=?x-unknown?q?28328=3A_Lucas=3A__Ha=EFtis_Women=3A_Economic_a?==?x-unknown?q?nd_Political_involvement_=28fwd=29?=

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Georges Lucas <maloukwi@yahoo.com>

Haïti?s Women: Economic and Political involvement
    Thursday 20 April 2006

      By Marie Carmel Paul-Austin [1]
  Dedicated to Delicia Jean, Peasant feminist leader who died in Port-au-Prince
on April 9, 2006 [2]
  Relayed by AlterPresse on April 20, 2006
  The national context
  In the heart of the multidimensional crisis facing Haïti, lies the mere
application of the Constitution of 1987. In fact, 19 years later, one can
assert that none of the institutions described and foreseen in it has been
erected. That is why, for all political and legal experts, it is difficult, let
us say impossible to have a State of Law in such conditions, in other words how
to establish the institutionalization of power. It takes that and only that to
formalize and institutionalize political life in a country. But, History has
shown that in the case of Haiti, it has remained a definite challenge to enter
in this mode of doing politics through institutions, not individuals.
Depersonalization of structures and of policies, that what lacks in the process
of implanting democracy in Haiti, as an alternative of ?restoring? democracy.
  There is a legitimacy crisis of the State; a State which remains historically
predatory, patriarchal, autocratic and hegemonic. This explains why all
successive rulers have never respected neither the Constitution, nor the laws
of the land; they have made it a practice of concentrating all powers and thus
leaving none to other branches, such as the parliamentary and the judiciary;
where there is no balance of power; this, coupled with complete political
intolerance vis-à-vis political opponents. Political and social life as we have
known it has been at the mercy at the only person in charge in the National
palace. We are facing a form of government in which, urban life and politics
was and is still dominant, while the majority living in the countryside, works
harder and harder every day to sustain a precarious economy. Indeed, those left
in the rural areas have never had any voice in their own country. This
characterizes the State of Haiti, as a country where power is
 concentrated in the Capital, in the hands of AN omnipotent president, and
characterized also with secular spoliation of the rural mass.
  We would like to rapidly make a few observations of this multifaceted crisis
in order to contextualize both the struggle and the roles that Haitian women
have played along the way. Because, our marginalization and our resistance
don?t occur in a vacuum, but deeply rooted in a political and socio-economic
context that define every aspect of this problem. In fact, Haiti has been
facing a major crisis these last 20 years; parting from dictatorship to
democracy has revealed to be an Herculean task, since the so-called Haitian
elite was not prepared for it. Having been accommodated to rapine, corruption
and laisser-faire for so long, those historically, pre-supposed to lead the
way, to engage the country into new paths when the national bark is in peril,
those, we say, were not fit to the task, were not up to the job! Thus the State
will face an earthshaking state of affairs in which all that was left of the
republican or national institutions would collapse In the meantime,
 the socio-economic fabrics being also disintegrated and in complete disarray;
people were asking more and more from government while, at the same time, not
having any faith nor trust in those in power. Indeed, how can you ask of the
State to be more efficient, more responding to the needs of the people left so
long without any access to services and goods, and simultaneously, demanding
that the same State be less engaging, less involved? Thus citizens, Civil
Society would organize and participate more and more in political life and
decision-making processes.
  An excessive centralization of power, a failing administration and a ruined
political apparatus, all added to deep social and cultural dichotomies bred by
bi-secular discrimination and marginalization of women, peasants, youth, and
the under-privileged describes this exclusive, but authoritarian and oppressive
dictatorship left by the Duvalier regime. It is pertinent to stress all that,
so we can assess how deeply rooted are the problems and complex are their
consequences and impacts in present-day politics. Acquiring, yet acceding to a
certain degree of State legitimacy has become a relentless demand for the rule
of Law, parting from one antagonistic pole (dictatorship) to the other
(democracy). This is the reality we face as a nation, as a people, and as
women, being a social group which has been paying exceedingly, due to this
radical and systemic crisis.
