13847: Re 13834: Simidor responds to Ewen (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: karioka9@arczip.com

Dear Mr. Ewen,

The pressures of the day (Thanksgiving and events associated with Citizens’
Renewal Day in Haiti) will make this less of a satisfactory answer to your
very challenging post.  Still, I would agree almost with everything you said if
we could arrive at a workable definition of democracy that goes beyond the
perfunctory requirement of organizing elections every 4 or 5 years.  This
limited definition, which the Bush administration deems good enough by the
way for “emerging democracies,” is an excellent way to deny the very notions
of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to zillions of “kretyen vivan”
(children of God) in countries like Haiti, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe.

The “pursuit of happiness,” as I take it, is the reasonable expectation that
government will create an environment that guarantees not only “the basic
human rights to all,” but also where the individual can with hard work
improve the lot of his family.  (Such a government cannot therefore
encourage its citizens to invest their meager assets in pyramid schemes
designed to enrich Lavalas associates.)

In my most recent post to Bob Corbett, I argued that the Lavalas regime is not
a democratic government.  For one thing, it is a government that operates
outside the law.  I argued instead that Lavalas is a weak dictatorship (but one
with clear fascist tendencies), held in check by the OAS and the Bush
administration.  To allow such a regime to complete its term when the people
are so vehemently calling for its demise is to reward administrative gabegie
(corruption, malpractice, etc) and to create a precendent for bad government
(the expectation that, yes, you can rob the country most scandalously, and still
retire with honor and wealth).

It is a common practice in other countries, is it not, to force a government to
resign if and when it becomes wrought with scandals?  In countries as diverse
as Brazil, France, Israel and Argentina, presidents and prime-ministers have
resigned under popular pressure, without any set back for democratic
governance.  Even in the US where elections are expected to happen like
clockwork on Nov. 4, was not Nixon impeached, and did he not resign, for
crimes much less pronounced than Aristide’s?  Was Clinton not impeached
for merely tickling “that woman” in the wrong place?  If you go back to
Anonymous’ post (#13782), you will find crimes that are 10 times, or even
100 times, more serious than those Nixon and Clinton were impeached for.

But in Haiti, there is no such workable mechanism for redress.  There is no
mechanism available to even investigate those crimes.  Please recall the
killing of Jean Dominique, Father “Ti” Jean Pierre-Louis and Brignol Lindor.
In Haiti, it takes a popular insurrection to hold a president accountable.
Lacking any other venue, just on what moral ground would you ask the
people not to rebel?

Finally, the weakest point in your argument is the last sentence.  “Either
way,” you write, “it is the onus *of each group* to make their case to the
people both WITHIN the game and BY THE RULES of the game, and not
skirt them, and then abide by the outcomes until perhaps next time.”  Why,
we have gone beyond making a case to the people, in this “case.”  It is the
people themselves who are now in the streets, speaking loudly and
uncompromisingly against this government.  As I suggested in a previous
case, the people are sovereign…

Daniel Simidor
“How can there be calm, when the storm is yet to come”
(Linton Kwezi Johnson)