23820: (Pub) Is There a Need to Rethink the Transition? (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Robert Benodin <r.benodin@worldnet.att.net>

Is There a Need to Rethink the Transition?
By Claude Moïse
LE MATIN Editorial, November 12-15

 When people talk about the transition, they usually refer to a document.
First, there are those who engineered the transition, and the institutions
that they created. There are, also, the events filling the transition and
coloring it. We have spoken at length about all that. Right from the
beginning, we said what we believe: no effort must be spared to make this
new transition a success. Keeping with our duty as a critic, which is
expected from an independent publication, we have, in our editorials, warned
against the "pitfalls of the transition," and emphasized its weaknesses. The
challenges are many, but the means are few.

In the short term, the main concern is the increasing insecurity. The
Aristidian violence is persisting. It is a new form of political opposition,
difficult to analyze because it has no precedent. All we know is that the
law and order forces, poorly trained and ill equipped, cannot overcome this
urban guerrilla. They cannot use their artillery to destroy the popular
neighborhoods where the hard-core resisters are hiding. Impatience and
anathema will not make any difference. This manhunt will be a long and
elaborate process, requiring police intelligence and respect for the
fundamental freedoms. We welcome the progress made in pursuing the
criminals, but it should not be expected that violence will disappear
overnight from the social environment of the cities. Its elimination must be
carefully programmed into the process of restoring normality to the
political situation. It will not just require Government's involvement. Nor
will it just require Police involvement.

Voices are still heard, asking to take into account the social dimension of
insecurity. During his visit in Port-au-Prince this week, Mr. Marco Aurelio
Garcia, special envoy of the president of Brazil, said that it is urgent
"that social and economic measures be taken, in order to avoid a social
deterioration benefiting the violent groups in Haiti." I think that this
opinion is shared by many, but how is it possible to penetrate socially
those areas where peace has not yet returned, and where blind violence is
predominant? Moreover, the development of a social policy in Haiti must be
carefully planned, in view of the enormous needs of a population literally
facing a disaster.

In the medium term, the worse danger resides in the organization of
projected elections. This issue is linked to the history of the CEP, which
raises serious concerns about its ability to solve its problems. The recent
resignation of its president could suggest that the CEP is getting closer to
a solution of the crisis.  Nothing is less certain. The simplest and easiest
way would be to go back to the provisions of the transitional consensus. The
Catholic hierarchy would then have to appoint a representative to replace
the resigning Mrs. Julien. This would not be the choice of all the parties,
particularly among the organizations that did not participate in the
consensus for the political transition. Isn't there an opportunity to
reflect upon political practices in Haiti? What is the reason, for instance,
to give such an important role to the churches in circles claiming to
develop solutions to the country's problems? Is it the necessity to preserve
morality in our national affairs? Is it a way for politicians to take
advantage of a predisposition for religion amidst the general poverty (with
so many religious groups exerting their influence upon the members)?  In
exchange, the Church hierarchy would be co-opted to fill positions of
influence within the enchanted circles of power? The time has certainly come
to think about laicizing the affairs of the country.

There is so much pressure, from the main national and international
partners, to normalize the political situation in Haiti, that a solution
must be found about the CEP. However, it will take some time before we can
be rid of the devils haunting the mind of our politicians. It is as if the
numerous political parties did not realize how discredited they can be by
the mere fact that they are so many. At this time, however, it is hard to
see how the problems inherent to that multiplicity can be solved. "The
mergers that could reduce (divide) by 2 the number of party leaders are a
lot more difficult to achieve than the splits causing them to multiply by
2." (Jacques Julliard) Tiny groups are tempted to engage in violence.

Under those conditions, how is it possible to re-evaluate the transitional
accord seriously without a mandatory national dialogue? The tragedy is that
everyone – or almost – knows what needs to be done, without knowing who is
going to do it, and how. In spite of appearances, we have failed to approach
this transition with a new type of regulating force. Should the transition,
therefore, be revisited? I believe so, but not in the usual sense, where
such an operation would involve a general reshuffle; which would imply
changing the government, creating new institutions, and starting over from
scratch. I also believe that it is possible to revise the consensus
document, and include new forces. The Government would have to take this
initiative. Of course, the transition would not require just the
Government's involvement, but the Government must play a central role.