Haiti has come to symbolize the greatest single tragedy of modern Caribbean history. All the elements of tragedy are present. The mere mention of the name Haiti invokes an image of poverty and the specter of denuded hillsides with soil erosion out of control.
In recent times, the country first was terrorized by Francois Duvalier and later financially raped by his son, Jean-Claude. The Tonton Macoute became the instrument of the elder ruler’s terror and a primary collection agency for the younger ruler’s rape. But tragedy does not consist of misery alone; the concept denotes the possibility of greatness denied by circumstance and frustrated by individuals, in particular leaders, gone astray.
To every student of Caribbean history, this tortured island invokes a heroic image. Toussaint L’Ouverture was the incredible slave who led his people to freedom at the beginning of the 19th Century. In history’s only successful slave revolt, some of Napoleon’s finest generals and units of the greatest fighting force in the Europe of the time were defeated. From this victory emerged the first free black nation of the region. The promise implied by this brave start never has materialized.
When the younger Duvalier finally was forced to flee Haiti in February 1986, a door of opportunity opened. During the next four years, attempts to establish democracy faltered in the face of the determination of the Haitian army to retain the essential levers of control in its own hands. However, external pressure combined with mounting internal popular discontent eventually led to an uneasy truce between the army, the business community and the ordinary people centered around an agreement to hold an election.
The subsequent history is well known as Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the militant young priest of the Catholic Church and rallying point for resistance against the various forces of oppression, won power with an overwhelming majority in an election universally conceded to be fair. To the consternation of most of the people of the region, the army toppled Aristide and forced him into exile after seven months of rule.
For more than a year the Organization of American States, with the unequivocal backing of its most powerful member, the United States, attempted to negotiate a formula for the return of Aristide, and with him a restoration of the constitutional democracy that had been swept aside. Throughout this period, and much to its credit, it was clear that the region and the international community would not accept the forces that overthrew Aristide nor any government created thereafter as entitled to international recognition.
Now, with the advent of a new administration in the United States and following the entry of the United Nations into the negotiating process, it appears that a basis for Aristide’s return could be found.
President Clinton has made it clear that he, like his predecessor, will not recognize any political arrangement in Haiti that does not include Aristide as president.
For his part, Aristide has made it clear that he is willing to make compromises in the interest of a general settlement and has given assurances that he will work for peace and harmony if and when he returns to Haiti. Of immediate importance for the negotiating process, he has agreed to accept a prime minister drawn from the ranks of the political parties that have opposed him. Granted continuing U.S. will and the prospect of increased pressure attendant on the entry of the United Nations into the process, it now is reasonable to assume that the basis for Aristide’s return will be arranged in a reasonably short space of time.
Clinton has made it clear that he wishes to arrange a political solution to the problem, and other spokesmen of the U.S. government have called upon the international community to be forthcoming with economic and humanitarian aid if a political solution is forthcoming. It would be a significant confirmation of the commitment of the region to democracy should Aristide return to Haiti as the constitutional head of a democratic government with the agreement of the army, the political elements and the business community. At the same time, there is no prospect for the building of a stable and prosperous Haiti in any other circumstance.
There is a great danger that the international community might act with commendable unity of purpose to bring about a political settlement, restore Aristide and the newborn Haitian democracy and then pass on to other items on the world agenda. It is even likely that quite substantial economic and humanitarian aid might be forthcoming as a response to this first international impulse of concern and support. However, it would be a tragedy if the effort were to stop there.
The difficulty in arranging for the election that put Aristide in power and the speed with which he was toppled and forced into exile are not examples of some historical aberration. The original difficulty, the subsequent fragility and the final ouster all were symptomatic of a deeper Haitian crisis.
At the heart of the Haitian crisis lies the absence of an adequate institutional foundation for civil society in the modern world. Generations of dictatorship and coups culminated in the extended brutality of Duvalierism. As a result, it has never been possible to maintain any semblance of stability, and without which it is impossible to develop the institutions that form the basis of a viable social organization supported by appropriate political institutions.
The crisis of Aristide’s removal and the conjunction of forces that now may make possible his restoration to power represent a challenge and an attendant opportunity that may not come again quickly.
Along with economic assistance and humanitarian aid there is the desperate need to organize a major program of international assistance directed toward the restructuring, reorganizing and modernizing of Haiti’s institutions. There is a great need for programs designed to train civil service personnel of all ranks and in a variety of disciplines. Haiti has High Court judges of great ability but not that wider body of judges and magistrates at different levels that make up a judiciary in the widest sense. There is an urgent need for a program aimed at the training and professionalization of the police force so that it becomes a separate instrument for the maintenance of civil order. At present a wing of the army carries out police functions with all that that implies for the abuse of civil rights and the subversion of the democratic process. And so the list goes on.
If a program of institution-building is not mobilized and brought to bear, there is a real danger that Haitian democracy will prove as fragile and vulnerable in the future as it has done in the past.
On the other hand, if, in addition to traditional aid, such a program of institutional development is begun, confidence in Haiti’s future might emerge. Such a program could be coordinated by the Inter-American Development Bank and the UN Development Program.
There are thousands of Haitians living in the United States, Canada and France who represent a significant reservoir of skill and patriotism. Now is the time to call upon them to help build their country and to make them feel that their own investment in Haiti’s future would be worthwhile because it is part of a coherent program of development going beyond ordinary economic assistance.
There is much talk of a new world order and certainly the world has changed dramatically in the last few years. We no longer are distracted by the massive tension of the Cold War. Rather we are beset by conflicts in Yugoslavia and the Middle East and appalled by the horror of Somalia. These all demand attention. Though less dramatic, Haiti also represents a problem that can and should be solved; and its solution might provide new models for international cooperation. Above all, in cases like Haiti the international community needs to commit itself to the “long haul” rather than the “quick fix.” In Haiti’s case a short-term approach guarantees that the “boat people” will be around for a long time.
Haitians are a people of great pride with a profound sense of their history and enormous latent talents. These are good points of departure for the building of a significant and worthwhile nation. Now is the time for the international community to respond to more than the fact of a rape of democracy and go further to help a small but proud nation embark upon a path of development without which no democracy can survive indefinitely.