  Why women have been excluded
  In some ways, we, women, could be felt privileged to have been kept away
during this bi-secular debacle, if we were not as much concerned as our male
counterparts, as citizens. And having been marginalized and denied every right
to participate and contribute doesn?t elude the issue; there lies the Problem.
Suffice it to add that this long range method of piracy and dishonest politics
is also rooted in its anti-democratic essence and rudiments: Denial of
universal rights, exclusion of half of the population, meaning women, as the
Napoleonic Civil Code would have us listed as minors, thus incompetent and
classified with children and retarded individuals. This implies in pure legal
terms, not responsible, not accountable in any way under the law.
  Our Republic was so funded: Undemocratic and anti-Woman. Our first
Constitution of 1805, affirms clearly the status of citizenry in article # 5
as: to be a good citizen is to be a good son, a good father, a good husband and
certainly a good soldier. All attributes of the male; all characteristics based
upon a sexist conception of male domination and superiority.
  Therefore, women?s access to political and economic power will be far from
proportionate with their numbers, needs or contributions. And their
participation in decision-making processes will lag behind men?s at all levels:
from the collective (in parliaments, boardrooms, unions, etc...) to the
individual (in working places, between couples); from places where women are
under-represented to those where they are the majority (like many neighborhood
groups), but where their opinions carry less weight.
  Male authority is so ubiquitous that it is accepted as well by many women and
men as ?natural?. Although it is often enforced by physical strength, authority
per se is not a biological attribute. It is a learned behavior, a privilege, a
reward, earned or arbitrary, granted and taken away. Men are socialized to
exercise it, women are socialized to defer to it. Manifestations of the
asymmetrical power relations between men and women are everywhere to be seen.
There are de facto powers, like male privilege in society and tradition; there
is the male bias inherent in institutions like the police, the courts and
legislatures; there is the ideological legitimacy of women?s subordination in
education and culture. There are de jure imbalances institutionalized in
discriminatory property laws and inheritance rights. This is due to the fact
that those laws and legal structures were created by men, under their own
initiative and to protect their own interests.
  Indeed, throughout our history, despite major contributions of women in all
phases of our national liberation, Haitian women have been kept away of the
political forefront, just by the fact they were biologically different.
Fighting side by side our soldiers and generals, transporting munitions and
arms, aborting in massive numbers so our descendants would not have to suffer
the wrath of slavery (this constitute a specific contribution of women); in
hiding fugitives, women were everywhere in the battle front, using their
multidimensional and versatile characteristics to fight in this war, against
all servitudes. But, no recognition whatsoever of their involvement and
participation in the struggle for freedom and liberty was granted in the firt
?Imperial Constitution? of 1805.
  Political involvement
  Not discouraged, nor demoralized, Haitian women would reveal themselves to be
resilient and resistant to male domination and the patriarchal manner of
regulating social, economic and political life. Deceptively absent from the ?
History books?, shying away the mainstream of life, they have managed to
maintain a firm presence, as a way of resisting, through arts, religion,
health, education, commerce and trade. Those fields ?left? to them, as being
suited for them. Indeed, all through the 19th century, we can easily cite many
women that have left their marks on those areas mentioned earlier. A long range
of educators, nurses, storytellers, mambos and a few women pioneers in social
life can be noted. As the Haitian collective psyche would have women designed
or coined as ?poto mitan?, that is ?the central pillar?, conceding both the
major role that they play in social and economic life, but also, rendering
their presence as evident as symbolic as a major voodoo element.
