The corruption of Fulgencio Batista

Some people on this forum might know that Fulgencio Batista wasn't always a corrupt bastard, but started as a reformer who genuinely cared about the people. In his first term as Cuban president he improved education and healthcare, especially in the countryside. He implemented aspects of the new Cuban constitution of 1941. But in his second term his personality seems to have done a 180-degree turn as he became rapidly corrupt. What happened to him to make him change? Did he get a blow to the head? Or was he just hiding his true colours?

And also, is there a pattern in the fact that a) FB was from a peasant background and is remembered as a tyrannical, corrupt dictator and (b) Stalin is also remembered as corrupt and tyrannical and was also from a peasant background. Both of them secretly manipulated people from behind the scenes. (My grandmother on my mum's side was born in China and from a similar background to Batista, but then she was never a politician.)

BTW, "The Corruption of Fulgencio Batista" sounds like a good title for a historical novel.

edited 18th Sep '12 2:08:49 AM by BestOf

The OP and thread title were kind of incomprehensible, so I decided to simply copy the YF thread here and see how it would've done in OTC.

@Best Of: thanks!

I can add another name to the roll: Robert Mugabe. Started out all right enough... take a look at what happened, though.

If I were being pithy, I'd suggest that absolute power corrupts, absolutely. <sighs> But, there must be something more to it... surely?

@Euo: Yep, there must be more to it. If absolute power corrupts, or just plain "power corrupts", then how come there are some really powerful leaders that don't turn out corrupt?

Maybe the thing the corruptible types have in common is... a barely worrying case of psychopathy or sociopathy under normal conditions, being nowhere near diagnosable degrees. But, add the rush of being able to do practically anything... and... *boom* Nutty dictator with a hair-trigger and a sense of entitlement bigger than the room as the condition suddenly gets fertilizer? <shrugs>

edited 18th Sep '12 2:39:04 AM by Euodiachloris

Perhaps, in some cases, or maybe some people just get Drunk with Power more easily than others.

edited 18th Sep '12 3:12:03 AM by MorwenEdhelwen

What absolute leaders are you thinking of who aren't/weren't corrupt?

Jospeh II of Austria. Nuttier than a fruit-cake, but not exactly corrupt. Granted, he didn't rise to his power, but... inherited it. However... just read his bio.

He's a weird case of an entitled form of revolutionary... from utterly the wrong end. And, rather politically naive, with it, poor thing. As well as tone deaf.

edited 18th Sep '12 3:25:08 AM by Euodiachloris

@imadinosaur: Do you want an example of an individual leader? Some of the Popes weren't corrupt, and the Pope is a leader with absolute power.

The Pope hasn't had absolute power since the Renaissance (and that's even if he had absolute power back then)

@Braeburn: He's one of the last absolute monarchs though. Maybe that's what confused me.

OTOH, back to Batista... from what I've read about him he was very ambitious (not surprising, given as he was from a dirt-poor family). He desperately wanted to make something of himself beyond working as a canecutter. That's why he enlisted in the army.

edited 18th Sep '12 5:29:17 AM by MorwenEdhelwen

To the question about the "power corrupts" axiom, and Euo and Morwen's points: I believe Frank Herbert said in one of the Dune books that power attracts those who are easily corrupted...I've always preferred that interpretation.

edited 18th Sep '12 7:25:42 AM by Willbyr

@Willbyr: Do you believe Batista was easily corrupted?

He did have a point. And, it's been raised before and since. Pratchett spins many a fine yarn around "get the guy who doesn't want it (but, has the skill-set) to do the job". It's just that politics (in whatever flavour you wish to use) isn't very good at finding those people.

Social dynamics just doesn't seem to work that way. <shrugs> Perhaps thorough isometric testing of leaders is the way to go, eh? (And, even then, that won't catch the truly manipulative ones... )

edited 18th Sep '12 4:44:53 PM by Euodiachloris

I think it's when people become leaders and focus on pleasing everyone that problems occur. That's how politicians are created as opposed to leaders.

It becomes a huge balancing act in order to keep people happy, instead of doing what you feel is the most responsible thing for the people you are in charge of. It's worrying about being re-elected. If our leaders did what they thought was right instead of trying to appease people that they privately believe to be utterly wrong, then I feel it would bring a good and healthy level of honesty to politics. Sure, some people who stayed true to their principles wouldn't make it to their next term, or even get elected, but it means the people that do showed their true colors and their own personal integrity, and the majority decided to place that trust in them.

Half-assing leadership in an effort not to disappoint people just leads to everybody being disappointed. It's like hosting a party where half the party wants beer and half wants vodka, so you mix it all together. In the end, nobody is happy, because vodka and beer mixed together is a terrible concoction. Now the party sucks, when you could have instead measured that liquor is more expensive, and thus gone with beer. Or that beer contributes more to giving you a gut and has more calories, and thus go with liquor. Sometimes you just gotta do what you feel is best as a leader.

@Euo: But it would help! @Barkey: So you think corruption results from leaders trying to please too many people? And that there's a difference between a leader and a politician?

edited 19th Sep '12 5:22:57 AM by MorwenEdhelwen

bump

Stop bumping threads. We don't do that. You did that in the Yack Fest version as well, which resulted in my locking it.

If nobody wants to talk about your pet subject, it will fall off the radar, and this is natural and correct.

If you have genuinely interesting and on-topic things to say, you can add them even if you were the last poster, but not on a constant (daily or other repeating) basis.

Back to the topic: has anyone noticed there seems to be some sort of law where if a politician starts out poor in a country where there is a huge economic gap, they'll start defending the interests of the rich?

Yup. It isn't just Batista. Same deal with Mugabe, Mbeki and Putin. All of whom were pretty poor when they started out, or at least I haven't heard of any great deal of inherited wealth in those cases. Correct me if I am wrong, folken.

@Tam H 70: Why do you think that's the case?

edited 19th Sep '12 7:42:53 PM by MorwenEdhelwen

I think in general politicians and rulers tend to increasingly support the interests of the rich, regardless of their origins.

@Morven: Because they need to to ensure continued support.

edited 19th Sep '12 9:35:48 PM by MorwenEdhelwen

A leader does what he thinks is best for the group, a politician makes decisions on the basis of what will get him re-elected, and in place of integrity uses social strategy in order to assure re-election and do what they think is best, in that order. Meaning that if doing what is right means no re-election, they won't do it.