13580: Corbett: Review of Robert Fatton's HAITI'S PREDATORY REPUBLIC.

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

>From Bob Corbett:

A much nicer format of this review may be found at:

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/personal/reading/fatton-predatory.html

However, for those who prefer to read the review directly from e-mail
it is below.

==================================

HAITI'S PREDATORY REPUBLIC: THE UNENDING TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY
By Robert Fatton, Jr
237 pages with index and SIGNIFICANT bibliography
Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2002.
ISBN # 1-58826-085-2.


Comments of Bob Corbett
October 2002

On the back cover of Robert Fatton's impressive book Alex Dupuy says:
"Haiti's Predatory Republic is a formidable book that explains like no
other the roots of the current crisis is that impoverished Caribbean
country it undoubtedly will be seen as the definitive work on contemporary
Haitian politics."

I believe Dupuy is correct in his assessment.  Fatton offers a compelling
analysis which builds on elements of the past 20-25 years, which I know
well, yet he put them together convincingly revealing Haiti to be in the
heart of a second major revolution.  The first having ended just 198 years
ago was the transition from a slave-centered colony of France to an
independent nation of free people.  The second is this transition from
various forms of dictatorship to democracy.  Fatton presents this
transition as at best partial at the present time, stuck in a form of
republic which he calls "predatory."  He further describes his own
position as a "cautious pessimism."

In Dupuy's cover comments he says this books is " accessible to
professionals and lay readers alike"  There is a sense in which this is
certainly true.  I am a lay reader in the area of politics and democratic
theory.  And I read this book with great care and utter fascination.  I
already knew most of the facts of the past 20 years of Haiti, having
experienced much of it as an eye witness and followed the rest with rapt
attention.  But Fatton's book was like coming out of a fog into the
clearing of sunshine.  I think I now understand the whole picture better
than I have ever before.

However, I'm not so sure how other lay readers will respond.  I was driven
by significant interest in Haiti and came to the book with a long history
of reading very difficult books in my own field of philosophy and knowing
first hand the rich rewards such hard work often yields.  I just hope lay
readers will give Fatton's book a chance and do the work required to earn
the clarity he brings to light.

Part of the challenge is that this is really two books.  In part it is a
fascinating, and compelling analysis of Haiti today and how today has
emerged from the past 20 years.  Anyone interested in Haiti would seem to
be likely to be gripped and enriched by this account.  At the same time
the book uses Haiti as a case study to address a much larger controversy
within the specialized area of political science on the nature of the
historical transition of ANY nation from non-democracy to democracy.  I
must admit that this frame story wasn't as interesting to me - nor as
intelligible - as were the particular analyses of Haiti's recent history.
I suspect most non-professionals in political science will be much like
me.  It could be off-putting.  I urge all who are fascinated with Haiti to
muster the discipline and invest the time and energy into Fatton's rich
and compelling book.  It's likely to challenge, change and enlighten one's
view of the 1986-2002 period and set one speculating on future outcomes
(as I do at the end of this review) comparing Fatton's hints and leanings
with one's own.

Below I attempt a much simplified sketch of his central argument
concerning Haiti, injecting reflections of my own.  I say little about the
general notion of his theory concerning nations in general moving from
non-democracy toward democracy.

A central distinction which frames Fatton's whole argument is between a
change of regime and a change of government.  In the first one changes the
people, typically the president in Haiti.  In the latter one changes the
very FORM of government.  Certainly everyone close to Haiti of 1986 will
recall the war cry of "dechokage" - the task is not merely to remove
Jean-Claude Duvalier, but to uproot Duvalierism.  People used to say that
the overthrow of Jean-Claude was to cut off the head while the task was to
uproot the system.  But what was this system?  Here there was an
ambiguity. Typically people answered the question by saying "Duvalierism."
But when pushed to announce what would replace it people typically said -
democracy.  This is a confusion of replacing a
REGIME (the rule of the Duvaliers) with a change of governmental FORM.

On Fatton's view the opposition was not Duvalierism vs. democracy.  Rather
it was Haitian historical dictatorship vs. democracy.

Duvalierism, while a particular form of dictatorship, and obviously a
particular regime, was still within the typical Haitian essence of
dictatorship.  Fatton describes the key elements of this form of
government in terms of class analysis.

What characterized the particular form of (historical) Haitian
dictatorship is that there have been two classes only which had the
cohesion and power to dominate the nation.

 	The possessing class - the group which we usually refer to as the
elite, and
	Which owns and controls the means of production including large
portions 	of the land itself, as well as the other dominant economic
institutions.

 	The government class - this group controls government funds and
the military
	might.  The government officials extract their (sizeable) wealth
from the 	nation's coffers.

Between these two classes there are often tensions and squabbles for
wealth and power.  However, in those cases where this structure of
dictatorship is threatened from below - and Haitian history is full of
such cases, the possessing class and government tends to unite against a
common enemy.  On Fatton's view this is exactly what happened in September
1991 when Jean-Bertrand Aristide was over-thrown.  He was threatening the
very FORM of historical governance in Haiti.

