In April my family visited Havana, Cuba. It was our first time on the island. From the start, there were things that surprised me. The most immediate was the lack of advertising. Go to the internet and watch some footage of a NBA game from the 1980s. You’ll be surprised by how absent the advertising was. Cuba was something similar. We don’t realize how present advertising is in our lives until we live a space where it is missing. Of course, instead of billboards trying to convince us that our lives are inadequate without this or that product, a frequent sight in Havana was the regime's propaganda.
This presence of propaganda is the unsurprising result of the fact that Cuba is a single-party nation that has been ruled by a handful of people whose figurehead was Fidel Castro and, since his death in 2016, his brother Raúl. Considering that Fidel’s time in power officially lasted 49 years and essentially continued until his death eight years later, it is unsurprising that people frequently refer to Cuba as a dictatorship. Indeed, the only name written into the Cuban constitution is Fidel Castro. Despite the fact that the document mentions “transformaciones democráticas,” it also establishes that the “Partido Comunista” should be “al frente” and the continuing goal of the nation is to “edificar la sociedad comunista”. In other words, it is a Communist nation that is controlled by a single political party. The most obvious consequence of this is that the Castro brothers have had uninterrupted control of Cuba for 58 years, and counting. Other consequences include the lack of various governmental traits that are associated with democracy. Jorge Ramos described Cuba as a place where “there are no pluralistic elections or a free press, and where dozens of political prisoners remain locked up for speaking out against the government. Essentially, the regime still rules with fear”. Beyond the omnipresence of propaganda, there were many ways that the ubiquity of the Castros, their government, and the fear mentioned by Ramos were part of our time in Havana.
The above understood, Cuba’s successes must also be taken into account. Perhaps the most important is the reduction in inequality. Before 1959, Cuba was an advanced economy in many ways, but large sectors of the population did not enjoy the benefits. Paul H. Lewis describes the years immediately before the revolution in this way: “despite Cuba’s relatively high living standards, important sectors of the population -rural labor and unskilled urban workers- lived in poverty and insecurity. About one-third of the labor force was either unemployed or worked part-time, poorly paid jobs” (186-187). Tom Gjelten outlines the inequality that existed before Castro in starker terms: “87 percent of urban housing units had electricity, but only 9 percent of rural homes; only 15 percent of the rural population had running water, as opposed to 80 percent of city residents. While the country as a whole still had the fourth-highest literacy rate in Latin America, nearly half the people in the countryside could not read or write” (170). Considering the above, history shows that this level of inequality combined with the sense of injustice of living under a dictator who invited and depended on foreign influence, was ripe terrain for a coup.
Many of Castro’s internal policies had the goal of reducing the inequality that had opened the door for him to take power. Through food, education, and healthcare, he was able to do this to varying degrees of success during his years in power. A 2012 article in The Economist summarized the situation in this way:
This presence of propaganda is the unsurprising result of the fact that Cuba is a single-party nation that has been ruled by a handful of people whose figurehead was Fidel Castro and, since his death in 2016, his brother Raúl. Considering that Fidel’s time in power officially lasted 49 years and essentially continued until his death eight years later, it is unsurprising that people frequently refer to Cuba as a dictatorship. Indeed, the only name written into the Cuban constitution is Fidel Castro. Despite the fact that the document mentions “transformaciones democráticas,” it also establishes that the “Partido Comunista” should be “al frente” and the continuing goal of the nation is to “edificar la sociedad comunista”. In other words, it is a Communist nation that is controlled by a single political party. The most obvious consequence of this is that the Castro brothers have had uninterrupted control of Cuba for 58 years, and counting. Other consequences include the lack of various governmental traits that are associated with democracy. Jorge Ramos described Cuba as a place where “there are no pluralistic elections or a free press, and where dozens of political prisoners remain locked up for speaking out against the government. Essentially, the regime still rules with fear”. Beyond the omnipresence of propaganda, there were many ways that the ubiquity of the Castros, their government, and the fear mentioned by Ramos were part of our time in Havana.
