HAITI - Why Must We Demand the Restoration of President Aristide?
Legal Process Should Not Be Trumped by Political Disagreements
By Bill Fletcher, Jr., TransAfrica Forum, March 17, 2004
In the midst of the current crisis in Haiti, an issue has emerged among many people of conscience in the
USA concerned about the future of that country. The question facing pro-democracy forces is whether, in
addition to demanding an investigation of the US role in the destabilization of President Aristide, and in
addition to calling for the disarming of the thugs, that it is correct to call for the restoration of President
Aristide to office.
The arguments against making such a call seem to come down to the fact that President Aristide remains a
lightning rod in Haiti and that there are many Haitian progressives on the ground in Haiti who oppose the
President. Those who are against calling for the restoration of President Aristide are often concerned that
supporting such a demand will color US progressives as 'pro-Aristide,' leaving us little room to reach out to
the broad Haitian progressive movement.
There is a democratic question at stake
In looking at this matter, one must keep in mind that fundamentally there is a question of democracy and
constitutional rule at stake. Specifically, a duly elected president was removed from office through the
combination of a civilian opposition movement that chose not to use legal means to challenge him; through
the military intervention of thugs from the old regime; and, according to President Aristide, the connivance
of the US and the French, resulting in a kidnapping.
A demand for the restoration of President Aristide is not a comment on Aristide himself. It is a demand for
the restoration of constitutional democracy, albeit with its deficiencies. In demanding the restoration of
President Aristide we are saying that an illegal action(s) was taken that disrupted the agreed upon process
along which Haiti was to function. In fact, the failure to demand the restoration of President Aristide
amounts to the acceptance of the results of a coup, albeit in subtle terms.
Taking a pass on the demand for the restoration of President Aristide because of criticisms of his
performance as Haitian president is saying that legal process can be trumped by political disagreements.
Insofar as legal instruments exist to address concerns about the performance of an elected leader, they
should not be disregarded. To do so is to fall into the law of the survival of the fittest.
Allegations of divisiveness
The argument against the demand is sometimes phrased in terms of how President Aristide is divisive. Such
an argument is, point of fact, irrelevant, since, as noted above, the matter is constitutional rather than
personal.
Yet, there is a deeper problem here that should be explored. There are bitter divisions in Haiti that include
skin color, class, gender, and human rights. There are no angels in Haitian politics, so there is no simplicity
to the political situation. What Aristide represented for many people, irrespective of whether he was able to
fulfill the promises he made, was an attempt at politics that addressed the conditions of Haiti's majority, i.e.,
of the poor. Tackling this question was and will be divisive. There is no consensus candidate when it comes
to addressing the vast disparity of wealth, income and privilege in Haiti. The fact of division alone cannot be
interpreted as condemnation.
It is also the case that the Haitian people will have to settle their own accounts with President Aristide. As
we have earlier said, President Aristide lost sections of his base due to what we believe to have been some
significant political errors. Some of those errors may have been unavoidable, while others certainly were.
This situation, no matter what one thinks about the relative merits or demerits of President Aristide cannot
be settled through the de facto acceptance of the result of a coup.
The exit and aftermath
What makes it essential that people of conscience speak clearly and unambiguously in favor of the
restoration of President Aristide are the circumstances that followed his exit. In a manner reminiscent of the
exile of Toussaint L'Ouverture over two hundred years ago, President Aristide was spirited out of Haiti and
dumped in near isolation thousands of miles away from home. While the Bush administration enjoyed
ridiculing the notion that President Aristide was kidnapped, the fact that he found himself sitting in the
Central African Republic under the intense scrutiny of the French-backed government, unable to have
regular and open communications with the media, let alone his supporters, renders less than credible the
rhetoric of Bush, Powell, et. al., to the effect that President Aristide left on his own volition. In fact, the
circumstances of President and Mrs. Aristide (the latter being a US citizen) seemed fairly close to what was
once called "preventive detention." The Bush administration has failed to give a straight answer to anyone as
to how one can explain the Central African Republic interlude.
The exit of President and Mrs. Aristide from the Central African Republic and their return to the Caribbean
has been interesting in terms of the reaction that it has garnered from the Bush administration. The arrogance
of the administration on the matter of the status of President Aristide is almost unbelievable, but also
compounds the credibility problem that Bush, et. al., have on the matter of their role in President Aristide's
exit. The Bush administration's insistence as to the alleged inappropriateness of President Aristide being in
the Caribbean could lead an observer to infer that their suggestion that President Aristide voluntarily left
Haiti and the Caribbean was less than truthful.
Try as many may, there is no getting around a basic fact: if there was a coup against a legitimately elected
leader, the remedy is not passing blindly forward in the hope of creating a better day. The remedy is full
restitution, in this case meaning, restoration to office and the completion of his elected term unless he is
removed through constitutional steps. It would be equally acceptable, constitutionally, should President
Aristide choose to step down voluntarily, but not under duress and against his will.
What we can do
TransAfrica Forum and many other groups have demanded a full Congressional investigation of the role of
the US government in the overthrow of President Aristide. This is about more than whether he was literally
kidnapped. It involves an investigation into the destabilization efforts that have unfolded over the last several
years.
Pressure must be put on the administration to account for its actions, but pressure must be placed on
international bodies such as the United Nations, the Organization of American States and CARICOM (the
Caribbean Community) to conduct their own investigations. President Aristide, for example, should be
invited to the United Nations to address that body. He should be provided a means and opportunity to
explain publicly what happened to him and to his government. Additionally, troops from other nations not
associated with a vile policy toward Haiti should replace the current occupation force, disarm the so-called
military opposition and help with the return to constitutional democracy.
That said, as long as the world ignores the need to restore President Aristide to office, the crisis will not be
terminated. In fact, any successor government will lack legitimacy. At best the burner will have been turned
down a bit, while the stew simmers awaiting a change in pressure before it boils over.
--------------------------------------------
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the president of TransAfrica Forum, the Washington, DC-based non-profit organizing and educational center
formed to raise awareness in the USA regarding issues facing the nations and peoples of Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. He
can be reached at bfletcher@transafricaforum.org.
_______________________________________________________________________________
__________
©2003 The African Independent, Inc.