Latin American Revolutions: Cuba and NicaraguaBy Kevin, Hayley, and Girija

Main problems: Corruption• In both Cuba and Nicaragua, corruption was present at almost all times

in the governmental systems. In Cuba the rise of Batista resulted from a corrupt election. The election of 1954 was rigged by Batista who had no opposition. Although there were some improvements made during Batista's reign, corruption still existed. Wages of workers, peasants and the middle class were not raised even during times of inflation and therefore the standard of living decreased greatly, while the wealthier elite flourished from the benefits of the economy. Revolutionary movements, unified by the movement under Castro, sprung from this corruption and attacked the government. In 1958 Castro's movement attacked the sugar mills and other important economic resources. The economy began to plummet, and as misuse of political power continued when Batista was accused of opening Swiss Bank accounts for his own use, the supporters of Batista turned to the revolutionary movements. The revolts moved with more ferocity, and although the Cuban government fought back with counteroffensives in 1958, Castro was still able to win, offering better alternatives to the weak and corrupt government.

Corruption continued• In Nicaragua the regime of the Somozas proved to be a regime

resulting directly from corruption. Although the structures of a developing democracy existed, all of the power was given to the leader and it was exploited for the well being of only the leader and the privileged classes. The elite received benefits from the Somozas' rule, but most of the money gained went directly into the president's pocket. Politically, the entirety of the regime was corrupt as well. Rather than represent liberalism, the Somozas exploited all aspects of the Nicaraguan structure and used it for self benefit, while ruling as dictators. Unhappy, the workers began creating revolutionary groups, the most prominent being the FSLN, but were not very successful in fighting corruption due to the elite support of the government. However, following the earthquake of 1972, almost total elite support leaned towards the FSLN. When Anastasio Somoza channeled all US international aid into his own pocket, the elite themselves revolted and soon Somoza could not keep his rule, as the masses and international pressures fought his violence and corruption.

Disparities• All of this corruption fed into a vicious cycle in which

socioeconomic disparities between the wealthy elite of Cuba and Nicaragua enjoyed prosperity while the working mass’ standard of living and share in the economy lessened considerably.  In Cuba, an economic elite assumed control after the departure of the Spanish. Political conditions were then very favorable to them to increase their wealth at the expense of the masses.  The wages of the majority of Cubans were too low to keep up with inflation - inflation caused in part by the upper class-US bond that allowed cheaper US products to flood the marketplace.  The Batista regime reacted violently to middle and lower class’ attempts to have a voice in the government, further taking away their limited power.  By the time Castro's revolution was thriving, the difference between the quality of the life of the elite and the middle and lower classes was an enormous and undeniable problem that ignited the majority's desire for radical change.

Disparities continued

• In Nicaragua, those at the top of the oligarchy were the members of the Somoza family and its allies.  The economic system was dependent on one export - coffee - and to make more money, the government allowed for the suppression of those who did not belong to the elite, including the redistribution of lands and purposeful inflation to force people into peonage; all were blaring signs of the disparity of social and political power between those close to the Somozas and those not.  Because the government did not care about the welfare of the masses, laws and economic policy reflected what would best aid the economic elite.  While millions suffered considerably, a select group of people enjoyed enormous wealth; by the time the FSLN rallied the masses, their heartless subjugation had become intolerable, the result of which was that the majority of the population were furious with their lifestyles.

Economic Dependence• Both Nicaragua and Cuba were economically

dependent on other parts of the world this made it difficult for nations in Latin America to be completely independent or to have a strong economy.

• Nicaragua had a strongly dependent economy on sending raw materials to Spain during the colonial period, and later on their economy was based heavily on coffee, and cash crops later on they were heavily dependent on cotton export. The danger of this is that it left their entire economy controlled by world demand. It also meant that the rich were exclusively the plantation owners who had enough arable land to produce cash crops.

