29015: News: Aristide and the Endless Revolution: What Value Democracy? (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

> From liberalproject@htomail.com:

August 21, 2006
Aristide and the Endless Revolution: What Value Democracy?
http://www.cinekklesia.com/mt/archives/2006/08/aristide_and_th.html

By Kevin O'Donovan
Years ago, a Christian acquaintance of mine argued that the American Revolution 
was completely unjustified. From a Biblical standpoint, of course, he was 
correct. Nothing in Scripture says that an individual or group has a right or 
obligation to rise up against oppression, whether real or perceived; in fact, 
one could argue that the opposite is true, that the Bible calls us to lives of 
suffering and to loving those who would harm us.


My acquaintance was pretty right-wing politically, but his sentiment ironically 
went against the ideological grain of the Religious Right. How could the United 
States have been established as a "Christian" country when its founders engaged 
in acts (i.e., revolution) that have no Biblical warrant? Moving beyond the 
United States, we must ask ourselves whether democracy of any sort, in any 
country, has intrinsic value and whether we should be spilling so much blood 
and treasure trying to promote it.

Such questions are inspired by my recent viewing of Nicolas Rossier's Aristide 
and the Endless Revolution (2005), a documentary about the shady circumstances 
that led to the downfall and exile of one of the most intriguing (and 
polarizing) political figures in the Western Hemisphere. Rossier first provides 
a little background on Jean-Bertrand Aristide, showing his transformation from 
liberation-theology-inspired priest to democratically elected president, the 
coup d'etat that led to his ouster in 1991, and his reinstatement to power by 
U.S. forces in 1994.

The majority of the film, however, focuses on Aristide's second presidential 
victory (2000) and his subsequent ouster from power (what some would call the 
second coup d'etat) in February 2004. According to conventional wisdom, several 
members of Aristide's Lavalas political party had won some legislative seats 
in, shall we say, a controversial manner. As such, the international community 
froze transfers of aid to Haiti's government, which is one of the poorest in 
the world. Haiti's political instability, coupled with the economic crisis, led 
to a highly dangerous situation in which the country found itself on the verge 
of all-out civil war. Thus, Aristide had no choice but to resign in 2004 and 
flee the country on U.S. transport. (He is currently in exile in South Africa.)

Rossier's main purpose in the film is to challenge the conventional wisdom and 
to argue that Aristide's departure was anything but voluntary. He first lays 
out the argument that the United States and other powers were never fans of 
Aristide, fearful of his populist rhetoric and policies and protective of the 
interests of the upper classes. Secondly, by preventing any foreign aid from 
entering the country, the international community effectively strangled Haiti, 
virtually ensuring the violent social unrest. Finally, rather than serve as an 
honest broker in mediation between the government and rebel forces, the United 
States effectively forced Aristide to abdicate his presidency by refusing to 
provide him security in the face of marauding bandits. In other words, the only 
meaningful choice that the U.S. gave him was to resign and flee.

Aristide's opponents, on the other hand, argue that the former president has no 
one to blame but himself. Upon achieving the presidency, he became autocratic 
and developed his own network of thugs and gangs loyal to his rule. Plus, he 
exercised no meaningful statesmanship while his country was falling apart at 
the seams: the international community had no choice but to step in and prevent 
Haiti from devolving into complete chaos.

While Rossier does interview figures on "both sides" of this issue, it is clear 
that he sympathizes with pro-Aristide forces and questions the United States' 
commitment to democracy. If one didn't suspect this already, then Rossier 
leaves no doubt that U.S. support for democratically elected governments is 
highly conditional. Countries electing left-wing, populist governments that 
eschew the so-called Washington Consensus receive either tepid support or 
outright opposition (see the examples of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's 
Evo Morales). (In the Middle Eastern context, Washington's contradictory stance 
is most evident in its opposition to the democratically elected Hamas 
government in the Palestinian Territories.)

Regardless of how one feels about populist leaders like Aristide (I'm not a 
fan), it is hard to deny the hypocrisy of Western governments that push for 
democracy as a matter of unthinking, knee-jerk policy on the one hand, while 
also harboring suspicion and even contempt for elected officials who happen to 
see the world differently. While Aristide may have offered poor policy 
prescriptions, he nevertheless was extremely popular among the Haitian 
electorate, who theoretically should have the right to vote for whom they 
please - without foreign interference.

On the flip side, we also should note that while populist leaders may support 
representative government as a matter of rhetoric and tactic, democracy 
ultimately just serves as a tool for material gain. During the documentary, 
Aristide himself praises his partisans who continue to support him during his 
exile; he notes that they are risking their lives because they want to see 
democracy flourish in their country. However, while that may be true for some 
of his supporters, I would venture to say that the vast majority voted for him 
because he promised them material improvement. For many, if not most, citizens 
in representative states, democracy is not an end in itself, but rather, a 
means towards some other end - one which may or may not be democratic.

So, if democracy is empty rhetoric spouted by the Western world or a tool by 
which wealth can be redistributed, does it have any intrinsic value? The answer 
is simply no. My acquaintance was right about the inherent illegitimacy of the 
American Revolution, and he could expand his analysis to democracy in general: 
the Bible simply offers no warrant for representative government as the 
"correct" method of political organization. Rather, democracy has practical 
benefits, especially in terms of diluting power and in offering an alternative 
to less savory forms of government (I'd rather live in a democracy than, say, a 
fascist regime). Aristide and the Endless Revolution just reminds us that it 
would be more seemly if Western governments (a) supported democracy 
consistently, regardless of who got elected, or (b) just didn't support it at 
all.

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site. 
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx