12817: Re: 12816: Re: Lavalas and corruption; Simidor responds to Pierre (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Hyppolite Pierre <hpierre@irsp.org>

Daniel,

You claim that I find it okay for everyone to be corrupt? Well if you do,
this discussion at this stage may be going nowhere. Perhaps I must say this
as I am sending this email on the Corbett list. I like to in any discussion,
for the parties to find points which they can agree on so the discussion can
move forward. I think that we agree on some issues here and I will
tentatively list them at the end. But in the meantime, let's deal with the
issue at hand.

This is what I wrote Daniel, in the very last paragraph of that post that
you are referring to. Please read:

"At the same time, we must be honest with ourselves, and discuss the problem
in its totality, to find the appropriate solutions that will benefit Haiti
overall. Otherwise, we will keep moving from having one group of
non-transparent politicians in power, to another, and another. Worse, Haiti
will simply keep on getting poorer and poorer that way."

Again, I wrote that we must consider the problem in its totality because
otherwise, "we will keep moving from having one group of non-transparent
politicians in power, to another, and another. Worse, Haiti will simply keep
on getting poorer and poorer that way."

Where do you logically deduce that "everybody is corrupt, so no one is
responsible."?(Your words). All I am doing here is pointing to a cultural
problem due in part to our poverty as a country. Everyone wants to "fè youn
kou", get their pocket filled before it's too late. So that is why I have
always argued not just for transparency, but also for mechanisms to at least
curtail the corruptive tendencies in our culture.

You go on to say that "Haitian culture, that is the culture produced by the
people, doesn't fall into that category, and I challenge anybody to show
that the people are corrupt."

Now, that is the populist, romanitcized view of "the people". Anyone, or
shall I say most people who have hungry children, a bitter wife or husband,
and responsibilities with no hope, will jump at the opportunity to take
what's not theirs if that will resolve their immediate (not their long term)
suffering. That is why you will always find groups of people in Haiti to
still call Viv Duvalier, if he decides to send to some shadow groups, some
of the money that the Swiss banks have recently allowed him to get his hands
on. Now those who will be on the streets chanting Duvalier won't be you or
I, or anyone on this list. They will be the very people that you claim
cannot be corrupted.

You go on to write about Aristide's "ill-fitted suits" back in 1990-1991.
Well, if as the professional that I am sure you are, you have a job
interview, will you wear "My Dream" perfume (do you remember that one in
Haiti in the 1970's: pi piti pi rèd, se pafem may drim), or will you make
sure that you put on your Paco Rabanne? It's the same for a president. His
suits as the Head of State were ill-fitted, and now they are well-fitted. I
guess that putting the potential for corruption aside, he makes enough
legitimate money now to wear appropriates suits and you should be happy form
that perspective, for the image of Haiti on the international scene.

As you went along about "NOT THE MAN" but "THE PLAN", I am not going to get
into these conspiracy theories with you or anyone else. The fact remains
that ever since the collapse of the Soviet bloc and even before that, there
was a push for greater market economy and globalization. Now Daniel, I am
sure you do remember those words: COMECON. That was the common market among
the countries in the Soviet bloc. So even there, the idea of trade for
greater wealth was rooming around because there are advantages, as well as
disadvantages.

On the other hand, I am not a man interested in Papa-Doc-ism. If anyone find
something wrong with Aristide (I am even darker than him), then so be it.
That's their problem. These are the same people who craved on Marc Bazin, a
dark-skinned Haitian. Maybe you should consider not skin color in this case,
but class and perhaps what I call in the Haiti context, starting with
Duvalier, ethno-populism. I am not going to fall into that emotional trap.
After all Daniel, you yourself as you wrote it once on this list, are a
grimmaud. So is Ben Dupuy. I doubt it very much that those you call
bourgeois compradore on this list, like some of your ideas, or those of Ben
Dupuy. They would have given you as much hell as you and they, are trying to
give Aristide.

You wrote further:  "Hyppolite puts great faith in elections. The truth is
that you can have elections from now until Kingdom come, nothing will ever
change in Haiti, unless you eliminate the present system of government and
the power of the corrupt strata."

Daniel, I put great faith in elections because I believe in "process". You
don't get there by your mere force, gwo ponyèt like we say in Haitian. You
get there through persuasion. This is difficult for our political class but
eventually, they will have to learn that you don't become president, or
Senator, or Prime Minister because your father is so and so. You have to
earn the job through your sweat. By that I mean, by rolling up your sleeves
and go to the streets and talk to those who may vote for you. Convince them
that you mean well, and tell them about your plans for them.

In fact, it is because of the "corruption" factor that you need elections,
so the electorate can weed out the bad seeds.

And again you wrote: "I'm not preaching revolution on this list, just
pointing out the obvious."

I am glad you're not preaching revolution Daniel. Because what we need is
not "revolution", but "EVOLUTION". We are still by most standards a backward
society, in our ways of thinking and all, as emotionally deficient that our
political class is, refusing to deal with processes. So what we really need
is not revolution, but evolution.

On this still contentious issue of free trade zones, let me just say this.
More likely than not, you are totally, totally, utterly wrong. Your original
argument that Aristide gave 10 percent of Haiti to the Dominican Republic is
just not the fact. So if you want to debate over other issues here, that's
fine. Otherwise, let's just end it.

I can tell you meanwhile what I think we agreed on. Please correct me if I
am wrong.

 -There is a serious issue of free trade in Haiti in general, that is a
concern for all of us;
 -We are desperate for greater transparency from government in Haiti;
 -Haiti is corrupt, although you disagree on how deep that corruption is;
 -Aristide your nemesis, is indeed the president of Haiti.

God bless,
Hyppolite Pierre
IRSP
http://www.irsp.org