Haiti in political upheaval, U.S. policy misguided

Haiti, the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, finds itself in political upheaval once… Haiti, the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, finds itself in political upheaval once more.

After 200 years of tyranny, 1990 brought the first free vote and the first democratically elected leader to Haiti. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a slum priest who speaks seven languages and preaches nationalism, populism and democracy, was elected with an astounding 67 percent of the popular vote. They dubbed him the “Haitian Mandela,” expressing the hope his election infused into the country.

Last week, Aristide gave in to international pressure and violent opposition at home, stepping down as Haiti’s president. The restoration of hope is long gone and has been replaced by a familiar sense of despair for the future of a nation with a sorrowful past.

Eight months after his election in 1990, a military coup overthrew Aristide, killing 5,000 people before a Clinton-led intervention returned him to power in 1994. At the end of his term in 1996, Aristide peaceably stepped down from his position as president, in accordance with the Haitian constitution. It was the first peaceful transition of power in Haiti’s history, woven in among 30 coups.

In 2000, Aristide was once again elected the president of Haiti. It is here that the legitimacy of his rule begins to be disputed. Rivals domestically – and many of those in international circles – contend that the parliamentary elections conducted that year were fraudulent. While that much appears certain to an extent, the implications of this discussion are greatly exaggerated.

Most importantly, the issue does not concern the legitimacy of Aristide’s own presidency. Rather, it surrounds seven candidates from Aristide’s party who were given Senate seats though they only won by pluralities – not the required majorities stipulated by the constitution. However, the seats did not grant Aristide’s party the majority of the Senate; it had already held it firmly in grasp. Still, the disputed outcome resulted in the Bush administration imposing a near embargo on Haiti and refusing it $500 million in promised loans for development and education – a death sentence for Aristide and Haiti both.

Still, this is not a defense of Aristide. His rule had become increasingly autocratic during his regime and he did not succeed in raising the economic status of his country. Maybe it was time for Aristide to go; his rule had shown itself to be unproductive at the very least, oppressive at worst. It may have been time – but not like this.

Not with the Bush administration effectively giving a green light to the overthrow of a democratically elected leader by granting rebels the permission to refuse any political proposal. Not with hundreds of Marines being dispatched to maintain peace only after Aristide had stepped down and left the country – showing Bush’s backing of the rebels’ efforts. Not if we preach democratic values; certainly not if we consider who these rebels are – a series of convicted murderers, butchers and cocaine dealers- affectionately deemed “thugs” by Colin Powell himself.

Who is to fill this power vacuum? With a worthless constitution, a nonexistent infrastructure, and competing rebel factions politically the strongest, the prospects of a successful Haitian democracy certainly do not seem better now that Aristide has been forced out.

There were other options; Bush could have done things differently. He could have sent troops to maintain peace before the current state of chaos developed, and he could have listened to Powell’s early calls for a diplomatic solution and exerted political pressure on the rebels to accept an agreement that would have provided a voice for the opposition while preserving the Haitian democracy.

Instead, Bush has once again allowed a personal distaste for another leader to mold his policy. As president in 1991, George H. W. Bush watched the first overthrow of Aristide. It was backed – if not actively, at least politically – by the right wing of American politics because Aristade’s leftist nationalism was viewed as dangerous, resulting from his relationship with Fidel Castro and the institution of socialistic policies in Haiti.

Rather than the embellished impact of fraudulent parliamentary elections, it is these persisting sentiments among current policymakers within the Bush administration that have resulted in refusal of economic aid to Aristide’s regime and favored – therefore ensuring – his removal as president of Haiti.

Before the election of Aristide in 1990, Haiti was ruled by the Duvalier family. “Papa Doc” and his successive son killed 60,000 people during their 30-year reign of terror. This despotic regime we both installed and supported throughout its existence as it served American interests – the Duvaliers were resolutely anti-communist.

Aristide is now gone; so what if democracy in Haiti might be too? After all, it is just Haiti – who will even remember six months from now? No one, of course, until the next boats full boatfuls of refugees start landing on Florida, that is – and even then, we will just see which Haitian leader looks best for us in America.

E-mail Pedja Jurisic at pej3@pitt.edu.