$4343: On the failure of a democratic success: Poincy replies to Pierre (Ref: Post # 4283) (fwd)

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From: Jean Poincy <caineve@idt.net>

Pierre, you may be right that Aristide's group has an agenda and as you
said I might disagree with the approach and my position would not make
its agenda less so. I do not know the contents of Aristide's
publications and I am not sure if I will be able to put my hands on them
anytime soon. However, I will make it a point to do so. Meanwhile, on
behalf of the list, would it be much of a trouble to you to synthesize
his main points and briefly outline the proposed approaches so we can
discuss them on Corbettland in light of Ayiti's current situation? 

At any rate, if agenda there is, you falter on the point that the people
are aware or know what they set out for. For that matter I would echo
Dr. Gill's line of questions to you. He is right on the money. How
politically literate are the masses to unthread the contents of the
agenda? I have great reserve on that one. My take is that they never
fulfill their dream of 1991 and they think that Aristide has been
prevented to do what he wanted to do for them. I share their position on
this point especially when Aristide is further strengthening his bond
with the masses by reaching out to them the way he is doing now. He is
quite capable to do so financially now. 

They will always vote for whatever is for Aristide in great numbers
because they truly think that Aristide is their savior and he has never
been in position to make it otherwise. It is not because they know what
they are looking for in a political agenda. 

Pierre makes a profound statement that is worth of some analysis

"I believe that the Haitian people know what they are voting for, not
what they're voting against. This is what I think is dangerous for
democracy, not the fact that Lavalas won overwhelmingly."

What can be read from this is that they are inclined to vote for
something other than Aristide but not for the current opposing parties.
By default or lack of "any other than one but not the other" they
overflow the voting booths and give away their votes to the Lavalas camp
although they don't like much Lavalas. That proves the point the people
are not voting for an agenda but for someone they still believe can save
them.

It also shows that the masses have a very contradictory/irrational
approach in electing public officials. The rational voter would stay
away from the voting booth to show their disenchantment with all
parties. Nonetheless, it is an evidence that they don't know really what
they are voting for. 

Looking further in Pierre's statement, I say it would be a tautology, if
it were not contradictory. Contradictory because it shows that the
masses do not know or do not like what they are voting for while Pierre
is arguing otherwise. The mere fact they vote overwhelmingly for
Lavalas, they negate opposing parties. Accordingly, they don't know what
they are rejecting. Logically, if not knowing "what there are voting
against" is dangerous for democracy, voting overwhelmingly for Lavalas
is also dangerous for democracy since Lavalas symbolizes their rejection
of something they don't know. Hence rejecting one and electing the other
lead democracy to the same dangerous path. That's the tautologous aspect
of the statement.

Ayiti has lived, lives and will lived
Mozeb