  However, the facts and figures say otherwise to this ?invariable presence? or
constantly importance of women when it comes to power-sharing. There rests the
issue: who controls whom and what? We have seen it elsewhere, whenever the
masses, in this specific case, women, were no longer useful, needed, how
quickly they were discarded, pushed aside and denied every opportunity to
benefit from what they have contributed to achieve. So, as we expose them, the
following figures will best explain this evident and permanent exclusion of
women from the political arena, at some levels more than others:
  Since 1985, one of the major resolutions adopted in Nairobi, was the full
participation of women in all levels of decision-making processes. This was
followed by all successive international for a on Women, either it be the First
Summit of the Americas, in 1994, in Beijing, in 1995, and in all conferences
held at CIM/OAS (1998-2004). Previously, in 1957, some Haitian women would
participate and win votes as mayors; in 1990, 8% of candidates in a 52 %
electorate, but only 2.8% were elected as legislators (deputies, none as
senator), 3.3% as local officials, 9% as mayors. In 1995, the numbers had not
changed from voters to candidates, but only 3 women were seating at the
Congress, and 2.4% were elected as locals, while 25 of 84 were elected as heads
of territorial assemblies. A few were mayors, that?s less than 15%. In 2000, a
major change occurs, since 33% of the Senate seats were occupied by women; then
again only 3 remained in Congress. The national picture (local,
 municipal) has not altered from previous elections. In present-day elections,
women still make 49% of the electorate and for 30 seats in the Senate, only 8
women are on the ballot lists against 143 men. Despite large efforts on their
part to gather forces, financial resources, energies, the Haitian electorate in
general doesn?t vote ?woman? and doesn?t view the vote as being ?sexed?. In
other words, power is seen less than a feature of relations between men and
women, but one of class, caste and race relations, rather. So far, in spite of
the existence of a large political platform regrouping all women candidates,
one fails to predict tangible results.
  Where do haitian women stand
  The population of Haiti is estimated at 8 millions, according to IHSI. The
annual population growth rate is 2.08, with a birth rate of 32.7%, and an
average population density of 250 habitants/km2.
  52% of the population are women, from which 61.6% live in rural areas. The
life expectancy for women is 56 years, while it is 54 years for men.
  The birth index per woman is 4.4. Women migration has contributed to a 37%
increase in urbanization, because women living in rural areas went from 77.5%
in 1981 to 61.6% in 2001.Demographic pressure has limited access to services
and goods for women who live in most marginalized urban and suburban areas,
where basic institutions and/or state agencies are deficient or inexistent.
  In the field of Education, 80% of the schools belong to the private sector,
the remaining 20% can hardly respond to the needs of both, young boys and girls
coming from underprivileged families.The net percentage of enrolment, at age 6,
is estimated at 43% among young girls and at 51%, among young boys. This
clearly shows a deficit to be tackled with, in consideration of universal
education for girls. Literacy rates vary from 58.7% for women to 69.9% for
men.
  The issue of Health coverage and access is not different. In fact, national
health coverage is limited and only 60% of the population has access to some
sort of health care, which is not generalized. In this somber picture, the
maternal mortality rate reaches 680 for 100.000 living births, since only 46%
of deliveries are done under Health professionals? supervision and assistance,
while 78% of Health facilities do not provide any maternity/delivery services.
More than half of the population do not have access to family planning. The
contraceptive prevalence reaches only 22.3%. HIV prevalence is 4.6-5.0%, and
the sex ratio is equivalent to 1; which demonstrates that an equivalent number
of men and women are infected by HIV, even though recent investigations
conducted by the Haitian Institute for the Child and GHESKIO centers show that
the number of pregnant women infected with HIV tends to increase.
  While the Economy is being largely sustained by women, as an important
component of the so-called ?informal sector?, the Growth rate is only of $310
revenue per capita and a GNP of 10,413 gourdes a year. The inflation rate is of
16.5%. Net exportation rate does not surpass 9.8% while importation rates near
29.8%. This loss of currency/capital is not compensated by some sort of
national production. We have recognized the fact that women contribute up to
70% of the national economy but the problem resides in that they profit in less
than 38% of goods generated. They are mostly active in this informal sector,
and they do not enjoy any financial autonomy which could protect them from
financial market surges. While, every major transaction or transfer of goods
(agricultural or otherwise) lies on the shoulder of Haitian women who are
omnipresent in all public markets, braving terrible roads on donkey-back, thus
facilitating exchanges and networking. The result is obvious:
 feminization of poverty, aggravated by prostitution and the spread of HIV
infection, running through the most productive group of the population.
