According to the Haitian constitution of 1987, elections are to be overseen by a Permanent Electoral Council composed of three representatives from each of Haiti’s nine departments. (A tenth department was added since the constitution was written.) The smallest geographical level of government — the communal section — chooses representatives to send to the larger geopolitical divisions. Finally, the Departmental Assemblies are supposed to nominate thirty candidates for the Permanent Electoral Council. From that list, the President, the Supreme Court, and the National Assembly each choose three members to form the actual Permanent Electoral Council. The Departmental Assembly has never been implemented as a level of government, however. Consequently, there has never been a Permanent Electoral Council. The Provisional Electoral Council, created after the flight of Duvalier to oversee the first elections based on the new constitution, remains in place. It has always had full independence to “organize and control” the complete electoral process in the absence of a permanent body. Instead of implementing a system of oversight consistent with the constitution insofar as that was possible in the absence of Departmental Assemblies, President Préval chose several groups to propose to him a number of candidates from which he then selected the Provisional Electoral Council. In that way, Préval retained substantial control over the composition of the Electoral Council, contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the constitution.73
In April 2009, Haiti held elections for twelve of the thirty Senate seats. The Provisional Electoral Council required that all candidates submit an original signature from the party leader. Knowing that Aristide was in South Africa and would not be able to send it in time, the ad hoc requirement was clearly designed to exclude all Fanmi Lavalas candidates. Voters boycotted the elections in protest. Most observers estimated a turnout of approximately 5 percent of the electorate.74 Next, elections for all ninety-nine seats of the House of Deputies and ten Senate seats were rescheduled from November 2009 to February 2010. The Electoral Council again rejected the participation of Fanmi Lavalas candidates, but this time offered no coherent explanation. In fact, Fanmi Lavalas had met all the legal requirements, including authorization from Aristide, still in South Africa. When the earthquake struck on 12 January 2010, the elections were called off, leaving Haiti without a functioning parliament.
Préval called an election for 28 November 2010 to fill the positions of president, the entire House of Deputies, and one third of the Senate. Préval declared that the candidate list agreed upon for the November 2009 elections, postponed already once, would be carried over to 2010. That meant that Fanmi Lavalas would remain banned from participating, as a result of the earlier unconstitutional and capricious ban. The United States, Canada, the OAS, and the UN all made a show of cautioning Préval for this anti-democratic lapse. Meanwhile, Washington and its imperialist allies invested $30 million in the election; Canada contributed $5.8 million of that total. With Lavalas banned, no candidate posed a threat to the transnational capitalist class. They were ambiguous toward Préval, who had made enemies of Chevron and Exxon-Mobil while keeping the lid on Lavalas. Patrick Elie, a political scientist who had been the defence minister in Aristide’s second government, speculates that the elections were scheduled to take place in devastated, post-quake Haiti precisely to take advantage of the chaos and a traumatized electorate. The political arm of the transnational class would be able to claim success in bringing “democracy” to Haiti, while blaming the exclusion of Fanmi Lavalas on Préval.
Electoral Shamming
During the months preceding the November elections, large crowds protested the exclusion of the country’s largest political party, Fanmi Lavalas. According to its mandate, MINUSTAH was responsible for assuring lawful and orderly elections. The same protesters who promised to boycott the elections, however, also called for the expulsion of MINUSTAH from Haiti. An outbreak of cholera erupted and rumours spread that the Nepalese contingent of MINUSTAH had been dumping raw sewage into a tributary of the Artibonite River. The cholera bacteria thrived in the conditions of post-earthquake Haiti. Victims of the quake lived in close quarters with inadequate hygienic facilities. Water was untreated and most people could ill afford bottled water, itself not always reliable. Among the poor, rumours spread that MINUSTAH had introduced the bacteria on purpose to kill them off.
Then came election day, 28 November 2010. Many who tried to vote were simply turned away from the voting stations, if they could find them. Observers documented a level of incompetence on the part of the Electoral Council hard to explain were it not deliberate. Foreign news agencies filmed people stuffing handfuls of ballots into boxes while other ballots blew in the wind. At some voting stations, potential voters were turned away at gunpoint. People were directed to nonexistent voting stations. Between the boycott and logistical chaos, the participation rate was only 20 percent of registered voters. In any case, behind closed doors, the head of MINUSTAH was deciding the outcome of the elections long before the polls closed.
