Negotiations
By Hyppolite Pierre
Negotiations are key elements in a democratic system. Nothing gets done unless discussed analyzed, compromised over by different parties. Even members of a same party or group oftentimes have to debate issues among themselves so they can decide on an issue. One can say honestly say that negotiations create possibilities for all parties to have their voices heard in the process. It is a very serious business that require knowledge and understanding of the issues, power of persuasion and other factors including the level of strength one has on the political terrain.
In any negotiating process, both parties begin by laying down their whole grievances and wish list, without any restrictions. As the discussions advance and the issues debated, they begin to compromise. This is a process that may take days and sometimes years, depending on how complex the issues are and how far apart the parties are. In any case, each side in a negotiating process counts on its foot soldiers to pressure the other side to make more concessions. The foot soldiers may be the people of a country (Israel, the Palestinian people), or your partisans and their numerical strength (Lavalas vs. Convergence partisans). In Haiti's case, there is also and very importantly, the International Community factor.
Haiti's case
Haiti's case is complex. The complexities derive from the country's history, the social and economic conditions, the emotional tone of the different actors and sometimes the undeniable factor of the international community. It is a country with no history of compromise. A country that was born out of the sheer will of former slaves, we have inherited the tendency to believe that we (those on one side) are always right and they (those on the other side) are always wrong. Changing that mentality may not be as easy as it seems. All throughout our history, virtually every time there is political disagreement between one party or another, those on the other side take up arms rather than sit in front of each other separated by a desk to debate the points of contention. More often than not, the side that wins the bloody battle not only takes over completely, but makes sure that they eradicate the enemy. In other words, Haiti has never had an adversarial system. Rather, it has almost always been an inimical system of government.
This is perhaps why the current Convergence opposition seems to believe that eventually, they will be able to get rid of Lavalas completely, completely. The emotion on that side may be so raw, that it makes it extremely difficult to even start the real process of negotiating an agreement between the two sides. This is also why it is so puzzling when you hear the government in power, deciding that a compromised solution to the issues may take place within a month, two weeks or even days.
Deciding how to conduct the current negotiations in a fashion that makes them fruitful thus involves many things, some of which we will consider in this text.
The issue of venue
Perhaps overlooked by many, the issue of venue is as important as the negotiating process itself. One example may be the last series of negotiations in the United States, between the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) Chairman Yasser Arafat, and the then Prime Minster of Israel Ehud Barak. The then U.S. president Bill Clinton was the "power broker", making suggestions to both sides as he was trying to force them to find a negotiated settlement to some very difficult territorial issues. In Haiti's case, "civil society" could play the role of impartial power broker in a serious negotiating process.
During last year's negotiations in the US between these two people in the Middle East, the conflicting parties first decision was to find a site, a venue that is more or less neutral. They agreed to have those discussions in the United States, at Camp David in Maryland, away from all the pressure of their partisans, friends and enemies. That way, they could have a better "feel" for each other and could talk frankly and seriously about how to reach a final solution to the conflict. Camp David itself is according to many, more like a place for retreat. Quiet, peaceful and closer to nature. It is a place that helps you calm your nerves and perhaps think clearer. It is also a site that has been used on many occasions for very difficult negotiations. The final peace accord between the Israelis and the Egyptians in the 1970's is one example of historical precedence for Camp David. Well, Haiti also has some very friendly places that could be used as venue for the negotiations. We could use for instance Bassin Bleu.
"Haiti En Marche", a Haitian newspaper with articles published in French, inserted a text fairly recently (almost a year ago) in their web publication, about the natural beauty of that region, after the death of its editor's dad who is from there. The reading was intriguing and the author described it as a "natural, Haitian Venice".
Choosing such a site could perhaps do well for many reasons. For one thing, they would be away from the heat and dullness of Port-au-Prince. That would perhaps calm their nerves and put a check on their passion. It would also perhaps help them realize the seriousness of the issues and the meaning of their decisions. After all, they would have to travel quite a few miles before discovering this seemingly natural wonder. They would perhaps feel compelled to at least come up with a joint declaration by the end that expresses clearly not only their intentions, but also mostly their points of agreement.
We now have different people at different times making contradictory statements. Prior to beginning the negotiating process, both sides could decide on a declaration of principle forbidding each other from making any declaration, good or bad, that can be detrimental to the ongoing process. As the partisans from both sides would now be away from the venue, they (the negotiators) would be away from the pressure and realize that politics is as rational as business, science or most endeavors that people get involved into. They would perhaps realize in this natural wonder that Haiti is more important than their ego. This would perhaps help all parties realize that there is indeed a striking correlation between our common self (which we should protect at all levels), and our surrounding reality, Haiti Chérie, regardless of political belief.
The Actors
This is truly the heart of the matter. Who would be the legitimate representative of the government of Haiti and the opposition? The Haitian government has managed recently very skillfully, to include members of the opposition not part of the Convergence, in the negotiating process. There was a meeting recently at the National Palace where many people from Civil Society and the opposition were able to sit together and discuss issues related to the negotiations. Unfortunately for the Convergence, none of their representatives was there, even as observers. They have not realized yet that in fact, this is a bad public relations move. In any case, as more actors are being included in the debate, the possibility for finding a rational solution that corresponds to the needs of Haiti may be near. The issue is no longer whether we will be able to find a final solution to the problems. It is rather whether that solution will be reasonable (that means make sense to the common man) and compatible to the needs of society (the poor, middle and upper income Haitians, even the international community), even if and when they have doubts over some of the premises included in the final declaration). In truth, we should not focus as much on the agreement itself so far, as we should focus on the modalities and the inclusiveness of the process and its fairness to all parties.