The above understood, Cuba’s successes must also be taken into account. Perhaps the most important is the reduction in inequality. Before 1959, Cuba was an advanced economy in many ways, but large sectors of the population did not enjoy the benefits. Paul H. Lewis describes the years immediately before the revolution in this way: “despite Cuba’s relatively high living standards, important sectors of the population -rural labor and unskilled urban workers- lived in poverty and insecurity. About one-third of the labor force was either unemployed or worked part-time, poorly paid jobs” (186-187). Tom Gjelten outlines the inequality that existed before Castro in starker terms: “87 percent of urban housing units had electricity, but only 9 percent of rural homes; only 15 percent of the rural population had running water, as opposed to 80 percent of city residents. While the country as a whole still had the fourth-highest literacy rate in Latin America, nearly half the people in the countryside could not read or write” (170). Considering the above, history shows that this level of inequality combined with the sense of injustice of living under a dictator who invited and depended on foreign influence, was ripe terrain for a coup.
Many of Castro’s internal policies had the goal of reducing the inequality that had opened the door for him to take power. Through food, education, and healthcare, he was able to do this to varying degrees of success during his years in power. A 2012 article in The Economist summarized the situation in this way:
Fidel poured resources into social programmes that reached from cradle to grave, providing free world-class healthcare and education as well as free pensions and funerals. Child malnutrition and adult illiteracy were eliminated. Life expectancy and many other social indicators rose above those of the United States. Every Cuban household had (and still has) a ration book (or libreta) entitling it to a monthly supply of food and other staples, provided at nominal cost. Many other services were (and are) similarly subsidised. Compared with the rest of Latin America, Cuba seemed to be achieving greater racial and sexual equality.
Almost as a rule, the people we met in Cuba were cultured and well educated. While many seemed impoverished, they did not appear unhealthy. This education and healthcare crossed all class lines and professions in a way that I had never seen in another country. There is no doubt in my mind that I saw and met people in Cuba -particularly those that were poorer- who were better off in some senses than people living in the US who occupied comparable economic strata. Just as many of the country’s negatives were present, so were these positives.
The country struck me as one that lived in the tension between these negatives and positives. One anecdote that illustrates what I mean came thanks to a taxi ride. Like several of the drivers we met in Havana, this one had been educated in the Soviet Union and was an engineer. Since the “special period” when Cuba’s planned economy was upset by the Soviet Union’s fall, the driver had worked outside the profession he had trained for. Bringing tourists from one place to the next in a rebuilt car from the 1950s had become the most lucrative work he could find. As he drove through Havana, he talked with us about his past. We pointed out that he had enjoyed an excellent education and he responded that this was true. Furthermore, he mentioned, that thanks to the government he did not have to worry about healthcare for his family and this enabled him to work job to job; including periods of unemployment. The conversation was then replaced for a while with Havana’s sights, sounds, and smells. Then, coming out of his reflective silence, he pointed to another of the government's advantages: “This building here. It is a hotel. It’s free and just for Cubans”. This seemed nice to me. In the middle of the city’s tourist district was a hotel that housed only Cubans. It felt like a good idea that even when it cost foreigners a lot of money to enjoy the city, that the locals could have the same experience at a cheaper rate. As we passed, the hotel was an old fortress. It looked run down and its huge walls attracted a notable police presence. It took me a few seconds to realize that instead of a hotel, it was a jail.
In the same person we had met a man who had received an excellent, international education, but who found driving a taxi to be a better job than working as an engineer. His family was taken care of while he moved from one job to another, but he also felt the need to show his foreign clients the presence of a prison in the city’s center. He was happy, but he wasn’t satisfied. He spoke freely, but feared. This was the Cuba that I saw.
A couple of months after our visit to Cuba, President Trump announced changes in the US’s relations with the island. In many ways the new policy was a return to some old policies. One of the essential results is that it is now more difficult for US citizens to visit Cuba. Tourism was not possible before, but Obama had facilitated access to the various versions of permitted travel to such a degree that pretty much anyone who wanted to go, could make the trip. Now this is no longer the situation. To visit Cuba today means a bureaucratic process that is by no means guaranteed to end with permission. These restrictions are part of the larger embargo and policies that, according to official declaration, will continue to be active “so long as [Cuba] continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights”. These grand goals felt far from Havana’s cab rides and cafés. It also seemed logical to question their success. After all, the only person who had been in power longer than Fidel was Queen Elizabeth. Could, perhaps, our country’s posture towards Cuba have fomented the staying power of a government that we wanted to change? After 58 years -and counting- in power, it seems worthwhile to at least question if the status quo has moved us closer or further from these goals. Obama’s policy changes seemed to produce some waves and one result was the presence of posters throughout the city showing artistic images of the US’s first African American president. This certainly struck me as something different. How many other US presidents have positively decorated Havana’s walls since 1959? Judging by the conversations we had while visiting the city, it does not look likely that Trump’s face will be represented as anything but one more critical caricature of a US leader. One US president is revered while another is reviled. Cuba is a place living in tensions and one of the greatest is between its controversy-filled past and unpredictable future.
