Students constituted another faction that was of prime importance. In light of the reduced access to education being experienced at that time, this group was created by the youth belonging to the upper and middle classes. They formed themselves into local associations and national federations. The professional progressives, who also came from the same social sectors, but from one generation higher than that of the students, must be added to that group of young people. The progressives were an intellectual reference that established a battlefront of vital importance.

Unlike the labourers, those groups were not known for their material demands; nor in principle did they propose highly radical changes to the ruling system; thus their battle in itself had a higher civic expression, since they were invested in more lofty ideals, and the strong ethical content of their political beliefs contributed to that.

Among other reasons, this explains why they enjoyed greater acceptance from the other sectors of the population, which also saw in the youth, the purest expression of their respective societies. This also contributed to the fact that in many countries, students became the vanguard of the fight against dictatorships.

Even though young people still form part of our countries’ work force today, the movement recognised as that of the youth was the student movement and not the movement of labourers. The former certainly had more generational overtones, but it also involved the children of the wealthiest and most recognised social sectors within the society.

That’s why it was common among those students to refer to their associates as young people and certainly the adult population, which was less active in those days, also saw in those political activists their own children; therefore the term “youth” was also used among those adults.

The discourse at that time was collectivist, rejecting all individualism and based on the notions that “the motherland is the altar and not the pedestal” and “dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” (it is sweet and glorious to die for one’s country). Thus, sacrifice and immolation became the very standards of heroism and battles were considered as real triumphs, filled with a strong epic sense.

Fidel Castro’s leadership emerged precisely in that context of demand for change and decisive devotion to native ideals. That great process of civic struggle was clamouring for a symbolic figure who would represent abnegation in the fight for freedom. The Fidelista discourse, based essentially on the philosophy and vision of José Martí, fulfilled the aspirations of the Latin American and Caribbean youth who was in tune with the revolutionary wave.

There is no doubt that the great audacity, courage and personal bravery displayed in the fight against the Fulgencio Batista dictatorship, served as the stimulus for the youth of the region, and that is one of the factors that elevated the Cuban Revolution, since it became the paradigm and example to follow.

The strength of that leadership, four decades later, explains to a large extent, why its main leader has managed to cling to the discourse of the youth, based on an ethical notion that is faithful to the values and principles that steered its action since the onset of the political battle during the fifties.

The historical importance of Fidel Castro is based on the fact that even though the world has changed, he has been able to preserve the ideals of his youth, setting an example of coherence and honesty; he therefore continues to be the personification of revolutionary movements, though no longer called the Youth Revolution.

Dr. Rubén Silié Valdez is the Secretary General of the Association of Caribbean States. The opinions expressed are not necessarily the official views of the ACS. Comments and reactions can be sent to mail@acs-aec.org

January 25, 2007