History Question....PLEASSEE HELPP!?

Question

Compare the revolutionary regimes of Fidel Castro in Cuba with that of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, noting as many similarities as possible. Why do you suppose that revolutions often produce this sort of leader? Can you think of others like them?

I reeeallyyy need your help!

please, please, please help me!!

THNK YOU SO SO SO MUCHHH!!

Answer 1

First of all, Fidel may not be a saint, but comparing him to the Ayatollah, is like comparing your bank account to Bill Gates'....  The Aya (now deceased) makes Fidel look like not so bad a guy.

But in ANY revolution, a strong man is needed.  In both cases (and in many other cases) the previous government was probably a bit dictatorial, too. So, in the case of Fidel and Aya, they were the strong mem who led the revolution, and they gained the power.  

The only reason the USA did not get a dictator after its revolution is:  George Washington was not that kind of man, and his allies, like the Marquis Lafayette, were not either.

You will find that the case where one of the "leaders" of the revolution takes over, and stays after a revolution, to be a common one in history.

A number of reasons:

1) The new government is weak/poor after overthrowing the old one.  So the new leaders are reluctant to allow any democracy -- or even dissent.

Often times, poverty and ignorance, or religious or political fanaticism, or ethnic, or class issues combine to make a perfect storm.  

Some reasons the US turned out better than most:  (And you'll note those consditions did not exist in either Cube, or Iran, or even in Irac today!  In fact, in many places, the abscence of the below conditions means a tough new regime!)

1) THe US basically had most of a whole empty continent to assume.  Dissenters could go west.

2) The British were 3000 miles away, and embroiled in European politics.  In most cases, howwver, the members, allies, tribes, clans, ethnicities, and what not of the former regime are much nearer to hand...and to causing trouble!  

3) The US Tory Loyalists mostly left the Colonies and went North to Canada.  The remainders of the people had little incentive to dissent, start a counter revolution, or what have you.  Not so in Cuba, Yugoslavia, Iran, Irac, Egypt, etc...

4) Most US colonists were very similar in outlook, living conditions, and so on.  There were a few wealthy people, but the masses were at a middle class level.  They may not have been educated by today's standards, but in their day... most were pretty bright and had a similar basic level of learning....

BUT:      

In a lot of other countries, there are so many kinds (rich vs poor, tribe A vs tribe B) and levels (small, medium, and large problems!) of disparities, that the new government must take a firm hand.  

And it often has to nationalize or seize property to fund itself.

In the US, the New Government was able to seize the property of the Tories (who left for Canada) without causing too much dissent, offense, or trouble with foreign interests.  (Once the British got kicked out, they cared little for their former loyal or dis-loyal subjects.)

Cuba would probably be a US ally, today, had they not nationalized the holdings of powerful US corporations that were active in Cuba at the time. (Which caused instant US government emnity!... because corporations control politicians.)

In Iran, religious fanaticisn took hold, and the Aya took all the former properties of the Shah.  A number of holdings of US and other nation's corporations were taken too....  So automatically, the Aya's Iran had powerful enemies around the world.  Hard to institute too much democracy or laissez faire policies or attitudes in such a case!

But in Cuba and Iran you had:

1. Poverty after the revolution

2. The rich or the educated, or the tolerant either left during or after the revolution, or were casualties of it.

3. There was fanaticism.

4.  There were outside powers who were a threat.

5. There were outside powers, who acted like allies, but were manipulators (IE:  For Cuba, the USSR.)

6.  There were, in their societies, various competing groups.  

7. As noted, the leaders who resulted from the revolution were neither tolerant nor democratic by their very nature and personalities.

I hope this helped.

Answer 2

Each replaced an autocratic ruler:

Castro replaced Batista;  Khomeini replaced the Shah

Each incarcerated or murdered opponents of his regime.

Each is out of favor with the US and acts as an enemy.

Each is subject to sanctions and embargoes from the US

Each has passed from the scene: Khomeini is dead and Fidel might be or is just as well since he's turned the government over to Raul Castro.

Answer 3

Both Castro and Khomeini started revolutions based on philosophy.  Both communism and Islam are rooted in ideas that take on religious overtones.  Both leaders followed corrupt regimes who treated their people poorly despite being in democracies.