Process really matters...
The
protests that had brought life to a standstill have stopped and things seem to
have resumed to some eerie level of normalcy. This sense of return
to normalcy is the result of the selection of Haiti's new provisional
President, Mr. Privet by the National Assembly.
However, the astute observers of social and political movements in Haiti
know that this is only the quiet before the storm.
Among
the many possibilities that one can reasonably anticipate, two outcomes seem to be the likeliest results from this crooked
and awkward process. The first is that President Privert will find a
way to remain in power or have someone close to him be elected, although
he will do so more elegantly than the way President Martelly attempted
it. President Privert also has a window of opportunity to push through some policies even
in the short period that he will be in office. This will happen for two reasons: (a) the population is
tired, and more than anything it needs peace, security and stability; (b) the
country's economic indicators are in a dismal state. Indeed, this year's crops are nearly all lost due
to diseases, a terrible drought which was followed by floods. As a result, local food production will
be an at all time low and conversely prices will hit an all-time high. Moreover, inflation is hovering just above 13%, the gourde is exchanging at 63 to 1 US dollar. The
working class and especially the poor --their rank has increased to over 1.5
million-- are being squeezed from all sides (the devalue of their income and increase in prices for basic necessities). This vulnerable population will continue to experience a precipitous decline in its quality of life that is vertiginous at the speed at which it is happening. The policy makers are either unable and/or unwilling to tackle these challenges.
The
second potential outcome from this process is that the so-called agreement will
not and cannot be respected because the parties will not come to any agreement on how to divvy
up the loot. The outcome is predictable: the protests will start back up and the social instability will worsen. At the root of it all is our consistent and
insistent unwillingness to deal with the fundamental rules of nation building and the total disrespect for the laws of the land. Parenthetically, it must be said that our friends in the international
community continue to support our “leaders” as the latter continue to find new and ever more
creative ways to trample on the Haitian constitution. This support is based on their own needs to have an "elected" counterpart regardless of how this counterpart got to power so output has taken more importance than the process. We wallow in uncertainty, despite the fact that the sectors seem to have accepted the outcome, because we continue to operate in a state of de facto instead of looking for a solution that has a basis de jure.
Process
is important and determinant: the process through which President Privert was elected, I believe, was extraconstitutional and the truce obtained from such a process can only be short-lived. It is universally understood that the outcome of any election is deemed legitimate based on the process that was used. In the case of Haiti, the way in which
the provisional President was elected was, to say the least, opaque and obtuse. Indeed,
in the best of times the legitimacy of the winner from an election and whether
said winner is contested or not is largely dependent on the transparency and fairness of the electoral
process. The
process itself is values-laden and it gains its legitimacy on the possibilities that exist for citizens to affect
public policy in a symbiotic interaction between the political leadership and
public opinion that is constant. Thus, the absence of such a process results in dysfunctions and handicaps the state's ability to play its primary role, which is to work for the common
good of society. In essence,
circumventing the process will result in the collapse of social order.
As it became clear that the elections could not
continue and in fact would be cancelled, many organizations from various sectors
offered suggestions on how to resolve the impending constitutional crisis (i.e.,
President’s Martelly’s departure without a replacement). Those suggestions could be summarized
into three categories: (1) those who advocated for a member of the supreme court
to become the provisional President; (2) those who advocated for the President
of the national assembly to fill the post; and finally (3) those who advocated for
the council of ministers presided by the Prime Minister.
The election of Mr. Privert as provisional
President was an unanticipated surprise that has provided a much-needed reprieve from the constant protests but the underlying issues, which are in fact broader than the
elections, remain unchanged. And despite this reprieve, it is evident that the process that brought
President Privert to power limits his ability to enforce the
constitution of the republic. Again, while we often operate in de facto fashions, many fundamental questions remain unanswered in the national consciousness. For example, how can a
President who was elected outside of the constitution and without a broad agreement asks other parties to now respect the constitution?
How can a decried parliament that was supposed to take office on the second
Monday of February but instead did so on the second Sunday in a flagrant disregard
for the constitution live up to their oath of office? Finally, how can a supreme court whose members were unconstitutionally placed on the
court by the executive now rule on constitutional questions? These questions are vivid illustrations of why process matters more than output and sometimes even outcomes.
In the absence of the rule of law – a necessary
condition for establishing a strong democracy – and given the constitution’s
silence on the issue of a Presidential vacancy, resulting from an annulled election, I
had argued for the application of a hybrid resolution. It would have included representatives
from the courts, the national assembly and civil society. The reasoning behind this approach was
two-fold. First, all three branches of
government suffer from a deficiency of legitimacy. Second, given the complexity of the
challenges ahead, it seems wiser to share the load and have each representative hold a specific portfolio. I believe
that a deliberative and constructivist approach is necessary in order to reach
any kind of viable solution. Such an approach would give primacy to the “process” of forming a new government rather
than the output; i.e., having someone in the Presidential office. Additionally, this process would have been
contingent upon the imperative of a broader outreach and debate upon which we could
develop a consensus on the type of society, country, government and President we
should have. In the best of times these are extremely lofty goals so even if we are able to achieve one of them through a deliberative process, it would be considered a “win.”
As a starting point, President Privert’s engagement with the various sectors
is a good sign even though the diaspora, whose remittances account for nearly 25 per cent of the country's GDP, has once again been excluded. Nonetheless, these engagements are insufficient
and the process too exclusive to achieve any sustainable result. Indeed, an "unelected" provisional President
holding individual and disparate talks will not yield the national consensus we need. President Privert will inevitably overreach
his mandate and the push back will inevitably be hard and fast. We must not allow ourselves to be lull into a false sense of security.
Despite the siren songs of a resolution on the cheap, we will pay the
piper sooner or later because process is an important ingredient for building confidence in a social and political context that is rife with mistrust and uncertainty. But yet again, the President and more importantly the country
has an opportunity to use this transition as an opportunity.
The tasks ahead for the public sector are to respond to the population’s
desiderata, and to rebuild the public trust by applying good governance principles and following the law. Our task as citizen is to advocate, demand and push for our leaders to do the right thing this time. That means following a transparent process to tackle the foundational issues and leads to fair elections and having elected officials who are accountable to the
people.
Haiti’s current state of affairs is classical and
the results are foreseeable: the country will fall back into chaos if we
continue to circumvent an accountable and transparent process in public policy
making. This outcome is not
inevitable but it requires the commitment from all concerned citizens to engage in
the country’s social and political life.
We can no longer afford to turn our gaze. We must demand a change in the status quo if not for social cohesion but at the very least for our self-preservation. In other words, even
if we are not looking out for the well-being of the other –though we should,
the fulfillment of our selfish needs, happiness and security is inextricably linked and intricately dependent on
our neighbor’s ability to meet his basic needs.
We hold the key to the door of our destiny and cannot afford to turn it over to unworthy politicians. The time for the concerned citizens to be heard is now. Our disinterest will cause us to all drown in the cries and tears of
the masses and that will be at our perils and evolved into its own process, and we will not like what it brings.
