9172: Re: 9156: Re: 9145: On an iron fist government with good will: Poincy replies to Antoine (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: "[iso-8859-1] Jean Poincy" <caineve@yahoo.fr>

Antoine, if we continue to associate absolute power
to, arbitrary ruling, repression without cause,
corruption for the sake of corruption, and the absence
of a democratic decision process we will always view
such a government as something not think of. If my
definition of "an iron fist government with good will"
had those attributes, I would agree with all of you
fully. However, it's not the case. For I must be clear
by outlining my meaning of "an iron fist government
with good will".

Of course, it will have absolute power as all
governments do, but refrained by laws. Of course it
will be repressive, but selectively and through the
use of laws. As harsh as they may be, they will be the
laws of the land, but there won't be laws that would
prevent people from realizing their full potential as
human being; rather they would promote it. 

For instance, if education is obligatory for all
children starting at a certain age, any violation of
such would result in their sequestration by the
authorities and a number of years of imprisonment for
the parents.  

Would be crimes: offense (verbal or physical makes no
difference) against one's person or property, damage
caused to the collectivity and neglect of a property
owned. Severe punishments would be attached to those
crimes. They would range from 5 to 20 years of
imprisonment, lost of citizenship and capital
punishment for murder. Doing nothing with a property
either for beautification or cultivation within two
years of its acquisition would result in lost of
ownership, fines to be paid and at least two years
imprisonment. Once incarcerated it would be like
living in a jungle. 

They deter one's from bad behaviors and promote better
ones to create a much civil society.  I bet you they
would not be popular, but they would keep the society
in check until the people's character would be well
shaped to live in a more lax society. Discipline,
respect for others and desire for progress would be a
way of life until these laws vanish and no longer
serve their purpose. Only then the society can be
allowed to be lax. 

Certainly, these would not be the will of one strong
man. Here I agree totally with you that's impossible
in today's world. Believe me, such a government can be
instituted through a democratic process acceptable to
all international monitors. Putting in place
democratically such a government, some corruptions are
necessary (electoral fraud permissible in some
circumstances). 

Let's not dream: we can never get rid of corruption as
long as we are human and planning on living together
in society to share scarce resources. For positive
corruptions can be very effective. By positive
corruptions, I mean doing something vicious to an
ultimate good. Sound, livable and sustainable results
can be achieved; whereas negative corruptions destroy
and bring degeneration. That has to be eliminated and
can be eliminated with harsh laws. 

As I said reshaping Ayiti does not have to be the work
of one strong man or a "benevolent dictator" according
to others' terms. A group of individuals can do that
and can be composed of all sectors of the society, but
with the same frame of mind. I don't know if you
recall my concept of a double coup d'etat given to the
people I put before you a while back. 

Let me recap: a bunch of guys being elected in office
from different parties. While in office, through
coalition, they would decide to form this type of
government and they happen to rally behind the
proponents of such ideal whom may not be of the same
party with them. They would vote laws that would give
them absolute power and create means of electing their
kind in office if not them being reelected
continuously for at least a generation or two. 

The constitution should not allow for term limit, that
would be their first surgery on the constitution once
they decide to promote such a coup d'etat to the
people. In this kind of governmental structure, the
decision making process to govern and create a
collective well-being would be very democratic. A body
of government including legislative, executive and
judicial branches with the complicity of some other
groups outside of government would engage in serious
debate on how to bring about changes in Ayiti. 

Laws would be enacted to ensure collective security
and actions to guarantee a collective well-being would
be taken. Of course, such a government would face
opposition intended to disrupt the whole process just
for the sake of doing so in the name of democracy. 
Well, the government has to take actions to deal
harshly with such individuals. 

The use of laws just or not would be very repressive,
not in terms of physical abuse as most of us tend to
think. The system would be rigid for that matter and
prevent disobedience as much as it can. It could be
through censorship or strict controls of one's actions
and whereabouts. 

Parallel to that, I would join you with no reserve on
your civic education proposal. Nonetheless, there must
be some strong will stemming from what I outlined
above. If it is in a democracy as it is, we can forget
it. Due to democracy, Ayiti does not have a standard
academic structure to educate its children. The
schools such as "Saint Louis de Gonzague", "Soeur Ste
Rose de Lima" and others have their own programs or
ways of teaching young Ayitians, again programs that
are totally different from what the state is
promoting. 

No actions are taken against those institutions. It's
a democracy, how can the authorities do so? Under "an
iron fist government with good will" such would not
occur regardless of how good of institutions they are.
They would be punished. If we are talking of civic
education, there must be one set ways of shaping the
kids' mind in making them responsible citizens. It
must be constant and can be done with the forcefulness
of the type of government that I proposed, otherwise
it will be doomed.

Antoine I am quite aware that my statement is very
insulting. If I am questioning it this is not due to
racism, but to what's going on in Ayiti. Is it or is
not true that Ayiti failed and is failing in
administering itself? After almost two centuries of
independence, can we with our head up say that Ayiti
has success in being a decent place to live? After
such a long a time, how come 90% of the country is
still in nature like; not even, in fact it is in
"sub-nature like". The country is in near complete
destruction for lack of administration or
misadministration. 

If we create a yardstick of good administration not to
any other countries' standard, but to Ayiti's self
image and standard, we will not even find one
indicator of administrative success.  If we state the
hard and sad fact, what do we attribute this to? To
failure or racism.  If after such a long a time, the
pattern perpetuates itself, isn't it fair and
objective to ponder the Ayitians capacity to do so in
the future considering the current situation? 

Now that we've come to this: the inability to
administrate themselves, did not the former masters
say so before they left? Yes, using the "savage
rebels" was racist and I give you that: they were the
word savage themselves, but were not they right about
the other part, the Ayitians' inability of
administering themselves? Objectively, Ayitians have
failed in doing so. 

We can't continue to live in self-denial because of a
racist connotation attached to a prediction. Let's
strike out "savage rebels" and say the masters
predicted that these rebels will never be able to
administer themselves. Is it true or not? Please show
me what I am unable to see. It's pitch dark on this
issue. Yes! words are powerful and wonder can be
achieved with them, but one must be aware first of
his/her state of being to allow changes to come;
denial does not do it for sure.

On Henri Christophe's end, I agree with you that if it
were not Petion the people themselves would have said
no. However, by the time they would decide to stand
against his authority, their mind would so well shaped
that their uprising would not be destructive. Because,
they would have their character well molded, by then. 

This is my point in advocating for "an iron fist
government with good will": its forcefulness would be
to an ultimate good. By then, the society would be
ready for a democracy with less restraint and the
people would know better how to administer themselves
without having the need to have the government's
involvement in their private activities. 

I do bet on Ayiti to becoming better and I strongly
believe it will, but I know much are to be done to
bring it on a starting point. If despite all the
wrongs that it has endured, it continues to be and
remains fully unexploited still, there is an
indication that the survival instinct is strong and
there is hope of goodness ahead in the future.  

We should be happy that everything is going on in
Port-au-Prince, a minute part of the country. Take a
look at the rest of the country and imagine the wonder
that can be accomplished there. I am quite content
with the situation, because the place is virgin and a
lot can be done. 

I share very much your point on the Convergence
idleness. Myself I argued similarly on doing good in
helping the country moving forward economically rather
than holding strong before Aristide. They are to leave
Aristide alone and go on doing other things for the
country that would give them clout while changing
their image. Again competition and tolerance are not
taught; it's either you or me if not nothing else. How
can we have that democracy if these elements are
missing?


Ayiti has lived, lives and will live
Mozeb



___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Un e-mail gratuit @yahoo.fr !
Yahoo! Courrier : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com