14054: Arthur replies to 14047: Chamberlain replies to 14037: (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Tttnhm@aol.com

>From Charles Arthur


Greg Chamberlain wrote:
<< You are quite right to point out factual errors in press coverage and some
 have been inexcusable.  But here you are being over-picky, as well as
 making your own errors. >>

Greg,

By omitting any reference to my point about the "four dead" people in
Petit-Goave who were wounded but not in fact dead, you do make me appear
ridiculous, and without that part of my original post you are quite right to
comment, "So this "beggaring belief" bit is over the top."


As for your interpretation of the history of the Parliament in those years,
thank you for sharing that with us. Is it OK if I say I do not agree with it?
May I be so bold as to pick you up on the following points:

You wrote:  "However, from around that time (late 1996), he (Aristide) had
sizeable groups of defectors from the OPL in both houses of parliament whose
quarrel with the OPL and Préval's government helped paralyse operations."

and

"In August that year, two groups of pro-Aristide deputies -- the Anti-Liberal
Bloc (25) and the Informal Group (about 40) -- had a clear majority over the
now anti-Aristide OPL (33) (which dropped the Lavalas from its name in
January 1998, not 1996 as you said)."

To me it seemed much more like it was the OPL that was paralysing the
Parliament. It enjoyed a majority in the Senate - thanks to its refusal to
accept the results of the partial April 1997 Senate elections which meant
only 18 of the 27 Senate seats were occupied, and it had the largest bloc of
seats in the House of Deputies - here I think we agree on the number 33 (more
on this below). I don't accept your characterisation of all the non-OPL,
non-anti-neoliberal bloc deputies as being pro-Aristide, and I don't remember
any reports suggesting that at the time. So, in my opinion, the OPL remained
in quite a strong position in both houses, and it used this power it had in
the Parliament to block two of the candidates for Prime Minister proposed by
President Preval, and also to push through legislation for the privatisation
of state-owned enterprises in 1997.

As for your numbers of deputies, please allow me to say that your maths are
'bonkers'. The full number of deputies was 83, whereas your breakdown of 33 +
25 + about 40 = about 98! But it's is worse still when one remembers that as
of June 1998, there were in fact only 76 sitting deputies because three had
died or been killed, one was seriously ill and not able to work at all, two
had been removed from office for illegal trafficking of diplomatic visas, and
one OPL deputy was in prison in Switzerland on drugs charges.

Finally, before I become a total Haiti 'anorak', you wrote: " (OPL) which
dropped the Lavalas from its name in January 1998, not 1996 as you said."

Can I point you to the OPL web site, entitled Organisation du Peuple en Lutte
OPL with a URL of  www.opl.com where in the section entitled Project
Politique you can read the following:

"La distance et les contradictions entre les deux tendances ainsi apparues
furent évoquées au Premier Congrès de l’OPL, en janvier 1997. Aussi, le
Congrès, prévoyant l’inévitable rupture avec Lavalas, décida-t-il d’adopter,
en vue d’une prochaine substitution du nom « Organisation Politique Lavalas
», l’appellation « Organisation du Peuple en Lutte ».


My French is not fluent, but doesn't that mean the OPL changed it's name at
its January 1997 Congress? If so, can we agree that we were both wrong, and
drop it?

Charles Arthur


Gloomy Outlook for Progress in 1998 By Ives Marie Chanel
PORT AU PRINCE, Jan 6, 1998 (IPS) (snip) The OPL, with a relative majority of
33 deputy seats among the 79 currently functioning (the 1987 Haitian
Constitution sets the number in the House of Deputies at 83), continues to
hold President Preval in check by voting down along party lines the 2
candidates he has proposed for the prime ministership in the last 4 months.
(end snip)