Early in the morning of election day, the head of the MINUSTAH mission to Haiti, Edmond Mulet, told the international press that he was impressed with the desire of Haitians to vote and that the day was “an electoral celebration.” Several hours later, Mulet convened a meeting of the representatives of the guardians of Haiti, including the United States, Brazil, Canada, France, Spain, the UN, the OAS, and the European Union. Mulet told the special representative of the OAS, Ricardo Seitenfus, that he had just informed President Préval that an aeroplane had been arranged for him to leave Haiti within forty-eight hours. He confided in Seitenfus that Jude Célestin appeared to be on track to win the elections and that was unacceptable. Mulet, apparently acting on behalf of the core countries that controlled Haiti — the United States, France, and Canada — had decided to repeat the same tactics that had forced Aristide out of the country in 2004. This time, Préval would appear to have left in response to the mounting protests against the undeniable electoral farce. However, the representatives from Latin America at the meeting refused to sanction the proposed coup d’état. Consequently, Canada, France, and the United States were forced to back down. Instead, they transformed the Observation Mission from the OAS-CARICOM into a Recounting Mission of nine persons, which they stacked with seven members from the United States, France, and Canada. It proceeded to capriciously tally the votes until Célestin was in third place, behind Myrlande Manigat and Michel Martelly. Consequently, he was eliminated from the second round to determine who would become president.
The run-off election between Myrlande Manigat and Michel Martelly took place in March 2011. Martelly, under the name of Sweet Mickey, had been known for his vulgar — sometimes obscene — musical performances, in the course of which he championed Haiti’s dictators: Jean-Claude Duvalier, General Cédras and his death squads, the tontons macoutes, and the oligarchy. He berated Lavalas and Jean-Bertrand Aristide. As the run-off election proceeded, Joegodson posted articles on our website describing the gangs of vakabons that marched through the streets of Port-au-Prince, threatening violence against those who did not support their preferred candidate. Martelly had promised them that, as president, he would reinstate the Haitian army. His followers were called Tèt Kale (Bald Heads) and stood for nothing more noble than their own advancement. Although he won the presidency, the Electoral Council refused to validate the results. Martelly’s presidency is not constitutionally valid.75
The Transnational World and the Transnational State
Although Jean-Bertrand Aristide had returned to Haiti two days before Martelly gained the presidency, he has withdrawn from public life. The current leadership of the political party he founded, Fanmi Lavalas, represents less and less the poor and oppressed of Haiti.76 But that constituency — growing and increasingly desperate — continues to call upon the spirit of Dessalines. The seventeenth of October 2013 marked the two hundred and seventh anniversary of the assassination of Jean-Jacques Dessalines. Tens of thousands of people marched in Port-
au-Prince and Cap-Haïtien to commemorate the man who symbolizes the liberation of Haiti from both imperial domination and Haitian sedition. As Dessalines had forced the imperialist countries out of Haiti — and as his successors had expelled Jean-Claude Duvalier in 1986 — the protesters demanded the unconditional departure of both Martelly and MINUSTAH. The police opened fire on them. In Port-au-Prince, the police blocked them from gaining access to Place Dessalines, where MINUSTAH troops were holding a military parade. Diverted to the Champs de Mars, they took up a variation on the chant that Joegodson had heard similar crowds shout as they forced Duvalier to flee to France: “Grenadye alaso, sa ki mouri zafè a yo. Si yo tire sou nou, n ap mete dife. Nou pa pè, nou pap janm pè, wè pa wè fòk Martelly jije pou krim li fè sou jij la, pou manti li bay pèp la.” Thus, they claimed that they were unafraid, but would bring Martelly to justice for both his crimes and his lies, some of which they enumerated: violating the constitution, destroying democratic institutions, manipulating the judiciary and the police, assassinating Judge Jean Serge Joseph, refusing to organize elections, refusing to support the legal claim brought forth by the victims of cholera against MINUSTAH, refusing to enact the Senate resolution demanding the departure of MINUSTAH by May 2014 at the latest, attempting to erect a totalitarian regime against the will of the people, manipulating the media, and persecuting critics.77
Inside of government, Senator Moïse Jean-Charles has accepted the role of denouncing the crimes, hypocrisy, and lies of the powerful in Haiti and in the international arena. He has appeared on Brazilian television to represent the will of the Haitian majority — and legislature — for the departure of MINUSTAH. Other deputies and senators have revealed to him the nature of the Martelly presidency and Jean-Charles has been sharing those confidences with the people of Haiti over the radio, much as Jean Dominique had done before his assassination. Jean-Charles is not the only voice. Kòdinasyon Desalin (Coordination Dessalines) comprises a number of articulate spokesmen and -women who defend the poor, the Haitian constitution, and international law against the transgressions of the transnational capitalist class. They argue that there can be no justice for imperialist crimes against them as long as Martelly, in collaboration with the bourgeoisie, neo-macoutes, and Duvalierists, holds onto the presidency. Not only does KOD call for his resignation, but also his arrest and trial for overt participation in the coup d’état of 2004. Likewise, FOPARK (Patriotic Force for Respect of the Constitution) has brought tens of thousands of Haitians into the streets to vigorously protest developments under Martelly. On 29 November 2013, they organized a march from the slums of Bel Air and La Saline to the American embassy, under the slogan, “Dessalines is going to visit Uncle Sam.” Their goal was to protest American machinations that brought Martelly to power in 2011.78
