The reign of Fidel Castro is nearing its end, not by the hands of the United States but due to Castro’s own bad health. Although the government claims his health is improving, he hasn’t been in public since an urgent intestinal surgery in July.

Many believe he has cancer and others wonder if he’s even alive, but the Cuban government denies these claims.

Cuba’s vice president and Castro’s brother, Raul, holds “temporary” power. It is likely Raul will continue to hold this position, but whether he will begin a transitional government or completely take over is unknown. Speculation continues on what will happen to Cuba when Castro dies.

Castro took power in 1959, long enough ago that neither our generation nor our parents’ knows a Cuba without Castro. The country’s history is often misunderstood, yet important for understanding its potential future.

Few realize a major source of tension between many American presidents and Castro. Before Castro, Cuba was filled with casinos and luxuries for rich Americans, including President Kennedy, to visit on vacation. The majority of the early Cuban immigrants to America were not poor but rather wealthy and included mafia leaders.

Poor Cubans greatly benefited from President Fulgencio Batista and Castro’s socialist reforms. I doubt, thought, Cuban propaganda has let them forget that.

Castro’s reforms included the Agrarian Reform, which nationalized farmland, particularly from the grips of U.S. companies. The move provided land to 200,000 rural farmers, an act unheard of in the rest of Latin America. He also halved rent prices and decreased telephone prices through nationalization.

These two acts forced the United States to reject Castro under the assumption he was a communist, yet he never claimed to be one.

It wasn’t until 1960 that Castro spoke to the USSR’s leader, and only because U.S. relations failed. For the next 30 years, turbulent relations between the United States and Castro continued in a cycle of irrational political revenge.

Despite Castro’s many controversial tactics and dictatorial rule, his ability to rule a socialist state on the doorstep of the United States is astonishing.

Probably his greatest success was keeping the average Cuban relatively happy through equal allocation of resources, social support and nonstop propaganda. Academics have observed the Cuban health system and social reforms as models for efficiency and equal access.

The major players in Cuba’s future are the United States, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, the Cuban Administration and the Cuban people, who are often underestimated.

Chavez plays an especially important role in Cuba. He currently provides the country with nearly one billion dollars a year, probably in part to spite the United States.

It is likely he would continue contributing these funds, assuming oil prices stay high, to prevent U.S. influence in Cuba.

The United States may try to take Castro’s death as an opportunity to encourage democracy on the island country. But I don’t think the Cubans would be interested in any U.S.-led intervention.

Cuba, although far from wealthy, is an extremely equal country that has almost no poverty. I highly doubt that the Cubans want any radical changes in their lives that would accompany an immediate transition into democracy or capitalism.

Although anything is possible at this point, it seems likely Raul will probably make one of two decisions. He may slowly open Cuba’s economy in a Chinese-style reform system. In this way, the economy can increase its wealth while continuing its political systems.

Or, he may continue to rule as Castro has for the p ast half a century. This method, however, greatly depends on his ability to generate funds from abroad, and Raul is not nearly as charismatic as his brother.

If Raul fails to continue the Cuban system effectively, the people could force a transition through political unrest.

As regimes near their end, academics and political analysts always speculate what the future holds, and they almost always forget the power of the people.

The Cuban people, who have lived relatively peaceful and happy lives in the past 50 years, will tell the world what they want when the time comes.

Reach columnist Brooke McKean at brookemckean@thedaily.washington.edu