Economic dependence continued

• Cuba had a similarly dependent economy in that it was based almost solely on the exportation of cash crops, mostly sugar and cotton. This exportation was in turn almost solely to the United States during the 1900’s. Cuba’s economy could not be self sufficient after dependence on foreign trade for so long. This gave The US immense control and interest in Cuba both as a market and for the resources they produced.

Foreign Intervention• Foreign involvement in both Nicaragua and In Cuba was

often in support of or at least not directly against the dictatorships. Foreign countries often funded the dictatorships and had ties with the bourgeoisie.

• In Cuba, Batista and the wealthy elite in the country had strong ties with the US both politically in an anti communist manner and economically as the elite sold and bought from the US. The US often turned a blind eye towards Batista’s methods and dictatorship until it seemed that communist takeover was eminent at which point the US offered him safety to leave and allow for non Communist reforms to the government. This may not necessarily have been so much for the sake of the Cuban people as it was to keep it from being Communist however.

Foreign intervention continued• Nicaragua also had a similar situation with the Somozas.

The US and the world turned a blind eye towards their dictatorship possibly due to their facade of having a free democratic government. The world would turn a blind eye to the dictatorship and the corruption and occasionally even helping to fund the corrupt government, until the point when it could no longer be ignored and foreign governments began to support the revolution to overthrow the Somozas.

Differences between the two regions: Land Ownership• The distribution of land among the poor lower and middle

classes differed in Nicaragua and In Cuba. While the poor peasant farmers in Nicaragua thought of it as taking back the land that they traditionally owned and had been passed down through their families. They were then made into debt slaves by the new plantation owners who sold them the food the worked to grow at exorbitant prices. Those of Cuba historically hadn’t had land they had always been in this sort of predicament but they wanted to better their position and own land to farm for themselves, there had been no tradition attached to the land like in Nicaragua.

Image of Government• Internationally, knowledge of current government systems

during the regimes of Somoza and Batista was lacking. However, it was known that Batista's rule was a dictatorship as opposed to the false perception of a Nicaraguan democracy. During the reign of the Somozas, a façade of a democratic government was assumed to shield the international world from seeing the internal corruption. Having a liberal constitution, it supposedly had all the characteristics of a developing democratic nation, but in reality they were ignored. In addition, during elections, there was an emphasis on an opposition party, but a conservative party was bribed to ensure that the Somoza campaign would win. However, when the corruption of the government was revealed, little was done by the US until the revolution was in full scale.

Image of government continued• In Cuba the situation differed slightly. When Batista was in

power, it was internationally known that he was a dictator. Having no façade of a democracy, Cuba was openly autocratic. In fact, although the US knew about the corruption they supported Batista's rule, because it allowed cheap trade--sugar was readily available. Additionally, the US was wary of Castro's unified July 26 movement. Aware that Castro resented a US economic presence, they realized that the US economy would lose the benefit of a cheap import if Castro were to come into power. Similar to Nicaragua, the US did not act on the corruption of the government until the height of the revolution. Later on, when Castro assumed power, and his communist tendencies became pronounced, the US attempted to increase its interference.

Conclusion• In both Cuba and Nicaragua the revolutionaries challenged the

government and status quo by challenging its legitimacy.  Their method was to highlight flaws, demonstrating its ineptitude to successfully carry out even positive agendas.  The revolution under Castro attacked the infrastructure, key targets, and all aspects of the regime to show Batista's weakness.  When the country was so hurt it could barely operate, even Batista's supporters knew he needed to go.  The FSLN used a similar method in Nicaragua, organizing peasant and workers' revolts that evoked a cruel and militant response; however, the greatest sign of the illegitimacy of the Somoza's rule was a devastating earthquake.  Anastasio mishandled the relief response by pocketing foreign aid and encouraging looting by his National Guard while the infrastructure remained unfixed and many people suffered.  All of these gave revolutionaries and loyalists alike reason to doubt or resent their leaders - and make the succeeding revolutions seem viable alternative forms of government.