#5145: Re: #5128: Opposition to Aristide: Hyppolite responds to Chamberlain's comment. (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: HYSEKA@aol.com

This is an interesting list of people who at one point or another, were 
collaborating with Lavalas, particularly Aristide. The question however 
remains: "What's the point here?"

If it is to prove that some former members of the Lavalas leadership are now 
on their own or in the opposition, you are correct. But to suggest that they 
did so, because they all have a common problem with Lavalas, is at best 
disingenuous.

People decide to collaborate with a particular political movement or another 
for different reasons. They also leave for their own particular reasons. They 
are also sometimes, left behind. For instance, Gérard Pierre-Charles whom you 
refer to in this post, was left behind by OFL. He has since then consistently 
proven, that he is not the most responsible politician in Haiti. His 
political party, the OPL, had an obstructionist majority in Parliament which 
for three consecutive years, did not even bother voting on or for a national 
budget. Many members of his group (the OPL), were spotted many times 
wandering at different locations (Montréal, Miami, New York, etc.) at time of 
legislative sessions.

William Smarth. Well, isn't he the brother of Rosney Smarth, former Prime 
Minister of Préval's? Rosney of the OPL resigned, then left the Prime 
Ministership's seat without a new one having been approved by Parliament. 
This was a clear violation of the Haitian Constitution. He should have stayed 
in, until someone else had been approved by Parliament, just so he could 
assure continuity of the process. That is a prescription of the constitution, 
not a suggestion of mine.

Chavannes Jean-Baptiste? I thought this was more a matter of personal 
rivalry. He thought like many others did, that he could make it on his own as 
a politician.

Hervé Denis? I am not sure he was never a Lavalas. We all know that he was 
chosen as Prime Minister designate, as a compromise candidate to the 
obstructionist OPL in Parliament. I have heard his comments a few times while 
here, since the May 21 elections. I am sorry to say I am not at all impressed 
by his political comments. Not at all.

Malval is not a good example either, Gregg. He was never Lavalas. So he did 
not "leave" Lavalas either. He never "entered in," in the first place. The 
uneasiness between himself and the entire Lavalas leadership was obvious from 
day one, when he was chosen as Prime Minster during the coup years.

My point here is not to dismiss every one of those people Greg listed here, 
as being in any way dishonest. Rather, it is to say that people get involved 
in political movement, just like in anything else, and sometimes decide that 
"it is not for them". This does not necessarily mean that the movement itself 
needs to be revamped. Sometimes, the individual's personal tale or ambition 
is more accurate in describing the true reason behind their so-called 
defection, than the political movement itself. Georges Anglade for instance, 
may be less of a politician and more of a technocrat. So he may have decided 
that, he is not interested in the political process and just left the whole 
thing. 

We could go on and on having those kinds of debates. They will please those 
of us who shy away from discussing real issues and prefer depicting OFL as a 
dictatorship in training. But as intellectuals leave, others may and do come, 
each one of them for their own reason. We all know who left Fanmi Lavalas the 
past few years because it is a successful political movement. But we won't 
know who had left on the other side, because they're not quite as successful. 
In any case, does it really matter?

Hyppolite Pierre