#4199: On the failure of a democratic success: reply to Hyppolite Pierre (fwd)

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From: Jean Poincy <caineve@idt.net>

So now according to Pierre, this is a calculated last chance on the part
of the masses to see if Aristide and followers will deliver. If it is
Pierre's line of thinking, correct me if I happen to misstate Pierre's
thoughts, it should be understood that Aristide will be rejected if he
fails. All we can do here is to speculate and we will have completely
different thoughts.  Again I am zooming beyond the horizon and please
bear with me and don't reduce my way of thinking to immediacy. Analyze
with me please.

The shift that Aristide made from one party to another enabled him to
bleach himself out of  his former allies' wrongdoings (if there were
any) that could have been attributed to him. Now that he is surrounded
by different people, he can always use the "shifting party weapon", if
he becomes a victim again of backstabbing. He can renew his surrounding.
Doing so would keep his relationship with the masses intact and the
latter would go again and again for whoever is from Aristide's circle.
Because the people go elections to vote for Aristide and what he stands
for. Would Pierre say that's logical?

All of the above mean that Aristide will never be rejected by the masses
as long as he is able to show to them that he cares and identify the
traitors to the masses. Now, there will be always the recurring flood to
the voting boots as the masses' expression for a majority in parliament.
Considering the above scenario would Pierre think that things will
happen? Would Pierre have enough steam to say the masses' decision is
the right one?  
 

Pierre says:

"Remember what hapenned when there was a "balanced" Parliament!! Go ask
OPL's Yrvelt Chéry and Gérard Pierre-Charles: no budget for more than
two years, no legislation."

I must have missed something for I don't recall of a "balanced"
Parliament. Wasn't the Parliament dominated by OPL? Wasn't this OPL
dominance the reason why Ayiti could never have a prime minister and no
legislation? I am willing to learn otherwise from Pierre.

At any rate, my main point was that the lack of plurality in the
government would create an imbalance. However, having plurality does not
guarantee an effective government, if tolerance is absent which is the
case in Ayiti. The mere fact that both people go one sided is an
indication of their low level of tolerance, which is reflected among the
candidates. Considering the candidates as the product of the people, it
is expected that they have also a low level of tolerance. Since, it is
the people's spirit and that of the candidates not to tolerate differing
views, it is very likely that within a party in dominant position,
conflict will arise as tolerance will be also absent. 

Pierre says:

"What Lavalas needs now, is party discipline in Parliament. Even though
people may have different points of view on certain issues, but on the
overall, they must support the core agenda of the party."

Yes that's what they want, but their low tolerance level among
themselves will never allow it to happen. We can't overlook this crucial
aspect because we wish that democracy be applied as is.

As an answer to Pierre's question on where I am going with this logic
all I have to say is that I am not trying to tarnish one party's image,
but just making an objective analysis of the situation and inviting
others to take the trip beyond the horizon with me rather than being
resigned and be content with some current ill results as the future is
overcast.  


Ayiti lived, lives and will live
Mozeb