#3229: FACTS BEHIND DEBATE OVER ELECTIONS -PT2 (fwd)

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From:MKarshan@aol.com


The President concluded he could not be confident that a well-run, orderly, 
transparent and credible election was feasible by April 9.  President Preval 
then asked the CEP to propose a more realistic date.  He suggested that the 
CEP and its advisors first complete a credible review of where the 
preparations actually stood and complete more of the steps required to 
emplace all of the necessary Election Day personnel, before attempting to 
pick a new date that they could project with real confidence.

Recently, the State Department has revised its position.  It now has 
indicated that the self-imposed June 12 deadline actually could be met as 
long as the elections were held by the end of April.  President Preval has 
been strongly urged, therefore, to just cross his fingers and agree to an 
election date in late April.  But he is being urged to do so:

- before there are assurances that the CEP has corrected flaws in the 
preparation;
- before the CEP really knows where the registration process really stands, 
including the whereabouts and security of the registration records;
- before the 40,000 personnel are in place and ready to be trained; and 
- Before the initial, inaccurate ballots not only have been corrected, but 
also have been readied for distribution in the right quantities for each of 
the thousands of polling places.

The President has consulted the CEP technical and operational experts and 
their international advisors.  The CEP experts told President Preval that it 
would take at least 6 to 7 weeks more for adequate preparation.  The 
personnel training could be done within that period, but only if all of the 
vetting had been done in time to allow for a full week to train all the 
personnel.  Otherwise, an additional week would be required.  This estimate 
was given to the President on the weekend of March 18; so the earliest 
feasible date projected at that point by the CEP's experts was sometime in 
early May.  And even this projection was based on the CEP's optimistic 
assumptions about what could be accomplished in theory.

The greatest blow to Haitian democracy would be to move forward prematurely 
into an election where there is mass confusion or voting disruption at 
inadequately staffed or poorly operated polling places, or where there are 
widespread allegations of fraud and illegitimate results.  This would not be 
in the interest of Haiti or of the United States.  Yet for his prudent and 
responsible statesmanship in seeking to guard against such dangers, President 
Preval has been criticized as an obstacle, who is dragging his feet for 
personal or partisan reasons.  In essence, those seeking an imminent election 
are saying:

"Well, let's just have the elections now, cross our fingers and hope for the 
best."

But the President's duty involves more than crossing his fingers.  It must be 
remembered that the recent three-year political deadlock, bemoaned by 
everyone, arose from challenges to the legitimacy of the 1997 elections.

Of course, if the elections are marked by problems and disruption, or if the 
results are not widely accepted, those same critics undoubtedly will lay the 
blame at President Preval's doorstep.

THE ERRONEOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS

Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to examine the repeated mantra 
that June 12 is a "constitutionally mandated" date for investiture of the new 
Parliament.  A brief examination of the Haitian Constitution of 1987 reveals 
that this is not so.  The Constitution clearly distinguishes between, on the 
one hand, the occasion when a new Parliament is sworn in and takes office, 
and, on the other hand, the time when Parliament, once in office, is expected 
to begin each of its two sessions.  Article 92-1 states:

"[The Deputies] take office on the second Monday of January, and sit in two 
annual meetings…"


Article 92-2 then states:

"The first session runs from the second Monday of January to the Second 
Monday of May; the second session from the second Monday of June to the 
second Monday of September."

Since the date of taking office and the beginning of the first session both 
occur on the second Monday in May, Article 92-1 would have been superfluous 
if the commencement of a "session" and the investiture in office were 
considered to be the very same event.  Therefore, the reference to commencing 
the second session on the second Monday in June cannot be considered to refer 
at all to the date on which a new Parliament takes office.

When this error was pointed out, US officials informally suggested that their 
ultimate concern lay elsewhere then this alleged "constitutional mandate," 
per se.  They now assert that, should the June 12th "deadline" not be met, 
then the new Parliament could only be convened by special call of the 
President.  In any event, they claim, the scope of Parliament's legislative 
power would be limited to the scope of the President's call for the special 
session.  Examination of the relevant constitutional provisions, however, 
reveals that this concern, too, is unwarranted.

There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that a new Parliament must be 
seated by means of the President's calling them into special session.  The 
express terms of that provision, Article 95-2, only authorize him to convene 
a sitting Senate if they have adjourned. (4)  Thus, in 1994, when the 
Parliament had adjourned in November without completing work on an election 
law for the 1995 elections, President Aristide called them back into session. 
 But that provision is inapplicable in the case of a new Parliament that has 
not yet begun its term and which can be seated as soon as possible.  Neither 
this provision nor a parallel one dealing with the "National Assembly" refers 
to installing a new Parliament. (5)  This was demonstrated in 1995, when a 
Parliament finally elected at the end of the summer - well after the second 
Monday in June - was installed in the fall as it was certified, without 
resort to a special convening of the Senate by the President.  That 
Parliament enjoyed its full legislative powers under the Constitution.

Finally, it is important to note that President Preval has made quite clear 
his determination to have separate elections for Parliament and local offices 
now, and for the presidency in December.

CONCLUSION

The Haitian people by their overwhelming registration turnout have 
demonstrated their continued thirst for democratic elections.  The Government 
of Haiti shares with all Haitians and with the international community the 
firm intent to have the parliamentary and local elections take place as soon 
as possible.  At the same time, the Government, led by President Preval, is 
equally determined that those elections occur under circumstances that are 
most likely to ensure the wide acceptance of their legitimacy and least 
likely to produce social disruption and a new round of debilitating political 
deadlock.  If all concerned persons of good will work toward that end, and 
abandon unjustified finger-pointing tactics, then both goals - prompt 
elections and good elections - can be achieved.

Embassy of Haiti
March 28, 2000

(1) That certification was required as one condition of the US provision of 
assistance for holding Haitian elections.

(2) These advisors primarily consist of the International Foundation for 
Election Systems (IFES), a contractor to USAID, and the UN Development 
Program (UNDP).

(3) Many registration centers, especially in poorer urban neighborhoods, 
failed to open or to publicize their whereabouts.  Would-be voters then 
sought to register in other centers that were open, outside of their 
neighborhoods.  In a good many centers, throughout the country, voters were 
equally frustrated after long waits when the center staff had run out of 
materials.  The total number of registrants exceeded the figure used by the 
CEP for planning purposes by some half million voters.  (The CEP assumed 
about 4.1 million registrants, while the actual number exceeded 4.6 million, 
even before the close of registration.)  In a substantial number of other 
cases, the cameras to be used for the photo-IDs did not work properly or were 
mishandled by inadequately trained personnel, and had to be replaced.

(4) Article 95-1 of the Constitution first states that, "The Senate is 
permanently in session."  Article 95-2 then prescribes when a sitting 
Parliament may adjourn and that it must leave a "permanent committee" in 
place.  That "committee may not make any decisions except to convene the 
Senate."  Since the Senate is deemed to be permanently in session, this 
sentence clearly refers to a Senate that has been sitting and has then 
adjourned.  The reference to the Executive convening the Senate occurs in the 
same provision and context.

"In emergencies, the Executive may also convene the Senate before the end of 
any adjournment period." (Emphasis added).

(5) Section C of Chapter II, Title V deals with the "National Assembly," 
which consists of the two branches of the legislature meeting in a single 
assembly to consider extraordinary matters of state.  Article 101 provides:

"In emergencies, when the Legislature is not in session, the Executive may 
call a special session of the National Assembly."