Fidel Castro’s unusual gift to history

His personal rule over decades was the longest in modern times, which has become an oddity in a time when more people embrace liberty and accountability.

AP Photo
Fidel Castro, left, raises his brother's hand, President Raúl Castro, during the 6th Communist Party Congress in Havana, Cuba, in 2011.

After Fidel Castro’s passing last week, reactions were decidedly mixed about his legacy for the Cuban people. Are they better off now than, say, the people of Costa Rica? In his later years, Mr. Castro admitted his model of governance “doesn’t even work for us any more.” Yet most reactions did not miss this undeniable fact: No other person in modern history had so dominated a country for so long.

Starting in 1959, when Castro overthrew a dictator and then imposed strict communism, the self-styled revolutionary relied on a kind of personal rule that today is widely resisted around the world. The era when a strongman can reign for decades may be over. Today’s authoritarian rulers, as seen in Russia, China, Iran, and elsewhere, are more anxious than ever about the flow of ideas and the power of individual conscience to unmask their claim to rule. Their tactics to suppress dissent are becoming more desperate, reflected in their attempts to control the internet.

Much of humanity has come to embrace open communications, equality under rule of law, and the ability to hold rulers to account in free elections. These practices rely not on a personal superiority over others but on immutable values common to all.

Castro’s autocracy – which he handed over to his brother, Raúl – has steadily become an anomaly. The notion that one person can lead brilliantly for decades, without correction by the people, began to erode during the 20th century with the defeat of fascist dictatorships in 1945 and later the fall of the Berlin Wall. Even the 2011 Arab Spring, while it mostly failed, helped shatter the myth of eternal rule by family dynasties in the Middle East.

The spread of democracy is not always smooth. Yet its roots are stronger than ever. Democratic rule has lately broken down in some places, such as Thailand, Turkey, and Nicaragua. But new models are rising in Myanmar, Tunisia, Sri Lanka, and Nigeria. Elected leaders are handing the baton of power over to an elected opponents, not a coup leader. And anti-corruption protests in India, Brazil, and Malaysia have shaken or felled parties that once believed they could reign forever.

The Castro brothers were able to govern for so long in part because the United States often took actions against their rule that allowed them to rally the people against a common enemy. By opening ties with Cuba in 2015, President Obama hoped to end that dynamic. And in a visit to the island, he called on the Cuban people “to choose their government in free elections.” When that happens, the most likely historical fact worth noting about the Castro era may simply be its longevity.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.