14229: Sanba: Re:14083: Lyall on"Inaccurate news" and analysis (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: sanba@juno.com

>From Charles Arthur:

If any party was 'in power' between 1995 and 2000, it was the OPL -
> formerly
> the Lavalas Political Organisation and, since 1996 known as the
> Struggling
> People's Organisation. If the OPL was ever Aristide's party, it
> certainly
> stopped being that in 1996 - why else would Aristide have formed a
> new party?

From: J.David

Well, this analysis requires further comment.

It seems to slide around the truth.
The OPL did hold the parliament, but was never the "government".
Rene Preval was president and tried to keep the country
on an even keel without a government for close to two
years, as I recall...

The police  forces were controlled by the palace (some say,
from Tabarre) during the whole of Prevals presidency.

My contribution:

Arthur talks about being in power, David's response addresses "who was the government". I am not sure that anyone can be the government by itself. That is why I fill the blank in an attempt to get the analysis going.
One can interpret David's argument as conveying that OPL was not part of the government. If it's what he meant the question, therefore is: Does government include a legislative branch. If not what was the basis of the opposition's contempt when President Preval sent the Parliament packing, for argument sake? In fact Preval's argument was about the due date retained by the constitution. If, on the contrary, OPL was part of the government, we must agree that in fact it was also the branch that could most effectively stall the government by virtue of law and constitution, and that was what it did by discarding all processes to both: install a Prime Minister and get the process of election going.

While we are busy straighting records, it seems to me that we must admit that in fact the OPL Parliament was the lieu of flibustering President Preval's choice of three Prime Ministers in a row. If it's so, I think OPL better fits David's description of who tried to keep the country on an even keel without a government for close to two years. Unless, and I stress on unless, and in total confusion as to David's premise itself,  "without a government for two years" means : without a parliament for two years.

As to the control of police, indifferently by the Palace or Tabarre, we must look around and agree that if in fact a party (OPL)controls a parliament and does not legiferate to prevent such abuse, this party must be held accoutable for it. I think the argument defeat the purpose of demonization against Lavalas, but instead dangerously incriminating OPL.