24405: Re: 24402: Hyppolite Pierre replying to Severe's question (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Hyppolite Pierre <hpierre@irsp.org>

Dear Constantin,

Let's first say that we're all sisters and brothers here and so, I hope that
you and everyone else for that matter, won't call me "Mr." anymore. Having
been raised in Haiti, I have grown to be quite suspicious of that epithet; I
am sure you and I know why I say so. Now, let's get back to the subject at
hand.

The problem in Haiti's political culture, is that we tend to believe that
the presidency (i.e. the executive branch) is the only place where we can
effectively help bring positive changes to the system. In fact, the best
place is, or at least must be in Parliament, and at the local and municipal
levels.

For instance, the role of the executive branch ought to be better defined,
with its power and limits. Yet, those necessary and positive changes can
only come from the legislature. Therefore, I would even encourage the most
politically engaged among us, to focus their attention on getting elected as
deputy or senator rather than as president.

Secondly, any Lavalas president for the next 5 years would probably do more
harm to the process than anything else. I know it's a hard pill for Lavalas
leaders and partisans to swallow but it's true. A Lavalas president would
have to contend with the appeal of "the base", the die-hards who only want
to see Titid finish his term. S/He would also have to contend with
well-orchestrated campaigns from the other side that would do more harm than
good to the democratic process, the economy, and the overall stability of
the country in the short and long terms. Quite simply, it is just not time
for Lavalas to be running the presidency. They need some time out. They need
it to reconstruct and also do some political soul-searching. The leaders of
that movement have to swallow their pride and think long-term in this
particular case.

I also mean to clarify something here. My goal is not, NOT to damage
NCHR/Haiti when I write about the doings of a particular member of that
organization that had caused more harm to the political process than good. I
sincerely and honestly believe that NCHR has to continue on its human rights
work in Haiti and should continue to get the kinds of financial support it
may need to do so. But at the same time, I think a human rights organization
needs to maintain a high level of even-handedness and should work hard to
not be perceived as being partisan, either way. This is especially true for
a country like Haiti with such a volatile political culture.

As to the saying from "Granbwa" I believe, that a president needs to be able
to finish his or term in Haiti, I agree wholeheartedly. But how does one, in
all good conscience, call for such under the circumstances that had brought
down Aristide? A trapped government that had refused to listen to moderates
in its camp, despite numerous warnings for years, of the danger that was
emanating from refusing to reform the system, at least control the
corruption in its midst, and so forth. How does one reconcile the idea of
respecting constitutional order, when a rather sizable segment of
disinherited that was ready to die for Lavalas were in fact, the true
victims of government's ineptness in its policy initiatives? Was it worth
it? Was it truly worth it to accept that thousands more could have died just
so the government would have survived, when those who would have died for
that government had been betrayed by that very government in so many ways? I
don't know for everyone else but in my humble opinion, I thought it was
better for the government to have finally stepped down. It no longer was a
political issue, but became a moral issue. I was surely hoping that for
once, Haitians would have better managed the post-Aristide period. But of
course I was wrong, which is why we still have pro-Aristide demonstrations
in Port-au-Prince.

Best regards,
Hyppolite