26330: Hyppolite Pierre Re: Haiti and else (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Hyppolite Pierre <hpierre@irsp.org>

I must first apologize to a reader on the list who emailed me some information 
about the pending La Scierie trial, after that person had read the post. 
Although the communication between us was off-list, I think it's important for 
me to simply say to him "I'm sorry", publicly, for my line of rationale at the 
time was incompatible with his effort at making me comprehend what was going 
on. As I emailed him the following day on this very issue, I hope he accepts my 
apology. There ws no rational need for my outburst. Now to the issue at hand. 
I think it's important to apologize also because he had made clear that the La 
Scierie trial will be one without jury. Nonetheless, it's important for that 
trial to be as transparent as possible so any perception, of unfairness or 
overzealousness, can evaporate or be confirmed (if indeed we're dealing with a 
political witch hunt, as suspected). There is also a larger issue at play with 
this case. 
RNDDH had lobbied extensively the curent executive branch. The executive in 
return, pressured the judicial branch to have a "La Scierie trial" which by all 
account was not their initial intention. They thought there was no case against 
the detainees. This shows that indeed, RNDDH does have overwhelming power 
leverage on the current government, and by extension from this perspective, 
Haiti's judicial system. But here is where the danger is greatest, I think. 
Perhaps they have not even thought this issue through, to analyze the 
consequences. Nevertheless this interest group, RNDDH, is helping maintain an 
autocratic system in Haiti. Here's how. 
What they had succeeded to do was to pressure one branch of government 
(traditionally the only relevant governmental and powerful branch: the 
exceutive through the Ministry of Justice) to force another branch (the 
Judiciary) to do things that reportedly the latter didn't think was 
appropriate. In other words, they are helping to maintain a system which they 
had rightfully decried yesterday as autocratic, when the government in power 
was, as evidenced through this case for instance, not of their liking. 
If tomorrow, or even in 10 years, a left-leaning group wins elections and 
controls the executive branch, how would or will RNDDH be able to decry it once 
more as autocratic when they are in deeds, helping perpetuate a political 
system that had only done harm (economic and otherwise) to an entire nation and 
people? We habe to think and act differently from tradition, if the ultimate 
goal is truly the development of Haiti and the effective structuring of the 
country's democratic process. 
Such politics by an interest group, if it was pursued by say "Fondation 30 
Septembre" a formerly close ally of the previous government which equally 
pretended to defend human rights exclusively, many if not most among us would 
have thought of it as wrong because of the consequences. 
It is important and even necessary for interest groups of all kinds, from all 
political persuasions to have structured and codified access to the primary 
branches of government (exec., leg., and jud.). However, when in as weak a 
country as Haiti, there is a built-up perception and reality that some group 
has overwhelming influence on the political system even to the detriment of 
good working government, that creates the same traditional problem. 
Haiti has already a problem with a too-powerful branch of government, the 
executive branch. This case actually typifies it. Again, this is not about 
RNDDH per se but perhaps one would say, per quod. 
That, to me at least, is the crux of the issue. It has to do with the perhaps 
unintended consequences of this whole affair on the running of good government. 
In any case, I still hope and pray that a trial will take place in the most 
transparent of ways, and that justice will be done to those who stand accused 
and to all victims. 
Best regards,
Hyppolite Pierre