From: Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>
To: "Bob Corbett's Haiti list" <haiti@lists.webster.edu>
Subject: 25398: Hyppolite Pierre (point of view): The Third Factor (fwd)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:17:34 -0500 (CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from whitman.webster.edu ([198.246.0.10]) by mc9-f36.hotmail.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:48:32 -0700
Received: from whitman.webster.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])by
whitman.webster.edu (8.12.9/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j5FEHScL052918;Wed, 15 Jun
2005 09:17:28 -0500 (CDT)(envelope-from owner-haiti@lists.webster.edu)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)by whitman.webster.edu
(8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id j5FEHSWM052917;Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:17:28 -0500
(CDT)
Received: from pop.webster.edu (pop.webster.edu [198.246.0.22])by
whitman.webster.edu (8.12.9/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j5FEHRcL052913for
<haiti@lists.webster.edu>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:17:27 -0500
(CDT)(envelope-from corbetre@pop.webster.edu)
Received: from pop.webster.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])by pop.webster.edu
(8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j5FEHYIG000390(version=TLSv1/SSLv3
cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)for <haiti@lists.webster.edu>;
Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:17:34 -0500 (CDT)(envelope-from corbetre@pop.webster.edu)
Received: from localhost (corbetre@localhost)by pop.webster.edu
(8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) with ESMTP id j5FEHYbn000387for
<haiti@lists.webster.edu>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:17:34 -0500
(CDT)(envelope-from corbetre@pop.webster.edu)
X-Message-Info: QIy1oIULmHfP74pJ2DP4wS4DuL2ghbp9GWzTFE94pLY=
X-Authentication-Warning: whitman.webster.edu: majordom set sender to
owner-haiti@lists.webster.edu using -f
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 198.246.0.22
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: owner-haiti@lists.webster.edu
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2005 14:48:32.0202 (UTC)
FILETIME=[4CD7B2A0:01C571B9]
From: Hyppolite Pierre <>
On the other hand, perhaps we're not dealing with any "revolution" here. It
may be a far-fetched idea as I hope it is. It may however be, something more
cynical. Let's get back to some chronology here. A couple months ago, a group
of armed men took over the largest prison in Port-au-Prince and freed most
prisoners (common but hardened criminals), including former Prime Minister
Neptune, and former Interior Minister Privert. Since then, the kidnapping
game had been playing rather intensely in Haiti. Agence Haïtienne de Presse
for instance, reported in their June 10 web news bulletin that as many as 10
people were kidnapped on that day. Simple coincidence, or something more
sinister? There are different kinds of kidnappings in Haiti, as we know it.
There are those who kidnapped even street merchants, and requiring ransom as
petty as 30 Haitian dollars. However, there is a bulk of kidnappings that
seem to be much better thought out and organized. In these cases, the ransom
demand goes for as much as US$25,000. Surprisingly also, those kidnapped and
freed afterwards for large ransom report having seen iconic pictures of Fanmi
Lavalas or Aristide in their detention center. It seems to me, viewed from
that perspective, that something even more sinister may be occurring. There's
indeed a lashing out against Lavalas by many among those in power, the same
way that there is a lashing out against those in power by many of the most
hardened Lavalas partisan. No middle ground here. Please bare with me. It
then becomes easy for the speculated "third factor", third element in this
power struggle to use Fanmi Lavalas icons as a protective shield. In other
words, once the blame is put on Lavalas, the investigators will not focus as
much on the real culprits who may be a quiet, taciturn group or individual,
getting his or their cash ready to get to elections. Meanwhile, those from
the Lavalas party who do have the "right" to speak are mostly loud-mouthed
with very little to bring in terms of constructive analysis or else. They
have yet for instance to denounce formally and publicly for us all to hear,
the wave of kidnappings. Instead, just like in the good old tradition, they
just denounce it as part of the insecurity brought about after the removal of
Aristide. True and accurate but in politics, you don't simply stand on one
leg. This is especially true when your party is under attack from all sides
and you have to defend it effectively. Meanwhile, if that so-called here
third element, third factor plays the cards well, he or they will have
amassed some cash to be part of the next electoral process. But the true goal
may not be money at all. No one will or would suspect them (this 3rd factor).
They will promise security after the next elections. They may actually win
and if so, will most certainly bring back a sense of stability and security
in the country. This is entirely plausible, considering that supposing the
premise here is true (i.e. that the prison breakout was well-planned and
implemented by some political organization), those who had planned and
committed the action can also, most certainly end it. They would just have to
control those troops, or even kill a few of them depending on the need, in
order to bring back that so sorely needed sense of security in Port-au-Prince
and its surroundings. The problem here is that more likely than not
(acknowledging that I am dealing here simply with hypothesis), those planning
the kidnapings are neither Lavalas, nor the former Convergence opposition,
nor the current government. This is why I think of it at least, as the third
factor. It is somebody outside the "mainstream" and contentious box, of
Lavalas, the current government, and the former Convergence. It is someone
who's cunning and rather smart, who will also undercut both sides because
they refuse to acknowledge each other and work by consensus. Far-fetched?
Maybe. Maybe. But let's just remember this. After Magloire was deposed in
1956, the political struggle was basically between a populist figure named
Daniel Fignolé (barely a "National"), and a more centrist, "Libéral" figure
named Louis Déjoie. Fignolé spoke of the "rouleau compresseur", having the
masses on his side. Déjoie had a different strategy, more in tune with
rational politics (the last time perhaps when a member of the Haitian elite
had genuine and well-deserved popular support). But they played the game so
badly that François Duvalier became the "Third Factor". Quiet, cunning, and
taciturn, he enlisted general Kébreau on his side, neutralized Fignolé (his
friend), played the populist game, and won elections on September 22, 1957.
Well of course afterwards he forced Kébreau into exile afterwards. But we all
know what happend: "security" and "stability", which we're still paying for
today. So unless these two parties (Lavalas and all others) decide to make a
deal, some kind of a modus vivendi whereby they can eliminate the third
factor and truly begin to do politics as politics should be done, we may be
for a big and very unpleasant surprise, again for years to come. The
international community is getting tired of us, and anyone who can bring
"peace", "stability", and "security" to Haiti will be a welcome and
appreciated figure. Haiti will then, be off "their" back. As DT would say in
his funky French, in Haiti, "plus cela change, plus cela ne change pas" (the
more things change, the more they stay the same). My best to you,
Hyppolite