Controversy on Gabriel Garcia Marquez - Essay Example

Controversy on Gabriel Garcia Marquez Gabriel Garcia Marquez was one of the leading world laureates. He was a leadingColombian journalist, screenwriter, novelist and short story writer. Commonly known as Gabo in Latin America, laureates Gabriel Garcia Marquez was a major critique of both Colombian and international politics. He used his career in journalism to criticize governments. A stain in the celebrated laureate’s life was his close relationship and friendship with Fidel Castro. The Cuban leader was a totalitarian leader who inhibited a number of freedoms for the Cuban people through his support for communism. Despite the controversies that Gabo’s relationship with Castro raised, I believe that Gabo was not a communist and did not share Castro’s ideas of communism as the discussion below portrays. Communism is a totalitarian socioeconomic system structured on common ownership of the various means of production. The socioeconomic system often vouches for the absence of money, social classes and the state. Additionally, the system discourages any political, social and economic ideologies and movements that seek to develop a different social order. In thwarting such social, political and economic movements, communist leaders often use force in curtailing some of the basic liberties of the people. Gabriel Garcia Marquez could not have subscribed to such a school of thought. Firstly, Gabriel Garcia Marquez was a writer who made a living by selling his books and novels among other write-ups. His most celebrated book, One Hundred Years of Solitude sold more than three million copies. As such, Gabo believed in money and was among the few people who made millions of dollars by selling their works (De la Mora and Ripstein 55). Marquez’s friendship with Castro was just like any other. Marquez prided himself in being a self-made a self-styled socialist who believed in the dictates of the socio economic school of thought all of which differ from those of communism. The friendship was unique in the sense that Marquez often opposed Fidel Castro and criticized some of his decisions, which often sought to sustain his communist ideologies. As a journalist and a critic of international politics, Marquez used his friendship with Castro to influence some of the decisions Castro made. His personal decisions and actions showed that he opposed communism despite his friendship with Castro, which a number of critics have argued that should not influence Marquez’s audience since it was personal and never affected his professional life. Key among the decisions that Marquez made that showed that he was in deed opposed to communism was when he and Masetti resigned from their jobs soon after the communists took over the control of Prensa Latina. Marquez lived in the United States in 1961 during the Bay of Pigs invasion (Whitney, Aljazeera America). His opposition and criticism of the invasion made him an enemy of the United States. He recorded that the American government threatened his family a feature that compelled him to leave the United States. Such critical developments portray an individual dedicated to the dictates of socialism but in his attempt to protect his family, becomes close to Castro who was a sworn enemy of the United States. He would later maintain the relationship personal making sure that it never affected his worldview. As explained earlier, he criticized Castro on a number of occasions. Among the instances that shows Marquez oppose Castro was in 1971 when Castro’s government jailed a Cuban writer, Heberto Padilla. Marquez did not come out publicly to support the writer given the nature of his friendship with Castro but helped in freeing the writer and helped him get an official permission to leave Cuba. As explained earlier, Marquez friendship and closeness to Castro was a personal affair. He could not therefore come out and oppose his friendly publicly. However, he shared the plight of the writer since he was a writer himself. Marquez believed in the freedom of press and the need for a population to enjoy the freedom of speech, which included the freedom to criticize authorities. In fact, Marquez had criticized numerous governments including the government of the United States. The case of Heberto Padilla was a major dilemma that positioned Marquez against his personal beliefs. On one side was his friendship with Cuba, the man who had offered his family a safe home and his beliefs in socialism. In order to overcome the dilemma, he refused to condemn the move public owing to the fact that it would have numerous ramifications. Instead, he raised the issue with Castro thereby securing the writer a permission to leave the country. His action was diplomatic. Firstly, he was not a Cuban politician and did not therefore need the publicity and the response his public opposition would earn him. Secondly and more importantly is the fact that he had access to Castro. Not very many people enjoyed such luxury in Cuba. This implied that he had a reliable avenue, which he in deed used in securing freedom for the writer. Another equally significant occurrence, which proved his opposition to Castro, was in response to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Castro supported the invasion given the fact that he was a communist and so was the Soviet Union. To Castro, the invasion was a sure way of expanding the communist ideologies. In his response, Marquez criticized the invasion by explaining that it threatened the growth of Czechoslovakia and trampled on basic human rights. He also expressed disappointment in Castro’s support for the invasion. Such was an ideal instance in which Marquez denounced the spread of communism and its tenets given the fact that they inhibited the development and expression of some of the basic human liberties. Marquez later described the invasion as “only symptoms of a system that resembles socialism less and less.”  