#4483: Post-Electoral Scenario ... (fwd)

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From: Max Blanchet <MaxBlanchet@worldnet.att.net>

I have been asking myself why the CEP, OFL and
the GOH are so adamant about the CEP's method
of calculating the winning percentages and of
course why the opposition is so adamantly opposed
to this methodology.

Someone I know in Haiti offered the following
explanation.

OFL wants to have a 2/3 majority in both chambers
in order to change the Constitution as specified
under its Articles 282 and 283. Under this scenario,
OFL would convene Parliament sometime in August
in ordinary session right after completion of the
second round. OFL's majority would give its
preliminary approval (a 2/3 majority required) to the
following changes in the Constitution:

a) Codification  of the army's abolition,
b) Recognition of the double nationality,
c) Establishment of some degree of supervision over
    the Electoral Council,
d) Streamlining the current decentralized system
    which, in the view of some people, is too ponderous
    and expensive, and
e) Redefinition of the respective the roles of the
    President, PM and Parliament with the view of
    strengthening the presidency. This means ending
    the restriction on the number of terms a president
    can serve and possibly eliminating the PM position
    altogether.

    In addition, the President would have the right to
    dismiss an obstructionist Parliament once per term
    and call new parliamentary elections immediately.
    This would align the Haitian Constitution more
    closely with the French model.

In a second phase starting with the next ordinary
session in January 2001, both chambers meeting jointly
as the National Assembly would give their final approval
requiring an absolute majority of a quorum of two thirds.

These changes would become law under the next
administration, expected to be headed by JB Aristide
whose term would start on February 7, 2001.

There probably is a broad consensus behind changes
a), b) and c). As for item d), many would argue that more
time is needed to assess the viability of decentralization
in its current form and that, therefore, change is not
indicated at this time.

The last item is really the tough one! While many would
no doubt attribute the gridlock of the last three years
 -- which is still underway, albeit in a different form -- to
the novel institutional forms introduced with the
Constitution of 87, many are afraid of reversion to a
strong presidential system that has been the cause of
so much grief in Haitian history.

After all, in Faulkner's words, "the past is not dead, it is
not even past."