Fidel Castro, Hero or Tyrant?

There are people whose influence outlives their physical lives; Fidel Castro will be one of them. The leader of the Cuban revolution and the last emblematic communist leader of our time passed away Friday, leaving behind a mixed legacy of accomplishments and failures.

Fidel, as most Cubans refer to him, was a hero to some and the region’s worst tyrant to others. He was the source of great pride and gratitude for those who felt indebted to him for their education, health care and peaceful way of life, yet a source of great pain and anger for those whose lives were shattered by arbitrary incarceration, family separations and lack of freedoms under his regime. His death provoked lively celebrations in Miami’s Calle Ocho (Eighth Street) among enthusiastic Cuban exiles, as well as a deep sense of loss and mourning among fidelistas on the island who compared their grief to losing their father.

In the early 1960s, Fidel’s popularity was widespread and went across social strata. After all, who doesn’t want a more just world? Yet debate exists over whether he succeeded in bringing the social revolution he promised to Cuba. For his critics, not only did he fail to deliver but his underperformance was appalling, given all of his years in power to get things right, his ultimate control of all institutions and Cuba’s massive subsidies from the Soviet Union for over three decades and, later, from China and Venezuela. In contrast, Fidel’s supporters, who are more like groupies of this charismatic figure, believe that he did accomplish those goals and that the areas in which the revolution came up short weren’t due to Fidel’s actions, but were instead the fault of the United States’ blockade — the trade embargo — against Cuba.

The time for the U.S. Congress to lift the embargo and let the Cuban economic model fail on its own is long overdue. The embargo itself has been a complete failure that has systematically hurt ordinary Cubans without bringing the much-desired regime change it was meant to deliver. Leaving all moral and humanitarian arguments aside and from a purely economic and U.S.-centric standpoint, the U.S. embargo toward Cuba hurts American business and consumers. For the vociferous Cuban-American members of Congress, Fidel’s death and, more importantly, President Raúl Castro’s more flexible model of socialism should be good enough reasons to soften the position against lifting the embargo.

Since taking power after Fidel stepped down in 2008, Raúl Castro has proved to be a far more flexible leader and has taken important steps to transform Fidel’s socialist model. Raúl has made room for the gestation of Cuba’s private sector, allowed small and medium businesses to flourish, eased travel restrictions by removing exit visas for Cubans and began rebuilding a relationship with Cuba’s adversary, the United States. In addition, Raúl has established a maximum age limit of 70 for Cuba’s future leaders and announced that he will step down in 2018. The more significant changes Cuba needs will occur gradually over time. Even if the U.S. embargo were lifted today, Cuba has a long way to go. However, both countries would benefit from taking advantage of the more favorable context of Raúl’s Cuba and from deepening the Obama administration’s policy change from isolation to engagement. President-elect Donald Trump, a businessman, surely understands the economic benefits of lifting the embargo. Despite his call to repeal all of President Barack Obama’s executive orders, U.S.-Cuba relations will hopefully continue to strengthen under Trump’s administration.

A final thought worth mentioning is the hypocrisy of the Latin American left, which conveniently turned a blind eye to Fidel Castro’s many wrongdoings for far too long. It forgave Fidel for crimes it would have never tolerated from an authoritarian right, including the imprisonment and silencing of political opponents, the exodus of millions of Cubans and the restrictions of individual freedoms, among others. They mourn Fidel’s death, praising the Comandante who inspired them in their youth, while likely also grieving the death of the unsustainable dream of a socialist model that not even Fidel Castro could deliver after almost 50 years in power.

As the absolute ruler of Cuba for more than four decades, Fidel punched above his weight, outliving the mandate of 11 U.S. presidents and 280 Latin American leaders, surviving numerous murder attempts, giving the small island a protagonist role during the Cold War, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war and influencing the course of several countries across hemispheres including Venezuela, Nicaragua, Angola and the Congo. Regardless of one’s views and feelings toward Fidel, his strong impact on world history is undeniable. The iconic Comandante’s body was turned into ashes — a powerful symbol of the end of an era. Nevertheless, Fidel the ostensible hero and Fidel the ruthless tyrant will continue to be remembered as one of history’s most influential figures.

Erika de la Garza is the program director of the Latin America Initiative at the Baker Institute. Her chief areas of interest include U.S.-Latin America relations; emerging leadership; coalition building between public, private and civil society actors; and trade and business development in Latin America.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.