According to data available from IHSI, almost 1/3 of working women become
beggars after 70 years of age, and there is no social security system capable
of helping them. With no macro-economic framework and a rigorous planning from
the State, what one to expect for those at the bottom of the social ladder?!
  With the lack of a Business Code of Investments and the recurrent social and
political instability, Haiti is no position of welcoming foreign capital that
could generate jobs and employment. The scarcity of factories in small or
secondary cities and rural areas tend to reinforce internal migration, mostly
towards larger cities; this encourages women to come to urban areas in search
of jobs in factories, or when all else fails, as housekeepers, or merchants or
vagrants, wandering the streets with children.
  As rural women are even less fortunate; 49% of them are farmers, according to
IHSI, but their wages can not cover the basic needs to survive and to reproduce
themselves and their families.
  Finally, speaking of women?s political and social involvement, their
contribution in governing and/or running of public affairs, the result should
be self-evident in light of what we have described, noted and illustrated
before. And exercise of power shows severe inequities that are antagonistic to
democracy; this is persistent with the fact that women are consistently
excluded from decision-making structures and processes. In fact, very few women
had had a chance to be nominated to executive functions during the « democratic
interlude » of the last 20 years, in spite of the fact that a woman became
president in 1990, for the first time in our history. At local levels, which is
the epitome of decentralized power, women have been greatly absent. Only 3,3%
were elected as Conseils d?administration de la section communale (CASEC) and
2% in the Judicial branch of power. This situation restrains their ability to
negotiate, with regards to prejudices limiting their full basic
 rights usage.
  The basic issue is that of power. Who owns what in terms of property and
means
of production of capital/financial resources and access? Who is doing what?
Indeed, historically, women have been left out of the power field, and denied
access to proper education and health care services, given the mere fact they
were women. All things granted to men by birth. Thus, the patriarchal State, as
we know it, has managed to keep women dependant of their male partners to
function, literally, in society. Every simple act of social reproduction will
have to seek approval or be conceded by a male authority, either it be the
father, the brother, the husband or male companion. A constant reminder of
submission or domination has always inhabited the woman?s collective
unconscious mind, alienating every aspect of her life, breeding a culture of
marginalization and exclusion at worse. Those dividing factors, for men and
women, take root as social and legal codes in the judicial systems as
 we saw early on; and public policies only constitute the formal and
institutional lock-out.
  Systemic discrimination Having disclose all the bare facts (statistics) about
the situation of discrimination against women, one can not ignore where sit the
fundamentals of all this. Those indices, numbers what do they translate? They
can not be fabricated by women (against themselves), while all the social
apparatus is male dominated. The question could be: Do men do not care what
happen to women and girls in our society?
  To us it is not a question of caring or not caring. It is certainly and most
definitely a question of historical, traditional way of viewing sex relations
and the social fabrics of human relations as being man and being woman. In
other words, it is easier to think of power as a feature of race, caste and
class relations than of relations between women and men, as we said and
attempted to demonstrate before.
  We will not recall the historical settings which explains or described the
imbalances of sex relations, many well versed female theorists and historians
have done so (Perrault, Badinter, ). But we can certainly, while noticing some
major and radical progress in that matter, underline how and where these
?imbalances? become systemic discrimination, invading all walks of life,
regulating and codifying the way, humans as men and women relate to and with
each other. It is embedded in the legal and judicial systems of codes and laws;
it is also supported by the stereotypes and gender roles assigned to each sex,
as ?natural?; while this ?natural? label is reduced to biological, thus
immuable. As if men and women are codified, not by their specific talents, but
by their biological traits and are expected to behave in certain ?fixed? ways.
