[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
#4463: Elections & the CEP : Carey responds to Kozyn (fwd)
From: Henry F. Chip Carey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
John Kozyn writes:
"Others here are more competent than me translating French, but my rough
reading would indicate that this means that the CEP is the final arbiter in
any and all disputes regarding the electoral process even in the event of
_any legal arbitration_. Period. Not the OAS, not the UN, not Canada, not
France, not the USA, not any NGO, nor any individual. (The pontificating I
have read here recently is, well... just that)."
And he concludes by saying:
"These elections were not anyone's but the Haitian
people's. As I indicated earlier and as was reiterated elsewhere above, two
legal implements cite the CEP as the final authority in any electoral
dispute. Not any other country - or its emissaries - nor any other foreign
Election monitors are human rights monitors. They observe and comment. It
sounds as if Mr. Kozyn is arguing that the CEP cannot be criticized
and by implications, political assassins cannot be criticized because of Haitian sovereignty.
The CEP is going to get away with committing electoral fraud, only in the sense that no other
Haitian body may be able to stop it from breaking the law. The precedents (which were not
set in 1990 and 1995 as is constantly claimed) were not "accepted" by the
international community because the CEP did not do what is claimed.
John Kozn correctly notes that Manus's tone has changed. This is presumably
because Manus believes that what occurred was far worse than what the OAS
initially presented. It is clear that a political explanation has to be offered why FL
did so much better in the Senate races than the Deputies if fraud is not the correct
explanation. More importantly, as we all wait for the OAS report, we have
the word of Manus and the word of his critics. Maybe there is a political explanation
and maybe the fraud was only limited to not counting all the ballots. I will wait and see.
However, since elections are a human right, and Haiti invited the OAS to observe
the elections, the role of the OAS is doubly legitimate. So, we can wait to see what
evidence is adduced to see who is telling the truth about how extensive was the fraud.
What we do know, because the CEP has admited it, is that a majority of seats were
rigged on behalf of Lavalas by using a counting method other than that stated in the
1999 electoral law, which would preempt any precedent set before, even though none
were set. Frankly, anyone who condones that fraud is not a democrat. It is totally
appropriate for the OAS and anyone else to criticize the CEP for
perpetrating the fraud to which it has already admitted.
Assistant Professor of Political Science
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303