Democracy or Despotism: an old Haitian debate starts anew
By Hyppolite Pierre
It is no secret to no one that Haiti is a country that is going through a painful transition, from an entrenched dictatorial culture, to democracy. But democracy if not applied with institutional strength as its backbone, can be as deceiving as any dictatorial regime. This is why South American countries like Venezuela and Peru went through perilous periods in the early nineties, that required, -according to certain political scientists- "democratic corrections".
Imagine Carlos Andres Perez a former leader of Venezuela, under house arrest because of allegations that he was involved in corruption schemes. Imagine also the previous leader of Peru around 1993, (the very popular Alan Garcia) and many of his associates in Parliament, fleeing the country fearing imprisonment for cause of corruption. These cases are two powerful reminders of how democracy can become a nightmare when ill-applied because of few checks and balances.
These thoughts came along as I was reading a point of view of Jean Poincy on the Bob Corbett's email list. Poincy is a Haitian intellectual whose analyses and interpretation of Haitian politics and history are as daring as they are provocative. How can one, after so many years of dictatorship in Haiti, be as bold as even suggesting that perhaps, the solution to Haiti's difficulties, lies not in democratic government as we understand it, but in a different apparatus under the leadership of well-trained and benevolent politicians.
Democracy and its values
The strength of democracy is rooted in its appeal not only to the masses, but also to the elite of a nation. It is a system of government that requires the stamp of approval of a majority for its survival and its renewal. A democratically elected leader is often compared and rightly so, as someone who had a job interview with an entire nation and was deemed qualified to rule that nation by its people. You need as such a leader, to be able to argue the right way, what your theory of government is, what your promises are, and how you intend to keep your promises.
But for democracy to work well, a country needs solid institutions as well that are not blinded by social, economic or political affiliation. As said, the people who run those institutions need more than just the proper qualifications. They are more than mere cadres. They also are the pillar upon which a whole society is built. Their sense of equity and their near incorruptibility are thus key to the economic, moral and intellectual growth of that nation.
The politicians themselves in such a case, are mere managers whose declared and secret goals, must be to utilize those institutions, so they can apply their policy in the interest of the nation.
Democracy in Poverty
Trying to establish democracy in the midst of poverty may be as frustrating, as it may be fulfilling in the final analysis. But the key to success in such endeavour, lies in the country's determination to lift itself up from the ravage of moral and material misery, and in an ever positive outlook, a bright and determined vision of the future. Also are required discipline, character and the capacity to focus on a definite goal, without fear of the future.
It is thus no surprise that a majority of Haitians, poor, middle-class, intellectuals and technocrats, are so doubtful about the current process. Haiti is very poor, with a GNP per capita that is still less than $500.00 yearly. There are no industries to speak of, that employ a large portion of the population and which offer a decent, livable salary. The only way out of poverty for those I will dare call lower middle income people, is to either get a ticket out of the country, or a ticket into politics, regardless of their qualifications or lack thereof. Meanwhile, some of the most qualified tend to stay on the sideline, without taking a stand. In fact, when many of them do, it is to even ridicule the hard work of others whose political philosophy they may not agree with. That creates a serious problem in a land where some are seriously trying hard, to raise the standard of living, and the level of humanity of the suffering majority.
Jean Poincy's argument in that sense, becomes quite attractive in both a historical, and a contemporary sense.
Haiti's theory of "Pouvoir aux plus capables" (Power to the most qualified), vs. "Pouvoir au plus grand nombre" (Power to the majority).
This is an old Haitian debate that have taken shape in two previous political parties: The Liberal Party and the National Party. But when thought about thoroughly, one asks and rightfully so, the validity of such an argument in a democratic setting. If the majority votes its leaders and if the institutions are strong enough to support the elected leadership, chances are the country will survive, policies can be corroborated to make them viable and in the interest of a nation, regardless of who is in power. We could for instance argue, that the United States has not always had the brightest, or the most intellectually astute leaders. But because of its strong institutions, it was and still is the most powerful economy ever. Its democratic institutions are very strong, both at the national and state levels. Its two-party system are institutions into themselves. It works well, and at the core of those parties can always be found people of all calibers, from the most brilliant theorists, to the activists, to the simple-minded but virtuous disciple of a certain political philosophy.
