[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
#5145: Re: #5128: Opposition to Aristide: Hyppolite responds to Chamberlain's comment. (fwd)
This is an interesting list of people who at one point or another, were
collaborating with Lavalas, particularly Aristide. The question however
remains: "What's the point here?"
If it is to prove that some former members of the Lavalas leadership are now
on their own or in the opposition, you are correct. But to suggest that they
did so, because they all have a common problem with Lavalas, is at best
People decide to collaborate with a particular political movement or another
for different reasons. They also leave for their own particular reasons. They
are also sometimes, left behind. For instance, Gérard Pierre-Charles whom you
refer to in this post, was left behind by OFL. He has since then consistently
proven, that he is not the most responsible politician in Haiti. His
political party, the OPL, had an obstructionist majority in Parliament which
for three consecutive years, did not even bother voting on or for a national
budget. Many members of his group (the OPL), were spotted many times
wandering at different locations (Montréal, Miami, New York, etc.) at time of
William Smarth. Well, isn't he the brother of Rosney Smarth, former Prime
Minister of Préval's? Rosney of the OPL resigned, then left the Prime
Ministership's seat without a new one having been approved by Parliament.
This was a clear violation of the Haitian Constitution. He should have stayed
in, until someone else had been approved by Parliament, just so he could
assure continuity of the process. That is a prescription of the constitution,
not a suggestion of mine.
Chavannes Jean-Baptiste? I thought this was more a matter of personal
rivalry. He thought like many others did, that he could make it on his own as
Hervé Denis? I am not sure he was never a Lavalas. We all know that he was
chosen as Prime Minister designate, as a compromise candidate to the
obstructionist OPL in Parliament. I have heard his comments a few times while
here, since the May 21 elections. I am sorry to say I am not at all impressed
by his political comments. Not at all.
Malval is not a good example either, Gregg. He was never Lavalas. So he did
not "leave" Lavalas either. He never "entered in," in the first place. The
uneasiness between himself and the entire Lavalas leadership was obvious from
day one, when he was chosen as Prime Minster during the coup years.
My point here is not to dismiss every one of those people Greg listed here,
as being in any way dishonest. Rather, it is to say that people get involved
in political movement, just like in anything else, and sometimes decide that
"it is not for them". This does not necessarily mean that the movement itself
needs to be revamped. Sometimes, the individual's personal tale or ambition
is more accurate in describing the true reason behind their so-called
defection, than the political movement itself. Georges Anglade for instance,
may be less of a politician and more of a technocrat. So he may have decided
that, he is not interested in the political process and just left the whole
We could go on and on having those kinds of debates. They will please those
of us who shy away from discussing real issues and prefer depicting OFL as a
dictatorship in training. But as intellectuals leave, others may and do come,
each one of them for their own reason. We all know who left Fanmi Lavalas the
past few years because it is a successful political movement. But we won't
know who had left on the other side, because they're not quite as successful.
In any case, does it really matter?