Convincing all sides to become part of the process is not even that easy. This is why it can be thought of as wise that the Haitian Government is offering concessions to the internationally supported Convergence group. Because the GOH (Government of Haiti) has great control over political reality there, it makes perfect sense that they are willing to make concessions to a minority that is not as popular as they seem to believe, but is nevertheless important because of their economic (many of them are business people) and political clout (Haiti is becoming to the dismay of many, just a satellite nation).
Each party thus should choose the actors by consensus. This would truly be where the negotiations start. Negotiations imply consensus. In other words, those who will be making the compromises when the true negotiations begin should have the full support of their parties or groups. That way, when they make a decision, they can rest assured that whatever agreement they may have reached, it will be agreed upon by the majority of their members and not by just the upper or lower echelon. What must be requested or hoped for from the actors is that they are not only politically savvy, but also pragmatic, rational (rather than emotional), and good strategists rather than just tacticians. A good negotiator indeed is not just someone who can see the short term but also somebody who understands the dynamics of his group or party or people. A good negotiator is someone who can see the future of his group, his country or party, through the concessions that s/he is making. That is because s/he understands both the contradictions and the potentials in the agreement. Anyone who believes in a cause with his heart, but is oblivious to the rational consequences, is inadequate for the job. Such individuals can make grandiose statements and even attract huge crowds or perhaps even nations. But they are nothing but demagogues. You don't need demagogues in true negotiations. You need rational, thoughtful people who care about a country, a cause or their group. Despite the fact that one group cannot influence the decision-making process of the other, each group or party should be very thoughtful as to whom would represent them in Bassin Bleu (an imaginary but very real place in Haiti within the Grande-Anse Department).
When negotiated decisions become Law
Not only should all parties make decisions but also, they should have the effect of law. That is really what negotiations mean, whether in politics, in business or in a family. A law is nothing but a series of principles respected by any and all individuals within the parameters where it is applied. If an appropriate place is elaborated in Bassin Bleu or anywhere else within Haiti's territory, the actors meet and debate the issues there, a final or partial decision is made, any and all of those decisions made should automatically have legal and tangible effect.
As Haiti is trying to work on judicial reform, this would be the greatest test. As a country, we should be able to respect agreements that are vital to the nation. In any case, the international community factor could be both a positive and a negative factor in this scenario. Since they would not have direct relevance in this prospect, they could cause harm by encouraging one party or another to renege from their commitment. Unfortunately however for the weak at heart (those who would violate their own commitment), there are elections.
Negotiations and Haiti
As we are now experiencing with democracy, many of us do not realized that negotiations are very much part of the political process in such kind (democratic) of government. As Haiti matures hopefully and becomes more and more of a democratic government, we will all realize that at least at the parliamentary level, everything is negotiated, even amongst friends and members of the same party. A provision for instance that encourages the culture of rice in the Artibonite Department may be in contradiction with the economic necessity of the Grande-Anse Department, more accustomed to the production of vegetable products. A senator or a deputy from either region but of the same party can bitterly debate the feasibility of each project that may effect their people. This is one other thing that we have yet to understand when it comes to democratic government. Also in politics, one never really loses. It all depends on positioning and the reality of the terrain. Otherwise, Duvalier fils (Baby Doc) would not have been so "missed" by certain sectors in the country.
Well, we all know that what people are yearning for is order. A party that seems to be at the greatest loss because of the kinds of concessions that it makes, may in the long run be the real victor. If indeed they could foresee the consequences of certain policies by a government or group (skillful negotiators), they could simply give in to some of their demands, knowing where they will "get" them in the future. Politics is not Mathematics or Physics. But it is at least rational and based on reality and the judgement of reasonable people. As reasonable one can be (that is as rational and sensible as possible), as much one can defeat the adversary based on his or her own long and/or short-term mistakes. What make politics interesting to a young and untrained mind are not necessarily the results. Rather, it is the process. Haiti needs to show that guns cannot resolve its problems. Certainly, the Haitian Government has been trying to do the right things by making many, reasonable offers to the Convergence opposition. Now what we probably need is the right venue so the negotiations can go on, away from the constant and watchful eyes of a public determined to find a solution. The pressure is immense on the government. It is not however light on the Convergence. After all they are at least perceived as being unreasonable and irrational and obsessed with power. As the negotiations would go on in a different venue like Bassin Bleu, the Haitian Government would stop making grandiose statements (like May 18 for a final negotiated solution with the Convergence), and the Convergence opposition would move even a few inches away from their too radical and unrealistic demands, Haiti would probably move closer to true revolution than we think. After all, a revolution does no take place overnight. It is a slow and rational process that takes place over years and decades in certain cases. Aristide or Gourgue cannot "revolutionize Haiti overnight. They can certainly put it on the right path, depend ing on their decisions. One can only hope that they will this time. This would be a novel and essential experience for Haiti. It is called, negotiations.
