Raúl Castro dies at 93: Debate over Cuba's future

Raúl Castro dies at 93: Will anything change in Cuba?

What changes in Cuba when a man who hasn't ruled for years passes away? This is the question lingering after the news of Raúl Castro's death at 93, Fidel Castro's brother who led the island from 2008 to 2018 and, according to the most repeated consensus in analysis, no longer had any role in the regime's actual power structure. The news, spread by an account identifying itself as "Aprendiz de Brujo" (Sorcerer's Apprentice) and stating "I am not a journalist," triggered a cascade of reactions ranging from champagne to cold analysis, and from celebration to warnings that the problem was not the man, but the structure.

Who was Raúl Castro and how much power did he have?

Raúl Castro Ruz, born in 1931, died in Havana at age 93. He was Fidel Castro's brother and led the country between 2008 and 2018, when he handed the baton to Miguel Díaz-Canel. A recurring idea in the discussion material is that he was retired and his death is "symbolic and does not affect the political organigram of Cuba." Some go further, arguing he represented the regime's reformist sector, with known statements like "this doesn't work" or "this is a disaster," and that he was in a position to pilot a transition, but was too old and limited himself to securing the family's future by moving money abroad.

The discussion disagrees on whether his disappearance opens or closes something. One side argues the regime is not in danger because in communist countries it is the intelligence service that owns the nation, making it very difficult for them to leave. The other side responds that this idea was sold during the Cold War and later proved untrue, and that those who seem never to leave when they reach power are others.

Succession: Díaz-Canel, heirs, and the role of Russia and China

The name appearing as successor is Miguel Díaz-Canel, already in command. Analysis points out he is "very well protected by Pilingui and Xi" and that Cuba can be used as a platform to harm the United States when the time comes for revenge over Ukraine and Taiwan. The question raised is whether there is any other Castro relative who could succeed him democratically, and the implicit answer is that continuity is guaranteed by the party, not the surname.

Some recall that descendants will have learned that if they do not maintain strict continuity, they are doomed, while others underline that the blame lies not with a specific person, but with the millions who sustain the state machinery and do not want to change the status quo.

Celebration, condemnation, and the underlying problem

Reactions range from "may the earth rest lightly on you, last expeditionary" to "burn in hell," passing through "one less communist" and "one more idiot." There are also calls to save the champagne for other European names and reminders that the problem is not the man, but the system: "In normal countries, the nation has an intelligence service; in communist countries, the intelligence service has the nation."

The counterpoint comes from those who argue that Cuba has been a nuisance to the United States for decades despite embargoes, sanctions, and invasion attempts, answered by images of Cubans fleeing in precarious boats. The discussion drifts toward whether a pitiful social democracy is preferable to communism and whether Cubans, after years of looking away, would be willing to train and work as in a normal country.

---

In the end, the news is the death of a 93-year-old man who no longer ruled. The rest is the usual debate: whether the problem was the people or the system that sustains them. And there, as in Cuba, nobody pops a definitive cork.