It is expected of them certain things and not others. A pre-conceived and
prejudiced attitude of classifying humans, no more, but less. This
 so-called ?natural? behavior is nothing but a social construction throughout
the years, even centuries. Indeed, both men and women have been socially raised
to participate or not participate, to engage or not engage, and so on. Thus, we
can say without any doubt, that the natural has been constructed, has been
transformed by societal expectations and classifications, societal
pre/mis-conceptions. In order to regulate this, to formalize the specific roles
attributed to each sex, it was convenient to develop a corpus of laws and
reglementations that would facilitate and render life ?normal? in all
collectivities, for all concerned. This is the price that half of humanity had
paid by entering the age of modernism. All the struggles of the 18th and 19th
centuries would find women, part of them, but not gaining any of the reaps of
the coming of age of the modern man as being: free, mobile, happy. With
modernism comes sexism at its core, since, the substance of all human dignity
 and sovereignty will be denied to half of the human race, on the basis of sex.
We have no intention of sidestepping the fact that the universal man was not
even inclusive of all men (regarding of color and/or social status). This
constitutes another debate and this not the purpose of our intervention. We
have already insinuated how the issue of power is deeply related to class-race
relations and structures than any other factor. And for our specific topic in
discussion, we will not venture into this path.
  For women, sexism describes the specificity of female oppression. Starting
from the traditional belief of the difference between the sexes, sexism
embodies two core concepts:
  The first is that men are more important than women. Not necessarily
superior,
we are far too sophisticated these days than to use those tainted terms?but
more important, more significant, more valuable, more worthwhile. It justifies
the idea that it is more important for a man, the "breadwinner", to have a Job
or a promotion, than a woman, more important for a man to be paid well, more
important for a man to have an education and in general to have preference over
a women. It is the basis of the feeling by men that if women enter a particular
occupation they will degrade it and that men must leave or be themselves
degraded, and the feeling by women that they can raise the prestige of their
professions by recruiting men, which they can only do by giving them the better
jobs. From this value comes the attitude that a husband must earn more than his
wife or suffer a loss of personal status and a wife must subsume her interests
to his or be socially castigated. From this
 value, comes the practice of rewarding men for serving in the armed forces and
punishing women for having children. This first core concept of sexist thought
is that men do the important work in the world and the work done by men is what
is important.
  The second core concept is that women are here for the pleasure and
assistance
of men. This is what is meant when women are told that their role is
complementary to that of men; that they should fulfill their natural "feminine"
functions; that they are "different" from men and should not compete with them.
> From this concept comes the attitude that women are and should be dependent on
men; for everything but especially their identities, the social definition of
who they are. It defines the few roles for which women are socially rewarded,
like wife, mother and mistress, all of which are pleasing or beneficial to men,
and leads directly to the "pedestal" theory which praises and encourages women
who stay in their place as good help-mates to men. The second core concept of
sexist thought is that women?s identities are defined by their relationship to
men and their social value by that of the men they are related to.
  The sexism of our society is so insidious that we are not even aware of all
its inequities. Unless one has developed a feeling to its workings, by adopting
a self-consciously contrary view, its activities are accepted as "normal" and
justified with little or no question. People are said to "choose" what in fact
they never thought about.
  It is important to stress that these two Ethics (principles) must work
together in tandem. If the first is emphasized over the second, then we have a
women?s right movement, not one of women?s liberation. To seek for only
equality, given the current male bias of the social values, is to assume that
women want to be like men or that men are worth emulating. It is to demand that
women be allowed to participate in society as we know it, to get their piece of
the pie, without questioning the extent to which that society is worth
participating in. This view is held by some feminists, but most of them today
find it inadequate. Those women who are more personally compatible in what is
considered the ancient role, must realize that that role is made possible only
by the existence of the female sex role; in other words, only the subjection of
women. Therefore women cannot become equal to men without the destruction of
those two interdependent mutably parasitic roles. The failure
 to realize that the integration of the sex roles and the equality of the sexes
will inevitably lead to basic structural changes is to fail to seize the
opportunity to decide the direction of those changes.
  In a more graphic note, this following institutional framework will underline
what we mean by systemic and codified state for Haitian women. Indeed, it is
this long legal battle we had to face and continue to do so:
     Constitution of 1987, articles 17, 18.