Works Cited
Constitución De La República De Cuba. Web. 01 July 2017.
Gjelten, Tom. Bacardi and the Long Fight for Cuba: The Biography of a Cause. New York: Penguin, 2009. Print.
Lewis, Paul H. Authoritarian Regimes in Latin America: Dictators, Despots, and Tyrants. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. Print.
Ramos, Jorge. "Jorge Ramos: Cuba Is Still a Dictatorship." Fusion. Web. 01 July 2017.
“The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992”.
"The Deal's off." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 24 Mar. 2012. Web. 01 July 2017.
The country struck me as one that lived in the tension between these negatives and positives. One anecdote that illustrates what I mean came thanks to a taxi ride. Like several of the drivers we met in Havana, this one had been educated in the Soviet Union and was an engineer. Since the “special period” when Cuba’s planned economy was upset by the Soviet Union’s fall, the driver had worked outside the profession he had trained for. Bringing tourists from one place to the next in a rebuilt car from the 1950s had become the most lucrative work he could find. As he drove through Havana, he talked with us about his past. We pointed out that he had enjoyed an excellent education and he responded that this was true. Furthermore, he mentioned, that thanks to the government he did not have to worry about healthcare for his family and this enabled him to work job to job; including periods of unemployment. The conversation was then replaced for a while with Havana’s sights, sounds, and smells. Then, coming out of his reflective silence, he pointed to another of the government's advantages: “This building here. It is a hotel. It’s free and just for Cubans”. This seemed nice to me. In the middle of the city’s tourist district was a hotel that housed only Cubans. It felt like a good idea that even when it cost foreigners a lot of money to enjoy the city, that the locals could have the same experience at a cheaper rate. As we passed, the hotel was an old fortress. It looked run down and its huge walls attracted a notable police presence. It took me a few seconds to realize that instead of a hotel, it was a jail.
In the same person we had met a man who had received an excellent, international education, but who found driving a taxi to be a better job than working as an engineer. His family was taken care of while he moved from one job to another, but he also felt the need to show his foreign clients the presence of a prison in the city’s center. He was happy, but he wasn’t satisfied. He spoke freely, but feared. This was the Cuba that I saw.
A couple of months after our visit to Cuba, President Trump announced changes in the US’s relations with the island. In many ways the new policy was a return to some old policies. One of the essential results is that it is now more difficult for US citizens to visit Cuba. Tourism was not possible before, but Obama had facilitated access to the various versions of permitted travel to such a degree that pretty much anyone who wanted to go, could make the trip. Now this is no longer the situation. To visit Cuba today means a bureaucratic process that is by no means guaranteed to end with permission. These restrictions are part of the larger embargo and policies that, according to official declaration, will continue to be active “so long as [Cuba] continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights”. These grand goals felt far from Havana’s cab rides and cafés. It also seemed logical to question their success. After all, the only person who had been in power longer than Fidel was Queen Elizabeth. Could, perhaps, our country’s posture towards Cuba have fomented the staying power of a government that we wanted to change? After 58 years -and counting- in power, it seems worthwhile to at least question if the status quo has moved us closer or further from these goals. Obama’s policy changes seemed to produce some waves and one result was the presence of posters throughout the city showing artistic images of the US’s first African American president. This certainly struck me as something different. How many other US presidents have positively decorated Havana’s walls since 1959? Judging by the conversations we had while visiting the city, it does not look likely that Trump’s face will be represented as anything but one more critical caricature of a US leader. One US president is revered while another is reviled. Cuba is a place living in tensions and one of the greatest is between its controversy-filled past and unpredictable future.
Works Cited
Constitución De La República De Cuba. Web. 01 July 2017.
Gjelten, Tom. Bacardi and the Long Fight for Cuba: The Biography of a Cause. New York: Penguin, 2009. Print.
Lewis, Paul H. Authoritarian Regimes in Latin America: Dictators, Despots, and Tyrants. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. Print.
Ramos, Jorge. "Jorge Ramos: Cuba Is Still a Dictatorship." Fusion. Web. 01 July 2017.
“The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992”.
"The Deal's off." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 24 Mar. 2012. Web. 01 July 2017.
