grandstanding populist rather than a violent revolutionary.

He also had a relationship with Batista from the latter's earlier period of governance - Batista sent him money as a wedding present and tried to recruit his support before the coup, so you could even have an alt-Castro replacing Batista from within the regime.

One of the important things to realise about Castro is that his positions were formed to a large extent by external factors (as evidenced by his taking three years after '59 to get close with the USSR and then constantly changing his views on things like the universality of armed guerilla struggles depending on how confident he felt week by week). Change some of those inputs and you get a different Castro.

I heartily agree – I think Fidel Castro is very easy to picture as a rather bruising, if, uh, heterodox Ortodoxo presidential candidate in the 1960s in a world where Batista's coup is averted somehow – and Prío probably could have averted the coup if he had been more proactive.

In general, pre-Revolutionary Cuba was a really remarkable if violent and profoundly imperfect republic – Castro first entered politics on the fringes of the political gangsterism between factions of students in support of one party or another – but I think it's a republic a President Castro could easily have found a home in. This era of Cuba in general, is, I think, one ripe for and rife with counterfactual speculation.

 

[Yokai Man]

I mean, was Fidel particularly communist at first? Raul definitely was, but my understanding is that to begin with, Fidel was mainly a Cuban nationalist who found the Soviets were his best bet as an ally?

Well yes,the actual Communists went to complain to Nicky K and the Politburo about it and they were like “eh,fuck it” because he was willing to ally to them and it was less expensive and complicated to just have him claim he’s a Communist and thus the USSR scores a win against the USA.

By his own admission Fidel never actually read Marx’s works in full,he just skimmed some of them and took what he liked from them to justify his policies.