20525: InterVision2000: Fall of a Pseudo-Democrat (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: InterVision2000 <info@intervision2000.com>

Fall of a Pseudo-Democrat
washingtonpost.com
By Adrian Karatnycky
Wednesday, March 17, 2004; Page A25

On the surface, the ouster of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide
appears sadly familiar: an elected leader driven from power in a de facto
coup, and a terribly poor country beset by violence and anarchy. Yet,
despite first appearances and regrettable violence and chaos in the streets,
Aristide's resignation is hardly a setback for democracy or the rule of law.
Rather, Haiti's murky revolution represents a trend in international life:
the defeat of a leader who squandered his democratic mandate by tampering
with elections, intimidating the opposition and tolerating widespread
corruption.

As he resigned on Feb. 29, Aristide was no longer the democratically elected
leader of his country. Rather, in recent years, Aristide and his supporters
had resorted to a systematic campaign of authoritarian intimidation that had
transformed Haiti into a pseudo-democracy riddled with corruption. The
Organization of American States has indicated as much, by urging all parties
to work toward the "development of a fully inclusive democratic process in
the common interest."

The erosion of Haiti's fragile democracy began soon after the Clinton
administration restored Aristide to power in 1994. It reached a turning
point in July 2000, when Leon Manus, the head of Haiti's election
commission, refused to certify the country's parliamentary elections because
of evidence of widespread fraud, illegal tabulations and voter intimidation.
Manus was forced to flee the country amid death threats emanating from
Aristide supporters and a manhunt by police.

The campaign was so corrupted by gross violations that the United States,
the European Union and Canada -- the main forces that had restored Aristide
to power in 1994 -- refused to send election monitors to observe the
presidential vote. In July 2000 the U.S. Senate passed a resolution calling
for a cutoff of aid to Haiti until it held free and fair elections. In
November 2000 Aristide won the presidential election, which was boycotted by
the opposition, receiving 92 percent of the vote amid widespread ballot
stuffing that inflated a much lower voter turnout.

The world's democracies -- including the United States under the Clinton
administration -- attested to Haiti's status as a non-democracy in 2000 by
excluding it from full participation in the Community of Democracies, an
organization of 118 democratically elected governments. The Community of
Democracies determines its composition on the basis of clear standards that
exclude monarchies, military dictatorships, one-party states and states
where elections are rigged. Having tampered with democracy and contributed
to its erosion, Aristide now joins a growing roster of pseudo-democrats and
wayward former democrats who have been forced from office in recent years.
Their ranks include Georgia's Eduard Shevardnadze, who resigned after rigged
elections led to mass protests; Alberto Fujimori, removed from office amid a
growing public furor over corruption and vote tampering; Philippine
President Joseph Estrada, who resigned after evidence of his personal
corruption sparked protests; Slobodan Milosevic, forced from office by
massive public protests in October 2000 after he attempted to steal
Yugoslavia's presidential elections; and Albania's Sali Berisha, driven from
power by a combination of civil unrest and internationally supervised
elections in 1997. What makes these changes significant is that each
occurred within the continuity of the existing constitutional order --
making possible the quick establishment of democratically accountable
government.

Manifestations of the revolt against pseudo-democracy can also be witnessed
in other settings. There is widespread discontent among Ukrainians with the
elected president, Leonid Kuchma, who leads a highly corrupt and
increasingly authoritarian state. And Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, having
survived a coup attempt in 2002, faces mass discontent and intense growing
civic pressure because he has strayed from the democratic path.

While the unseating of pseudo-democrats and corrupt democratic "turncoats"
has been a growing phenomenon in recent years, it raises difficult
questions. With the exception of Milosevic, most pseudo-democrats are not
brutal tyrants. Rather they are contradictory and opaque leaders who
gradually erode democratic practices and institutions.

In the past, when a brutal dictator fell, it was easy for everyone in the
democratic world to cheer. Today, when a pseudo-democrat falls, not everyone
-- including many of the citizens in the country concerned -- is likely to
agree that this is a good thing.

Despite the ambiguities of such revolts, regime changes such as last month's
in Haiti represent, on balance, a healthy trend: a rising intolerance among
publics and elites for authoritarian and corrupt rule, and the growing
unwillingness of the international community to shore up ineffective,
corrupt and democratically illegitimate leaders. Now what's needed is for
the Organization of American States, the European Union, the United States
and Haitian civil society to work together to ensure that all parties in
Haiti commit themselves to a renewed democratic process of free and fair
elections -- and then abide by the results.

The writer is counselor and senior scholar at Freedom House, and co-editor
of "Freedom in the World 2003."

C 2004 The Washington Post Company