   Decree of October 8, 1982, adopting changes in the status of the married
woman (Civil code).
   Convention on Elimination of all Discriminations Against Women (CEDAW 1979).
This convention was ratified by Haiti with the decree of April 7, 1981.
   Convention on the prevention, elimination and eradication of all violences
against women (Belém do Parà 1994). Was ratified on April 3, 1996; and
submitted to OAS on July 2, 1997.
   Convention of the Hague of 1902 treating of national laws on marriage,
divorce and legal custody of minors.
   International treaties relative to civil and political rights (ICPR) and
economic, social and cultural rights (IESCR).
   International accords to fight against women trafficking of 1904, 1910,
1921,
1933.
   Convention of 1962 on marriage consent, on minimum age for marriage and
their
registrations.
   Convention of UNESCO (1960) concerning the fight against discrimination in
teaching.
   Beijing Platform, 1995.
   Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
   The UN Charter, in its preamble and its paragraph 3 of Article 1.
   Conventions 100, 111, 156 of ILO relative to equal pay for equal work.
   The treaty of SDN calling for the creation of human conditions for all,
without any sexual discrimination.
  Woman in Haiti, specifically have faced severe discrimination, throughout
history. At the birth of the nation, despite major and substantive
contributions made by them, as warriors, collaborators, mediators, women were
left out when came time to share the fruits of Liberty, Equality, and
emphasizing the fact that Fraternity doesn?t carry any universal, neutral
sense, but more than ever related to male attributes and to man alone.
  From 1804 to 1950, women in Haiti were devoid of any right whatsoever. As
non-citizens, they would not vote, get access to school, unless primary or
basic education, would not participate in full terms in every aspect of social
life, except for those decided by social standards, tabous, thus, social bias.
The right to vote came as late as 1950, and it was selectively ascribed for
local elections. In 1957, women were finally permitted as candidates, but only
for restricted, but lower-level positions, such as mayors, councilpersons. The
fact is, they could vote now, but not permitted to be voted for, unless for
these restricted positions. History will retain that as a social group, women
could elect others to represent them; it is as if the right to vote was a lure
or a farce. It has required the passing and ratification of international
conventions such as CEDAW, in 1981 and that of Belem do Para, in 1997, to
introduce some important, but determinant clauses regarding the
 status of Haitian women. Until today, many gaps have to be filled, many
discrepancies have to be re-examined, many shortcomings have to be addressed
and straightened up in our national legal system.
  What we mean by that, it is the train of actual laws and legal dispositions
that keep women at bay and away from political participation and economic
involvement. It is a system that treats us as minors, therefore in need of a
tutor, a master, in such horrible cases where women are constantly shattered
and diminished as human beings. The legal and judiciary systems combined will
have women incapacitated, not able, not capable of minding their own business,
represent themselves in any court of law, not able to contract anything with or
in behalf of anyone. Despite of several landmarks, like the law-decree of
October 8, 1982, and the establishment of a ministerial body in charge of Woman
status and rights, in 1994, despite of several policies and the creation of
state agencies addressing women?s issues in particular, a lot is left to be
done. Because the road ahead is far from arduous, difficult than the one
already covered; and traditions along with social constraints make
 it harder for us to recover from secular and historical hardship.
  Perspectives In modern democratic societies, the term "egalitarian" is often
used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a
greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently
exists. Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An
egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be
treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. Egalitarian
doctrines tend to express the idea that all human persons are equal in
fundamental worth or moral status. So far as the Western European and
Anglo-American philosophical tradition is concerned, one significant source of
this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human souls equally.
Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types
of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, that might be
thought desirable. Thus egalitarianism would subside the woman?s cause While
 universalism would have diluted the specifics of women as also subjects of the
State, as so denied by the ?republican institutionalization?, the democratic
project which emphases participation, involvement of every one, regarding and
because of their specific and personal attributes, seems more appropriate; with
such a project that takes into account the very existence of conflicts
(diverging interests, concerns, needs), women do not face any dilemma. In
joining the democratic project with the ideals promised in the Republic, the
many facets of the women?s struggle could find way for full liberation and
integration at the same time, in society. Therefore, we claim that the
challenge facing us, as women is how can we live and grow in an all democratic
Republic. That is why a good definition of gender politics which examines the
roles that men and women play and more importantly, the social fabrics and
processes that codify them differently and discriminatorily, thus showing
 diverging interests, concerns and needs is of the outmost importance for those
pretending to rule our lives, to represent us and guide our nation into an
irreversible human development and into democracy.
  In that sense, what should women tend for is: real and effective
participation
in the democratic process, but in such a way that all their needs and concerns
are addresses by those in power, or yet by both men and women in
decision-making positions capable to do so. Thus, the road ahead is simple:
  Formal parity, where positive legislation that will integrate all principles
of equality and equity for both sexes. This formal parity is nothing than
fulfilling what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had claimed more than
two centuries ago, and reclaimed by the CEDAW.
  Real political visibility, which embraces the view of having more and more
women in places where they can make the difference. Not only by being there,
but also by being competent and knowledgeable of women?s issues. In other
words, carrying a gendered view of the world made of and made for both sexes.
This visibility which is underlined by the pure principle of
self-representation is the core of any democratic society. A critical mass of
women in decision-making structures, in all areas where policies are being
defined and applied to shape people?s lives.
  Integration of women in extensive numbers, not just quotas, in all
development
projects. It is imperative that we embark our country with all our citizens. We
can?t afford to keep aside half of us, while resources are so scarce.
Illiteracy, poverty, incompetence are rampant enough that we can but look for
the best we have in each and in all without any discrimination, to carry the
burdens of our nation. It is plainly arithmetic: we can not ignore our women.
So we should educate our girls along with our boys. Simple.
  Closing remarks
  However, women have yet to be defined as people, and it is erroneous to
assume
their interests are identical to those of men. For women to reconsider their
concerns once again is to insure that the promise of liberation will be a vain
one. In fine, the language of equality and non-discrimination does exist. And
efforts, either at the national level and the international level are growing
and persistent. The recognition that human rights of women and girls are
inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights has been
clearly articulated by all governments, state and international bodies and
institutions. And one major landmark, at the national level, is Article 17 of
our last constitution (1987), which is in rupture from the first ?Imperial? one
of 1805:
  ? All Haitians, regardless of sex or marital status, who have attained 18
years of age, may exercise their political and civil rights if they meet all
other conditions prescribed by the Constitution and the Law.?(Article 17,
Constitution of 1987)
  Thank you!
Marie Carmel Paul-Austin
St-Francis College, Brooklyn
April 10th, 2006
  ............................
  References
  Archives and Documentation of MCFDF/Haïti (1994-2005)
  Claude Moise : Constitutions et Luttes de pouvoir en Haiti, Tome I, Imp. Le
Natal, 1997
  CEDAW Report, 2002
  Beijing Platform, 1995
  On the web: www.cep-ht.org | www.cim/oas.org
  List of Acronyms
  MCFDF : Ministère à la Condition Feminine et aux Droits de la Femme
  IHSI : Institut Haïtien de Statistique et d?Informatique
  CIM/OAS : Commission Interamericana de Mujeres/ Organisation of American
States
  GHESKIO :Groupe Haïtien d?Etudes sur le Syndrome de Karposi et des Infections
Opportunistes
  CEDAW :Convention on Elimination of all Discriminations Against Women
  Belem do Para :Convention on Prevention, Sanction and Eradication of all
Violences against Women (Belem do Para, Brazil, 1994)
  ILO : International Labor Organization
  HIV : Human Immunodeficiency Virus
  ............................

    [1] Ex General Director of Haitian Women Condition Ministry
  [2] See more on http://www.alterpresse.org/article.php3?id_articleD90.


---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.
----- End forwarded message -----