The freethinking Marquez expressed opposition for the coup in Chile, which was backed by the United States in order to remove Salvador Allende a communist president of the country at the time. Communism had spread to numerous countries in South America. The tendency threatened the prosperity of the United States a feature that influenced the American decision to back a coup against a communist leader in the region. Marquez’s opposition of the coup was not an expression of support for communism but was instead a show of his respect for humanity and human rights. Marquez respected existing institutions and system. A government and system of governance existed in Chile. He simply preferred a better way of changing a regime instead of a coup that caused deaths of numerous Chileans. In his opposition, he compared the coup to the Soviet’s invasion of Czechoslovakia stating rightly that the world had found itself between “two imperial states equally cruel and insatiable” (De la Mora and Ripstein 76). In 1975, Marquez wrote an in-depth analysis of the state of Cuba. The article shows that his relationship and friendship with Marquez had not affected his beliefs and opinion about communism. He for example cites the lack of free speech in the country explaining that it had curtailed the development of the country. He explains that lack of free speech was a major hindrance to the political and economic development of the country. However, he notes that free speech was fast approaching give the fact that Cubans had created a proposed constitution that would provide for the freedom of speech. As explained earlier, Marquez made a living out of free speech. Being a journalist and an author, he used his profession to criticize both governments and their leaders (Esteban, Diane and Stéphanie 87). He even continued writing while in Cuba. Such developments showed his opposition to communism since he did not limit himself to the dictates of communism even when he lived in a communist territory. Marquez had a friendly and equally effective way of approaching Castro with issues. While he sacrificed some of his works, which criticized Castro’s rule and provided a light representation of the issues affecting the Cuban people, Marquez served as a breach between some of the Cuban people and Fidel Castro. Castro was an inhumane dictator who used arbitrary arrest and detention of people who opposed his leadership. Families of Cubans who fell victim of Castro’s harsh rule saw Marquez as an intermediary who would help them save their family members. As explained earlier, Marquez helped secure the freedom of Heberto Padilla, a Cuban writer who had opposed Castro. He did the same to numerous other people who Castro had detained arbitrarily. Reports indicated that he helped free as much as 3,000 prisoners from Cuban prisons. Such reports show that despite his friendship with Castro, he had his differences but had a way of reconciling them in order to safeguard the friendship. Additionally, the fact that the Cuban people saw him as a reliable arbitrator shows that the people had noted the differences in the personalities of the two friends. Marquez made serious sacrifices most of which he called self-censorships. He often sent his manuscripts before printing them into books to Castro who often withheld books he considered undesirable. Such was a major sacrifice that would always help acquire such favors as freeing numerous Cubans that the dictator had arrested and detained arbitrarily. Marquez came out to criticize the system of governance in Soviet. The Soviet Union embodied communism. In most of his interviews, he would always criticize the decisions made by the leaders of the Soviet Union. Key among such open opposition to the Soviet Union was during the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Despite his friendship with Castro, Marquez called for the development of a unique form of socialism not only in his home country Colombia but also in other Latin American countries. He discouraged Latin American countries from copying the democracy in the developed capitalist countries explaining that such a democracy was a result of their development (Martin 61). As such, he called for a unique order of socialism that acknowledged the uniqueness of the cultures in Colombia and therefore would present solutions to the Colombian people. Such a homegrown solution to the local problems would befit the issues affecting the countries thereby enhancing their development. In his interviews with journalists, Marquez maintained a degree of independence. He for example criticized Soviet’s invasion of Czechoslovakia. He also criticized the United States decision to implement a coup in Chile. By doing this, Marquez proved that he preferred a homegrown solution that would present realistic solution to the problems facing the locals. The system of politics was unique to Chile as Castro was to Cuba. In changing such mindsets however bad the leaders and the systems of governance are, Marquez called for better ways of resolving the problems by considering the uniqueness of the problems instead of imposing a different culture on others, as was the case with the two invasions. Marquez was a human rights activist. He often protected and battled for human rights. Through his profession both as a writer and as a journalist, he often vouched for human right. He criticized governments that curtailed human rights in his works. Human rights often constituted a basic theme in most of his novels. Such a personality does not change even after he develops a friendship with Castro, a dictator who disregarded human rights. The discussion above shows that he served as an intermediate for poor families that could not access Castro and organized a way through which Castro’s administration could free the people he had jailed without trial. In retrospect, the relationship between Marquez and Castro did not affect his beliefs. He remained integral to his belief in socialism. He did not appreciate the dictates of communism as he portrayed in some of his major engagements. The relationship and friendship with Castro was a personal matter. He enjoyed a degree of liberty and made some of the decision by himself without experience from Castro. While he limited his criticism of Castro and his totalitarian administration, he found a personal way of doing the same. Marquez remained a socialist who protected basic human rights and called for homegrown solutions to the problems facing the people of his country. He remained Castro’s cordial to his death but that did not influence any change of his attitude. He explains that the opportunity to be close to Castro enabled him to view things integrally and respond appropriately. He expressed his mind but was cautious not to offend his friend. This however should not mean that he changed his mind set and became a communist. Works cited De la Mora, Sergio and Ripstein, Arturo. "A Career in Perspective: An Interview with Arturo Ripstein",Film Quarterly (University of California Press, 1999) 52 (4): 2–11. Print. Esteban, Angel, Diane Stockwell, and Stéphanie Panichelli. Fidel and Gabo: A Portrait of the Legendary Friendship between Fidel Castro and Gabriel García Márquez. New York: Pegasus Books, 2009. Internet resource. Martin, Gerald. Gabriel García Márquez. A Life, London: Bloomsbury, 2008. Print. Whitney, Joel. Gabriel García Márquez and Fidel Castro: A complex and nuanced comraderie. Aljazeera America, April 19, 2014 7. Internet resource. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/19/gabriel garcia-marquezfidelcastro.html Read More