DREAMS OF DEMOCRACY VS "CONDITIONS" FOR DEMOCRACY

Perhaps the most critical move in Fatton's analysis of the movement toward
democracy in Haiti is his argument that with certain minimal "conditions"
for democracy a popular uprising is likely to create a change of regime at
most and not a change of government.

His class analysis insists that for democracy to occur there must be
political parties and groups organized with enough internal cohesion,
wealth and power that they can war with other such classes to create a
form of government in which the interests of a wide-spread portion of the
populace is represented in the resultant balance of power.  Yes, democracy
does take the form of a constitutional government of law with (relatively)
fair elections and non-violent transitions of regimes, but the essence of
democracies are not in these forms, but in the continued balance of power
among classes which represent significantly large portions of the
population.

On this view Haitian may often have dreamed of democracy, and many recall
the documentary of Jonathan Demme in 1987 which captured that spirit.
Yet, as November 29, 1987 showed, the dreams were not rooted in enough
popular organization or power to withstand the coalescence of dictatorial
power in the hands of the possessing class and the Duvalierist government
remnants.

On Fatton's view the transition toward democracy requires the rise of at
least two classes from below - a sizeable and powerful middle class and a
similarly large working class at the next level.  Transition toward FULL
democracy cannot be achieved until those two competing "parties" or
classes have consolidated themselves within Haitian politics and reality.

STAGES IN THE TRANSITION TOWARD DEMOCRACY

One of the specially persuasive and attractive parts of Fatton's argument
is his view that the transition toward democracy is gradual and
characterized by different stages.  As the  title makes clear, Fatton's
view is that Haiti is currently (2002) a "predatory" democracy.  Ah me,
that's easier to say than define or make clear how this is not simply a
curious way to say - "the old dictatorship is back."

For me this is the shakiest part of Fatton's analysis.  He does argue that
Haiti's state is predatory since two classes - the possessing class and
regime (elite and government) control almost all power and each thus
extracts its wealth from Haiti in the traditional manners.  But isn't this
the essence of the 200 years of dictatorship in Haiti?

On Fatton's view yes and no.

Yes - in that while the existing structure is significantly the old model,
it may appear nothing was "uprooted" or "dechokaged" - the monster stands.

No - however is Fatton's "cautious pessimism" (which I tend to think of as
really wild-eyed optimism) a few things have changed which allow him to
describe this "predatory"
Republic as an early stage toward democracy.

Two central facts have occurred which seem to Fatton to prevent a return
to dictatorship and push Haiti gently along the (long) path toward
democracy:

1.	Internal:  The growth of popular consciousness in the 1970s and
1980s revealed to the masses the dreams of democracy and allowed them to
name and oppose the concept of dictatorship or radical authoritarianism.

	The middle class and working class is still too small and weak to
force 	democracy, but the cat is out of the bag; the hopes are real and
powerful and 	won't easily allow Haiti to fall back into dictatorship.

2.	External:  With the end of the cold war and emergence of the U.S.
world dominance the U.S. is less willing to tolerate friendly
dictatorships and now demands some movement toward democracy and
especially requires that all nations enter the sphere of global capitalism
which requires some trappings of democracy.

Haiti may be in the primitive stages of democracy and most of us may
hardly recognize this as anything that looks or sounds like democracy as
we know it, but, on Fatton's view, at the deeper levels a fundamental
change has occurred.

It is important to Fatton's analysis to understand the difference between
a state where the central issue is the person or persons who are major
players, and a state where the STRUCTURE of the state is what matters.
Haiti has long been a state in which the ruler matters more than the
structure.  As one moves toward democracy, on Fatton's view, this will
become less and less the issue and the fundamental STRUCUTRE of the state
will matter.  In this regard the presidency of Jean-Bertrand Aristide has
retarded the process rather than advance it.  For democracy to begin to
grow the power cannot be centered in some charismatic leader, but in the
structures of the state itself.

Fatton does not merely assert all these beliefs.  He argues each piece in
careful detail.  I have merely summarized my understanding of his central
argument to try to simplify it for the non-specialist.

While Fatton's view of WHAT IS is one I find quite compelling, it was a
disappointment to me that he never addresses the future, and especially
the pressing question:  If he is correct, and if the primary condition
which must occur for Haiti to move forward toward democracy is that a
significant middle class and working class comes to be, then how is this
to be achieved?  This is perhaps the one area where his "cautious
pessimism" is manifest.  His analysis is that the Haitian economy is a
zero-sum economy.  That is, that there is so little wealth generated that
when someone pulls money out of the functioning economy (for personal
use), this is like taking money out of a poker pot - someone else loses
this amount.  In a more healthy economy there is no zero-sum gain.  If an
economy is healthy and growing, then one may take out personal wealth from
the economy without that being directly taken FROM someone else, since
surpluses are being created.

The question then is:  How is Haiti to move toward a more healthy economy
in which there is room for a middle class and working class to grow in
size and political power?

