#4374: On the failure of a democratic success: Pierre replies to Poincy ... (fwd)

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From:HYSEKA@aol.com

Poincy correctly quoted me as saying the following:

<>


That statement made no reference to exclusionary politics, Poincy. I believe 
in inclusive, not exclusive politics. That is why I agree with the Lavalas 
political philosophy.

My point in that statement is very simple. When you do not know what a 
political party or a politician stands for, chances are that their true 
agenda is so unclean, that they would rather keep it to themselves and try to 
force their way into power, by whatever means necessary. That is what 
"dangerous for democracy" means here, nothing else. We have had such examples 
in Haitian politics. We are all somehow victims of it. Remember François 
Duvalier? 

The man was very secretive and he didn't even trust his comrades in the 
Griots movement to share his ideas. Why? Because deep down, he must have 
known that he was wrong. But eventually, he got to power. He is (I think it's 
fair to say) the main cause of the expansion of the Haitian Diaspora. We 
practically lost a generation of Haitian intellectuals and potential cadres 
and we are still losing. This is mostly due to his original policy of 
exclusion and reverse discrimination. For those of you like myself, so 
interested in a peaceful society, just remember also that Duvalier gave us 
peace, that peace we are all so desperate for. But that peace was at what 
cost?

I think if anything is or should be clear here, it is that I am a firm 
believer in a political system where every one rich or poor, educated or non 
educated, has the right and possibility to cast his/her voice, to make 
himself/herself be heard in the political process. I do not believe Poincy 
like you seem to imply, in a political system where a certain group of people 
has the right to "elect" the president, senators and the like, not the entire 
population. If a government is going to rule over a country and its people, 
it needs the approval of the majority, whatever that majority may be.

I also think that a few of us may be missing one crucial point in this 
debate: poor uneducated people know what they need. I got once entangled in 
this debate when one friend of mine who is a Haitian doctor related to me his 
experience with a poor Haitian community in the country side. He was at that 
time an intern, working with that population. He explained to me that, when 
he had the chance to ask those poor people for what they need in their 
community, they knew exactly what it was. All they wanted also did make sense 
and truly responded to the needs of that community. I always suspected that 
to be true, but he confirmed it for me. So I get quite perplexed when I hear 
people talk as though "the masses do not know what they want for themselves, 
their community and their country". My usual response to them is in the form 
of a question: "what would you like to see done in your community?" . It is 
usually very hard for those "exclusionarists" to respond. Yet, they tend to 
be very vocal about the so-called ignorance of the masses.

Please Poincy and everyone else, do not add or substract to what I say. Ask 
me if you need to be clarified. Do not try to use my word to wrongly advance 
your own ideological goals. I am a man of inclusion, not of exclusion.

Hyppolite Pierre