it was unconstitutional. Only after the regime was firmly in power did he
launch his revolutionary movement with an attack on a barracks on 26 July
- The movement, taking as its name the July 26th Movement, retreated to
the mountains where the pro-government forces failed completely to deal with
it. Batista gave up, rather than being defeated, leaving Cuba at the end of 1958.
Thus, a mere five years of only sporadic violence launched the Castro regime.
Certainly at this stage, Castro was no Marxist; he was a radical Cuban
nationalist, with egalitarian aims, which led him towards the classic policy of
agrarian reform. This, in turn, alienated not only the Cuban upper classes but
also the USA, whose corporations had important land interests in Cuba.
To a large extent it was American intransigence which turned Castro
towards the then Soviet Union as an ally; moulding Marxist analyses into his
own radical nationalist orientation with ease. This alliance, however,
entrenched American hostility when Castro gave the Soviet Union permission
to site nuclear missiles, which could threaten mainland USA, in Cuba, a move
which led to theCuban Missile Crisis.Cuba, in fact, benefited from the
cold war,because Soviet foreign aid to such a strategically-placed ally made
up for the American trade embargo. Soviet funds allowed the development of
an extensivewelfare state, and obviated the need for economic efficiency.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, Castro
managed successfully to remain in power into the 21st century while main-
taining at least the vestiges of a socialist economy and welfare society. The
political power of the e ́migre ́ Cubans in the USA has meant that US foreign
policy still treats Cuba as it has done throughout the cold war. It is unlikely,
however, that Cuba will avoid major political change once Castro dies.
Catch-All Parties
Catch-all parties are political parties which have no very clear or specific base in
terms of the social and economic characteristics of the people who vote for
them—unlike, for example, most socialist parties with their predominantly
working-class base, or traditional European Liberal parties recruiting almost
entirely from the upper middle-class professional and secular sector. The
phenomenon of catch-all parties was first commented on by political scientists
in the late 1950s. Their enemies see them as predominantly motivated by he
desire to put together as large a voting support as possible in order to maximize
their chances of winning elections. Catch-all parties are unlikely to stand far
from the centre of political spectrum in which they operate, but may well
espouse a set of policies which does not fit in with schematic distinctions
betweenleftandright. In practice these parties have usually been right-of-
centre, standing for support of the economic and social status quo, or at least
hoping not to have to modify it too much. They have, therefore, had all the
Catch-All Parties