This is a question which Fatton never even mentions.  Since I was in Haiti
in October when I read this book, and had nightly discussions with
interesting and knowledgeable people, I did raise this question over and
over.  While none of my discussants were economists, the general view
seemed to lean toward only three areas of seeming potential economic
growth for the economy:

 	tourism
 	the off-shore assembly business
 	the export of limited crops

I must admit my own skepticism toward the last item, but Haiti does seem
to offer a great deal of potential in tourism, and Haiti certainly has a
gigantic willing work force to offer the world.  But how does one attract
the investment which could launch the economic forces to pull Haiti toward
a more healthy economy?  That seems the only hope for moving from the
current impasse.

I have given a rather long summary of what I take to be the central
argument of Robert Fatton's book.  I urge you not to take my word for it
either that I got the position fully correct or that this little summary
is enough.  I urge you to go to the book itself and invest the energy,
time and discipline to read this important book.  I think Alex Dupuy is
correct - this may well be THE book which explains this current period.
It's too important a book to be satisfied with this second hand report.

A FINAL SECTION:  FAVORITE BITS AND PIECES

Along the way to arriving at the central argument discussed above there
are many stunning smaller arguments and brilliant bits of analysis.  I
have selected just a few of those which especially caught my attention and
I just list them as disconnected bits and pieces along the way.  There are
eleven of these I have selected:

1.  Fatton defends a thesis that entry into the possessing class (elite)
is extremely difficult.  Thus the only entry into wealth, power and
prestige is via the government.

	"In this respect, both Lavalas and the opposition were prisoners
of la politique du 	venture (politics of the belly), a form of
governability based on the acquisition of 	personal wealth through
the conquest of state offices.  In a country where 	destitution is the
norm and private avenues to wealth are rare, politics becomes an
entrepreneurial vocation, virtually the sole means of material and social
advancement for those not born into wealth and prestige."  (xi)

2.  Democracy requires both a sizeable middle class and a working class:

	"Haiti provides a paradigmatic case of the difficulties - if not
the impossibility - 	of establishing democratic rule in extremely poor
nations plagued by a despotic 	inheritance."

He argues that democracy is not:

 	elections
 	elite control
 	market rationality

	But "balance of forces between contending classes - the
bourgeoisie and the 	working class - and that absent these classes
democracy is at best hesitant and 	indeed predatory." (xi)

3.  Haiti is on the way toward democracy only in the sense that a retreat
to dictatorship is highly unlikely.  Nonetheless predatory democracy is a
long way from what we tend to recognize as democracy.  Perhaps it is
useful to read of Fatton's "next stage" (closer stage) of democracy which
is yet to come in Haiti.  This is "unconsolidated democracies" in which
all the external forms we associate with democracy are there (regular,
seemingly fair elections, rule by law, functioning courts), but each party
is just waiting for a power shift to give up the forced democracy and
return to a more authoritarian rule.

4.  Predatory democracy is seen as sort of a half-way house between
dictatorship and unconsolidated democracy.  Room for popular movement and
some external power creates a significant attention to make things seem
like what they are not.  (p. 16)

5.  A predatory state is a state ruled by a class such that its dominant
purpose is to extract wealth for that class.  (p. 27)

6. A dramatic shift in the U.S. position occurred after the end of the
cold war allowed the U.S. to play an important role in the movement toward
democracy.  This "meant the significant emasculation of foreign support
for dictatorships and the global ascendancy of liberal democratic values."
(p. 39)

7.  Fatton points out a contradiction in the U.S. intervention:

	"while the U.S. intervention strengthened Lavalas politically, it
diluted 	completely its social-democratic economic platform.  The
intervention inevitably 	deradicalized Aristide, transforming him
from an anti-capitalist prophet into a 	staunch U.S. ally committed to the
virtues of the market.  He became the prince, 	but a prince partially de
plume." (p. 108)

8.  Fatton reveals some of his grounds for pessimism:

	"In the Haitian context, this means that the Lavalas leadership
issued from the 	lower middle classes and the petit bourgeoisie
could easily abandon its radical 	transformative agenda and come to
use its newly found state power to accumulate 	resources and gradually
integrate into the existing economic elite."  (p. 111)

9.  Other grounds of pessimism:

	"While it would be wrong to equate the current situation and
Preval's or 	Aristide's rule with Duvalierism or the 'de facto' regime
of the military 	dictatorship, there is an increasing sense of dj
vu, of a descent into hell and a 	new authoritarianism." (p.121)

10.  On redistribution of wealth:

	"Haiti is unlikely to enjoy any meaningful democratization without
a modicum of 	redistribution of resources and wealth." (p. 160)

11.  From the conclusion:

	"Haiti has thus entered what Bertold Brecht once described as 'the
time of 	struggles between the new and the old.'  We must wait to
see whether the promise 	of the new will flourish or degenerate
into the ugly vulgarities of the old.  While 	the current situation
invites at best a moderate pessimism Haitians continue to 	struggle
against all odds."  (p.208)