The danger in the Haitian argument of "le pouvoir aux plus capables" (Power to the most qualified), is that it oftentimes hides a fundamental problem in Haitian society. The social and economic imbalances of a country so poor, that the rich have oftentimes resorted to the theory, that poverty is synonymous with ignorance. In fact, the poor always knows what he needs. Power thus, should always be at the hands of the majority in concept and in reality, whatever that majority is. That is why in a democratic government, the poor like the rich, elects his leader at every level of government, from the municipalities to the official residence of the supreme leader. That apparent dichotomy between the most capable and the majority is nothing but a fallacy that should always be considered as such, since it can only cause division, rather than help create solutions to other, more serious problems. Poincy seems to forget in fact, that Haiti has also had in its past, a tradition of "président de doublure". That is, the dark, poorly educated man becomes president, while power still resides in the hands of a lighter, brighter and more European-oriented upper class. This is not to say that I am of the "school-of-color orientation". It has indeed, finally been proven with Duvalier cronies, that whether black or white, mulatto or Arab, the philosophy and attitude of the traditional Haitian upper class is the same.
This is an important consideration to make, because Jean Poincy like many others, seems to make that same fundamental mistake. He believes that the rich educated person will be benevolent, and will govern just for the mere pleasure of governing. He like many others, seems to forget the very basic capitalist rule that "there is no such thing as a free lunch".
Poincy however correctly points out in his short but meaningful argument, that political corruption is due in many instances (at least in the case of Haiti), to the fact that politics has become an industry, rather than a devotion to working for the good of all. The value of his argument lies in the fact that because of Haiti's rampant poverty, younger and older males have always considered politics as a sort of savior. Indeed, like in the U.S. for instance where parents hope that their sons and daughters will become doctors and lawyers, an almost sure ticket to America's upper class, politics has traditionally been in Haiti the industry for those searching for a sure way out of poverty.
The Haitian Opposition: a possible case study
One can even argue that the current opposition in Haiti is so emotional, that the politic of personality is so entrenched in our culture, that our liberation from moral and economic tyrannies may thus not be near. It is a political culture of "all or nothing". The Haitian Parliament of ‘95-'97 is a good illustration of those problems. For nearly two years indeed, they never voted a budget. Ideas of development and arguments about ways to develop the country have never been important to that opposition. The opposition instead, resorts to attacking individuals, personalities that may be at the center of the power structure of the time. Instead, they should try (and could find) weakness and/or defects in a government's enterprise. Rather, their arguments usually lay in denial of basic facts (a school was built; a road has been repaired, the overall economy grew by 2 or 3 percent the previous year, etc). This in return, keeps people from believing in possibilities of a brighter future.
Despotism in Haiti?
Perhaps the only and greatest Haitian despot has been Henri Christophe. He did marvelous things for the North, from school building to palaces, fortresses, etc. But because the whole northern region under his command, had its entire structure built based on his liking and his dislkes, because the institutions were for Christophe first, after he committed suicide, it was easy for the enemy, Pétion, to take over.
A country cannot run well on the basis of a single personality. You may have in a party a unifying figure, some sort of a wise man or woman, who is the driving force of the moment. But the power structure should be such, that the party must survive the individual. In the final analysis, individuals may be extremely important to the implementation of an ideology. But ideas and power structure are what will ensure the survival of the individual, the party, and even the nation.
Haiti and its politicians
We finally need to touch on the subject of our politicians. It is often said that Haiti has many corrupt leaders. But oftentimes, the most capable and the least corruptible are the most reluctant to try to become part of the political process. One theory suggests that political parties, should give such individuals the right incentives to join their rank. Just like a Marketing firm knows how to sell its product to a segment of a population, a political party truly concerned about not only its image, but the future of the country, should also try to sell its ideas to the best and the most capable.
The role of any government also, should be to build up the state with qualified individuals who can run its institutions in a transparent manner. Otherwise, the same way that Garcia had to flee Peru for alleged corruption, the same way that Hugo Chavez almost overthrew Perez (who was later under house arrest for alleged corruption), the same way Haiti may go through such painful experience, unless we can create solid institutions.
Poincy's argument is in the context of trying to move away from corruption. But
giving greater power to a class of people because of their education or financial status, does in no way guarantee the safeguard of the nation. If anything, this may be potentially the most dangerous way of rewarding a corrput, sophisticated politician or group of people.
