Haiti Democracy Project

www.haitipolicy.org

Meeting at the International Republican Institute with Gérard Pierre-Charles

Leader of the OPL party, who spent twenty years in exile and who is today a leading opposition figure, spoke on the political situation in Haiti.

Seven years after the ousting of the army by twenty-three thousand American troops and the restoration of Aristide, Haiti is characterized by:

· Chronic political instability

· Electoral crisis

· Violence

· Political confrontation between the democratic opposition and an emerging authoritarian state

The international community, in response, has declared sanctions against Haiti. Mr. Pierre-Charles addressed three areas:

1.) Power of the Lavalas government

2.) The democratic opposition

3.) Conflict resolution and negotiations

1.) Power of the Lavalas party

A personality who after 1991 symbolized the cause of change in the country, who had the legitimacy of the 1990 election, and who had benefited from international support of an order never before given, has become the main instrument against democracy. This situation has driven the Haitian state into a situation of enormous crisis. It has taken the state hostage because it has violated the constitution, intimidated citizens and committed various forms of violence. There is a control of institutions. The presidency itself has become an authoritarian tool although the constitution of 1987 sought to make it democratic. The constitution called for a prime minister as well as a president. The role of the prime minister has been devalued. The legislature is also under the control of the executive. Parliament was dissolved in 1999. The judiciary has been vassalized: From the police, new since 1994, to the supreme court, they are all under the control of the executive branch and no institution has its constitutional guarantee.

In the caricature of an election in 2000, 110 members of parliament were "elected"; 103 of those were from the Lavalas Family party and the other seven were "independent," yet subordinate. Mayors, made independent in the 1987 constitution, have been converted into agents of repression. The state uses its own state employees to destabilize the state--a historic trait of fascism. Its uses public resources such as tax offices, the customs, and the telephone and electric agencies to fund its kleptocracy. It has grabbed control of the electoral process. The electoral council is under the thumb of the executive.

The elections of May had a high participatory rate, but not the November elections. Ninety percent of the population did not participate in those elections. The CEP was both judge and participant.

While seeming to assure Aristide absolute power, these events are actually leading to his downfall. He has immensely lost popularity, not only with the middle class but also with the masses. The state is falling apart. Public institutions don't function. They were privatized in a clannish way. This has caused the electricity crisis as Haiti has had three weeks of blackouts. In addition, in the ten years of Lavalas power, the per-capita income has dwindled to less than $250.

2.) Democratic Opposition

The Democratic opposition has come together in Haiti over the past three years. When Aristide came into power in 1994, he was welcomed with hope; even his enemies thought that with international support Haiti had a chance and wanted to collaborate with Aristide. The sector of the bourgeoisie that was against him agreed to work with him.

His anti-democratic practices, which began in 1995, soon after his return, forced the opposition to begin to form. The OPL had supported Aristide in 1991 and fought for the return of constitutional order. But we began to separate ourselves from Aristide until we became the main parliamentary political opposition. Other parties which had been lethargic also became invigorated.

Today the Democratic Convergence comprises fifteen political parties of diverse tendencies and organizations but who have a common goal: to oppose the loss of democracy and build an alternative. This is an experiment in pluralism. There is in Haiti little tradition of political parties and coalitions. OPL was a pioneer in building a political party.

Last November, the negotiations with Aristide failed. In January some five thousand delegates came from the nine geographic department of Haiti to participate to the opposition congress, the "etats generaux." Other parties joined. Gerard Gourgue was put forward as the provisional president. This widened the base of the Convergence and disrupted the Lavalas Party, which thought that they were triumphant. The opposition did this not to create a confrontation, not to take power, not to take over the palace, but to create a "symbolic presidency," a pole of attraction. Many sectors entered to widen the alliance. The opposition reached out to the economic sectors because the problems in Haiti are dramatic and no issue can be solved alone. This was the first time in Haitian history that a wide spectrum of parties and groups have worked towards a common goal. This is because 60 percent of the businesses are bankrupt and Haiti has a very backward economy. Containers of Haitian businessmen have been overtaxed at customs as a way to pressure them to endorse Aristide's views. Favored government monopoly over the institutions leads to gangsterism. Even to start in the opposite direction is a positive move. A country can't develop without developing capital, free trade, free development zones, and tourism. Aristide by his very state of mind cannot solve the nation's problems, he destroys, he does not build. He is backward and belongs to the 19^th century. We are today in the 21^st century. The world has changed. Many Haitians have become technocrats, they have experience abroad, they have acquired a pragmatic vision of democracy.

