OAS Efforts to Reinforce Democracy in Haiti through Dialogue

• Author: Denneth Modeste
• Pages: 47-71

Denneth Modeste 4747

4747

47

5

Introduction

After many delays and administrative and

logistical shortcomings, legislative, municipal

and local elections were held in Haiti in May

and July 2000. The elections were called to

resolve a political and constitutional impasse

in the country, caused by inconclusive

legislative elections in April 1997 and

withdrawal of recognition of the 46th

legislature by President René Préval,

Organization of American States (OAS) on

January 11, 1999.

The OAS deployed an Electoral

Observation Mission in Haiti in February 2000

to monitor the conduct of the elections.

The Provisional Electoral Council in Haiti

made a grave error in using a formula to

calculate the votes cast, that was not in

accordance with the Constitution and the

Electoral law.

All appeals for the authorities, especially

by the international community, for the

authorities to act in accordance with the law,

were met by charges of interference in the

internal affairs of the country. Despite all

attempts by the authorities to inveigh against

the persistence of the international community

on the matter, the authorities found themselves

in the awkward position of defending an

obvious violation of the law.

The international community appeared

perplexed by the apparent determination of

OAS Efforts to Reinforce Democracy in

Haiti Through Dialogue1

D E N N E T H M O D E S T E

Organization of American

States Office

the Fanmi Lavalas Party (Lavalas) to remain

aloof to its influences. Central to the debate

were the implications for economic support

funds and developmental assistance from an

international community incensed by what it

perceived as the arrogance of Lavalas in the

wake of the discredited elections.

A critical concern also was the increasing

political isolation of Haiti in the international

community at large, and the effects on

CARICOM relations in particular, from which,

it was thought, Haiti had enjoyed sympathy,

solidarity and fraternity. The OAS has

attempted since August 2000 to resolve the

ensuing crisis. Its mediators adopted an

incremental approach in the negotiations: take

and build on modest steps to achieve the

ultimate objective. Toward that end the

protagonists attempted to conclude a Draft

Initial Accord on a range of key issues, notably

the formation of a new credible Provisional

Electoral Council and security. When that

approach failed, the member states of the

OAS approved Resolution 822 which

introduced a sequencing approach that called

on the government to discharge a number of

obligations and on its opponents to advance

the process if it did.

Some argue that the President lacks the

political will and the government, the capacity

to implement its key provisions. An OAS–

CARICOM High-Level Delegation failed to

advance the process appreciably in March

OAS Efforts to Reinforce Democracy in Haiti

4848

4848

48

2003. The OAS entrusted to a new Special

Envoy the formidable task of relaunching

dialogue to catalyze security and confidence

— building measures and formation of a

Counseil Electroralé Provisoire (CEP) in

accordance with OAS Resolution 822.

The Special Envoy faced a polarized

political environment of mutual mistrust. The

President of the Republic claims that his

opponents are not serious: they show no

willingness to settle the issues peacefully; they

want to attain power by unconstitutional

means. His opponents assert that when faced

with domestic upheaval or the possibility of

international isolation the President puts on a

façade of sudden and impressive seriousness,

but his word cannot be trusted or relied upon

and he always reneges on his commitments

or obligations.

The member states of the OAS presented

Resolution 822 as the road-map to solve the

crisis and have delivered on their obligations

to help Haiti to normalize its relations with the

International Financial Institutions (IFIs).

However, the political opposition and civil

society groups have argued that Resolution

822 is inadequate to deal with the problems

and the latter proposed a Democratic

Transitional Government to tackle them.

Haiti’s leaders face the daunting challenge

to fulfill the expectations of the masses with

word in the democratic process without

alienating the traditional bastions of political

power in the country — the elite, the business

community et cetera. Mechanisms of

consultation will serve to avoid institutional

paralysis. Political polarization in the face of

serious economic and social problems might

embolden subversive elements to threaten the

integrity of the state, or to induce the executive

to use extra-constitutional measures to

exercise control.

This paper outlines the political, economic

and social context in which the crisis in Haiti

has mushroomed, its origins and the initiatives

(national, regional and hemispheric) to settle

it peacefully and in a manner that reflects,

more or les accurately, the desires and

opinions of the majority of the people.

The Political, Economic and

Social Context

Haiti has been classified by the IFIs as the

poorest country in the western hemisphere.

The vast majority of its people experience a

poor quality of life because of serious political

social and economic problems, including

illiteracy, population pressure, extreme

poverty, inadequate health and sanitation

services, low level of economic activity, chronic

unemployment, poor infrastructure, political

instability, weak administrative management

in the public sector resulting in extremely

inefficient provision and distribution of basic

services and lack of a revenue base to sustain

the economy. These conditions have given rise

to mass migration, refugee problems and

displaced communities.

Despite its enormous problems, the people

of Haiti are proud, brave, courageous and

resilient. They have just celebrated 200 years

of national independence, having liberated

themselves from slavery and colonial rule in

1804, inspired by the revolutionary leaders:

Toussaint L’Ouverture, Jean-Jacques

Dessalines, Henri Christophe and Alexandre

Pétion. However, many leaders without their

vision followed and created a tradition of

leadership which exercised power under the

philosophy that ‘might is right’; and by a

combination of autocratic rule, subjugation

through ignorance, force, fear and corruption,

they squandered the legacy of the Founders

of the Republic. The result is the absence of a

democratic culture of tolerance and respect

for alternative ideas and viewpoints. Violence

is too pervasive in the society and legality is

not sufficiently entrenched.