[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

#3207: political assassinations are better if we know who the culprit is? Nadine comments

From: Nadine <anacaona@dsuper.net>

At 09:48 PM 4/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
>From: Jean Poincy <caineve@idt.net>
>Ayiti is just not ready for democracy and would be better off
>under a strong authoritarian regime. Such an act would have never
>happened under such a regime the way it happened and to be shadowed by
>mystery. (....) everyone would know or sense who the untouchable
perpetrator is. 
1. How does it help - or not help - any polical prisoner or victim of
political violence whether we know who's responsible? How many times has
this brought justice to the people concerned?
I don't see either Duvalier fils or any of the people responsible for
torture, terror, disappearances or whatnot brought to justice right now, so
exactly how helpful was the "authoritarian regime" and "having a clear
enemy" in these cases? This is the flimsiest anti-democracy argument I've
heard in years. "The real concern is in fact the orderless state in Ayiti
that gave lieu to the crime." This is *patently false* - political
assassinations happened in periods of "order and stability" before now. And
will very probably continue to happen under a "strong authoritarian" regime.

2. Though its true "teledj˛l" has its limits, there's almost universal
consensus as to who committed the crime - or at least, where the orders
came from. It was clear to most people the minute they heard the news, and
was only reinforced by the counter-march on Friday [seven women's groups
marched from Radio Ha´ti-Inter to the Palais National to protest against
the killing of Jean Dominique and the general climate of "insÚcuritÚ" -
people identifying themselves as Lavalas disrupted the march twice and
pelted the marchers with rocks at one point]; and by the "demonstration"
staged outside of the Jean Dominique's commemorative ceremony.

Now, I'm one of those who believes that liberal-parliamentary democracy has
its limits in Haiti and in most Third World countries; but considering
we've had two hundred years to try the "strong authorian rule", and that
we've never had one full presidential term that was *completely legitimate
and constitutional*, I really feel that we should look at *more* democratic
alternatives before we go back to that tired and corrupt model.

I often don't reply because I don't have any answers 
and the more I think about it the less I want to ask
questions.  [Mme Caroline]