These analysts, mostly from Haiti’s poorest neighbourhoods, describe how Martelly is capturing the Haitian state to impose a dictatorship. Martelly has refused to call elections since his unconstitutional entry into the presidency. Mayoralty terms expired in 2011. Instead of holding elections, Martelly replaced all elected mayors and county officials with personal appointments. Throughout Haiti, individuals loyal to Martelly now hold power locally, much as was the case under the Duvalier dictatorship. Thirteen Haitian congressmen have tabled a resolution enumerating Martelly’s offences against the constitution — grounds for his trial by a High Court. With no legal basis, he imposed taxes on both telephone calls to Haiti and money transfers from abroad. The fund has collected hundreds of millions of dollars and is under the exclusive control of Martelly and his prime minister, Laurent Lamothe. Martelly unconstitutionally designated his wife and son to manage hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds with no oversight. Two lawyers brought an extortion case against Martelly’s wife and son before Judge Jean Serge Joseph, who was in turn threatened by Martelly, Lamothe, and Minister of Justice Jean Renel Sanon. Two days later, Joseph died in suspicious circumstances. The lawyers who brought the case have subsequently been harassed by the police. Only by the intervention of the poor of Port-au-Prince did lawyer Michel André escape arrest. Meanwhile, the average time elapsed between arrest and charges being laid is almost two years. That time is spent in inhuman prison conditions. Martelly’s closest political allies in the Senate and legislature are accused of drug trading, arms dealing, the execution of political and criminal competitors, and other crimes.79
Haiti is no longer a problem for the core capitalist countries. The president is operating blatantly outside of the constitution to consolidate power in his office; in other words, he is reconstructing a dictatorship that was defeated when the great majority of Haitians forced Jean-Claude Duvalier to flee the country. Electoral results are now assured by the arbitrary prohibition of parties that represent those Haitians who expelled Duvalier. The political elite are, once again, known to be deeply implicated in criminal activity. They use the state to ensure that Haitians do not, once again, interfere with the interests of the transnational capitalist class. The police and judicial systems are tools to silence critics. Washington accepts that the head of the Senate has personally murdered Haitians who tried to peacefully defend the rights of the poor. Washington knows that he is building a criminal network in the Gonaïves region, based on the drug trade. The president is personally tied to another drug ring, operating out of the south of Haiti, which has been credibly accused of a culture of murder, extortion, and terror. UNICEF does not express concern aroused by the testimony of children who claim that the current political leaders have recruited them to commit murder and other criminal actions. The judicial authorities who have attempted to bring charges for embezzlement and extortion against the family of the president have died in suspicious circumstances or been harassed by the police. When Mario Joseph, the lawyer who defends the victims of Duvalier and the current despotic regime, accuses the current mayor of Montréal of having facilitated the illegal abduction of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004 in the capacity of his role as Minister of the Francophonie, Denis Coderre responds that Joseph is simply trying to bring Haitian domestic politics to Canada.80
Representative government — almost universally called democracy — is not compatible with the needs of transnational capitalism. The global division of paid labour and pauperism, in a system where everyone needs money to survive, means that majorities of people in peripheral countries — and increasing numbers in the core capitalist nations — are expected to vote for their own subjugation. The majority of Haitians see little choice but to fight those who present themselves as the political class. The transnational ruling class offers them Michel Martelly as their representative on the international stage. Those Haitians who fought and suffered to rid themselves of Duvalier only to witness a transnational class destroying their chosen governments, now see President Martelly working with those same putschists, with Jean-Claude Duvalier, with ex–death squad killers granted amnesty for having murdered their friends and relatives to protect Haiti from poor Haitians. Martelly’s job is to deliver Haiti to Washington, Paris, and Ottawa. Together, they represent the “natural aristocracy” that the founders of “democracy” assumed would take control of the world in the course of time. They were prescient, but there is nothing “natural” about the transnational aristocracy. It is a product of the imperialist, capitalist world system. It is as “natural” as the slavery against which Haitians revolted more than two centuries ago.
1 Bernard Manin, The Principles of Representative Government (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Lucia Boia, Le Mythe de la démocratie (Les Belles Lettres, 2002); Moses Finley, Democracy Ancient and Modern (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1985); Claude Mossé, Regards sur la démocratie athénienne (Paris: Perrin, 2013), reviews the debates that Finley’s critique of modern democracy — as compared to Athenian — precipitated in the United States and Europe in the later twentieth century; Francis Dupuis-Déri, Démocratie: Histoire politique d’un mot aux États-Unis et en F
rance (Montréal: Lux Éditeur, 2013), traces the transformations in the meaning of the term democracy, especially since the eighteenth century. Étienne Chouard sponsors a discussion of how to transform representative government into a realizable, actual democracy at http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/.
2 The following works describe the system of transnational production and the class that manages it: Robert W. Cox, “Multilateralism and World Order,” Review of International Studies 18, no. 2 (April 1992): 161–80; William I. Robinson, A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004); Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin, The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire (London and New York: Verso, 2013).
3 Hans Schmidt, The United States Occupation of Haiti, 1915–1934 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1971), 37.
Rocks in the Water, Rocks in the Sun: A Memoir from the Heart of Haiti Page 41
