[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
8171: It's the Senate results, isn't it? (fwd)
From: Tttnhm@aol.com
>From Charles Arthur - Haiti Support Group
The dispute over the results of the May 2000 elections in Haiti drags on and
on.
The Democratic Convergence coalition is sticking to its hard-line position
that the ruling Lavalas Family must agree to re-run all the elections held in
2000.
The European Union, the United States, and the Inter-American Development
Bank continue to withhold aid to the central government until the dispute is
resolved.
Thanks to the Democratic Convergence's relentless propaganda, it is easy to
lose sight of the salient issue - the disputed method of calculating the
Senate election results. In this context, it is perhaps worthwhile reviewing
the UN report prepared by Adama Dieng, the independent expert of the
Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Haiti, as
presented to the UN General Assembly, dated 28 July 2000. Adama Dieng's
reports on Haiti over the years have been notable for their accuracy and
impartiality.
He wrote:
"According to the statements and reports of various observers, the elections
were held under optimal conditions of transparency and freedom with a rather
high rate of participation in comparison with other elections held since
1990. There were virtually no cases of police misconduct; no police officer
was accused of preventing citizens from fulfilling their electoral duty. Some
even claimed that the police had compensated for the failings of the CEP
since, in some areas without electricity, the votes were tallied on police
premises without any interference.
11. It is true that this situation led to complaints that the police had been
politicized and even to accusations of illegal police interference. In the
expertâ??s opinion, the conclusion reached by many observers was somewhat
hasty. On the evening of 21 May, none of the observer missions had occasion
to report the occurrence of large-scale fraud of such a nature as to affect
the validity of the elections. Later, the opposition accused the Lavalas
Government of using armed commando units and the National Police to violate
the right of citizens to vote. They reported that ballot boxes had been
stolen or replaced by other, previously-filled ones; that people had been
intimidated with weapons but there had been no bloodshed; that votes had been
counted without proxy supervision; that false documentation had been
submitted; that ballots had been cancelled; and that candidates had been
terrorized or detained.
12. This situation leads the expert to point out that election monitoring is
not limited to election day; it must at least cover the period from the
electoral campaign to the announcement of the provisional results. In any
case, Ambassador Orlando Marville, head of the Organization of American
States (OAS) technical mission, ultimately challenged the method of
calculating senatorial seats used by the CEP. Since then, the controversy has
focused on this arithmetical issue, which is of major importance in meeting
the requirements of universal suffrage. The CEP nevertheless decided that its
interpretation should prevail, supporting its position by referring to the
method of calculating percentages used and accepted in the 1990, 1995 and
1997 elections.
13. It therefore proclaimed the final results, which gave the majority of
seats to the Fanmi Lavalas party. The opposition unanimously rejected these
results and the OAS Electoral Observation Mission continued to maintain that
the method of calculation used by the CEP for the senatorial elections was
not in accordance with the Electoral Law. While acknowledging that the OAS
position is well-founded, the expert recognizes the difficulty faced by CEP
members in calculating the majority in the case of an election to fill one
seat in a department where two or even three senatorial seats were to be
filled.
14. They took the view that this method of calculation, which would
invalidate the first-round election of a candidate for whom the entire
electorate had voted, would reveal a certain weakness in the Electoral Law in
cases where there was more than one vacant seat per department to be filled.
In order to reduce to a minimum the bias resulting from ballot box stuffing,
they decided, in the case of elections to two seats in one department, to
calculate the total number of votes obtained by the four candidates with the
largest number of votes, divide the total by two and determine whether any of
the candidates had enough votes to constitute a majority on the basis of this
calculation. Citing the 1990 and 1995 elections (in which none of the
candidates had objected to the use of that method) as a precedent, the CEP
decided that the "50 per cent plus one" rule for a first-round victory,
established in the Electoral Law as applicable to the election of deputies,
did not apply where there was more than one senatorial seat to be filled in a
department.
15. The expert considers that the CEP did not fully apply articles 53 and 64
of the Electoral Law of 19 July 1999. The CEP "decision" was based more on
equity than on law. Furthermore, it is clear from the CEP explanatory
statement dated 30 June 2000 that "the CEP, as the sole authority vested with
the power to apply the Electoral Law, made a good-faith effort to find a
method corresponding as closely as possible to the spirit of the law". An
appeals body, had one existed, would probably have reversed the CEP
"decision" on the grounds that it was in violation of the Law..."
____________________
This email is forwarded as a service of the Haiti Support Group.
SEE THE HAITI SUPPORT GROUP WEB SITE: <A
HREF="http://www.gn.apc.org/haitisupport">http://www.gn.apc.org/haitisupport
</A>
The Haiti Support Group - solidarity with the Haitian people's struggle for
justice, participatory democracy and equitable development, since 1992.
______________________________________________________