Pierre-Charles spent twenty-six years in exile, has been back for fifteen years. He reminds the audience he has always been an activist for social change.

3.) The dynamic of conflict and negotiations

Sometimes people talk of a power struggle, of two political sectors competing for power. The question is not just about power. In a country of no employment, the state is the only employment. This stimulates ambitions at all levels. It's not a matter of rivalry for leadership. The conflict is about the state having been taken hostage by Aristide. Aristide has named his yard boy to head the police. A member of his bodyguard is today chief of police. This is a police created by the international community to be a democratic institution, at the cost of many millions of dollars. The state has been taken hostage at all levels.

It is a conflict between totalitarianism and a whole nation. The nation in 1986 showed its aspirations for democracy. The conflict is electoral in form only. Aristide cannot accept free elections. There were already too many traces of his mismanagement. He therefore took power himself and has power in a world of anarchy and drugs.

But new political forces are emerging. If the elections of May 21^st had been run as they should have, three forces including the OPL would have had a majority in parliament. The others were the Espace de Concertation and Mochrena. This is why there was a need for electoral fraud: if Aristide has the popularity that he claims, there would be no need for electoral fraud. The Convergence declared the elections illegal because the electoral council was in Aristide's service which is a violation of the constitution.

Since 1986 the Haitian people have had a high sense of politics. The Haitian press is very democratic. There are a million and a half Haitians abroad who value democracy and transmit these values back home. There is a globalized world, there is radio to which the people can listen if they cannot read. Through all these means the people see the immorality of the situation. Aristide continued with his policy of fait accompli. The international community, however, has been questioning certain aspects of the elections. The opposition has asked for the annulment of the elections. The electoral coup d'etat was not accepted by the Haitian people because 90 percent did not participate in the subsequent election. Partly this was a response to the boycott the opposition called for. Partly it was a response to their own consciences.

The negotiations with the OAS have been difficult. On February 5 we proposed seventeen points. The Convergence is ready to recognize the presidency of Aristide if it is cut by two years and real elections are then organized. Aristide responded with the eight points proposed by former president Clinton. Now it is four months later and not one of the eight points has been acted upon.

From the Q & A

Q. What is the role of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Haitian-American community?

A. The Haitian community looking for change, just like us, was fascinated by Aristide in 1990 as the bearer of change. That myth has been dispelled. Today various sectors in that community are coming forward. The Black Caucus remains tolerant of him although they have begun to change.

Q. Mr. Pierre-Charles was one of the first to predict and describe the coming disintegration of the state at the hands of Lavalas and most of the picture he drew about Lavalas today was accurate. However, the Lavalas party won the election of May 21, 2000. The questioner was himself an OAS observer and saw it with his own eyes.

A. The ECOSOF poll of October 1999 gave 33 percent to Lavalas, 67 percent to the rest of the opposition, the OPL 28 percent among them. The three opposition organizations had 20,000 candidates. Based on the ECOSOF poll and our own data we would have won parliament. Whether a majority in the senate, that depends on resources spent. Until now we haven't seen the results of these elections, they burned the voting cards and threw them out on the streets.

Q The attitude of the Bush administration?

The American administration has put a lot of work into building democracy in Haiti. Not only in the return of constitutional order. Yet the investment has not produced results either for Haiti or the United States. Since 1996 the United States has accompanied us in questioning the situation. The United States has provided 95 percent of the investment. Another 5 percent of political investment is needed to redeem this investment. There have been various mixed signals from the administration. We don't see why after all this investment, then faced with all the irresponsibility, especially with the police, the administration doesn't do anything. Some may think that Aristide is the only one who holds the cards. This is only because he has the money to destabilize. There are some signals showing that the administration is not accepting this.

Q You have used the word "fascism," "totalitarian" and several other extreme terms to refer to the Haitian government. Doesn't this choice of terminology virtually rule out negotiations?

As an academic by training, I naturally prefer more moderate and discriminatory vocabulary. However, we in Haiti had hard experience with the Duvalier dictatorship and a point of comparison. None of those terms is too harsh for Duvalierism. What we are experiencing today is every bit as bad.