By Ken Jones, Contributor 
THE PUBLIC has been subjected of late to a barrage of claims that Jean Bertrand-Aristide was democratically elected by the people of Haiti and that as such his term of office should not be disturbed, regardless of popular discontent. But we don't seem to hear much about the actual conditions surrounding the 'free and fair elections' leading to Aristide's ascendancy. Little have we heard about the irregularities, the violence and intimidation that caused disgust among international election observers and sullied the name of democracy. Occurrences such as these are well documented and should engage the attention of conscious Jamaicans who would wish to freely and fairly decide if elections of the sort would be quietly accepted here. In my view the majority of Jamaicans would not; and though we may lament what seems to be a blow to the great institution called democracy, I do not think that in Haiti any tears are being shed because their fledgling democracy has had a few feathers plucked from its left wing.
Free and fair elections are not easy to achieve. It is now about 60 years since Jamaica began trying to find a clear path through the intricacies of adult suffrage; and while we now have fairly good electoral procedures, there is still room for more careful planning and more intensive scrutiny of the system. Imagine then, the difficulties that must have been faced by the Haitians who, though independent since 1804, had never tried democratic elections until the year 2000; and then they had to do so with a population 80 per cent illiterate and a ruling class traditionally reluctant to give a vote to every adult, and an entire nation well accustomed to the violent overthrow of their leaders.
NO DEMOCRATIC IDEAL
Haiti, sad to say, has known very little about the ideal or the practice of democracy; and those who talk as if the ousting of Aristide is something wickedly unusual or unexpected must have lost sight of the fact that this is the customary course of action when Haitian rulers are deemed to be inept, dishonest, dictatorial and determined to remain in office despite the wishes of the people or in some cases the incumbent's own rebellious army. Of the 47 rulers since the 1804 declaration of Haiti's Independence, two, including the first, ex-slave Jean Jacques Dessalines, were assassinated. The second president, Henri Christophe, faced with an insurrectionary movement, committed suicide. Twenty-one others were overthrown, seven died in office and only eight, including Aristide, managed to complete a full term. Four of the eight served during the 19-year period of U.S. occupation.
Aristide himself is no stranger to revolutionary overthrow, having himself advocated such action during the reign of the Duvaliers. In the five years after Baby Doc's fall in 1986 there were four occupants of the presidential palace and each of them was overthrown. Aristide, installed in 1991, did not last a year before being ousted and sent into exile. With the assistance of the United States military, he returned in 1993 to finish his term in 1994. His successor, Emil Jonassaint, didn't last a year before Aristide was back in office, serving from 1994 to 1996. Disallowed another successive term, he helped install his friend, Rene Preval, who served four years before the disputed elections of 2000.
BOTCHED ELECTIONS
The botched attempt at truly democratic elections began in 1999 when President Rene Preval, Aristide's hand-picked successor, set up a Provisional Electoral Council (CEP).to plan and conduct elections. The Haitian Constitution requires that the Permanent Electoral Council be comprised of nine members chosen from a list submitted by each of the departmental assemblies, but before that could be done, the President called on the political parties to nominate people to become members of the CEP, and from this pool he made the appointments. That signalled the troubles that were to follow and throughout the electoral campaigns the CEP was accused of complicity with Aristide and his Lavalas party. The voter registration system had cameras, but the report of Melinda Miles, Co-ordinator, Haiti Reborn/Quixote Centre and Moira Feeney, Haiti Program co-ordinator, Global Exchange, included charges that "... film ran out before everyone who wanted to register was able- others blamed this problem on employees who used the cameras to take extraneous photos of families and friends. Others... witnessed the film for registration cards being sold in the streets The cameras were found to be too technical for some bureau employees to operate. One community representative remarked that "the process is too sophisticated for the Haitian reality." What transpired in May and November of 2000 may be considered 'free and fair' by those who play fast and loose with the term. However, by standards Jamaicans have come to know, it fell well below what we regard as satisfactory. For instance, an analytic report on those elections, made by qualified observers found that the most frequent irregularities included:
Ballot boxes were not properly sealed. Very few election employees understood that the labels provided in their kits were supposed to be used to seal the tops of the boxes. Many of the employees appeared to be insufficiently trained for their jobs.
Lack of privacy for voters. The voting kits included a piece of cardboard that folds around to provide a private space for voters to mark their ballots. In many locations tables or desks were not available to set these partitions on. Some of the stations were in parking lots with a couple of desks or a table, others only a chair and one small card table. In those cases, the register of voters and one of the employees would sit at the table, and the other staff would creatively set up the cardboard partitions against a wall or a shrub. When the voters had ballots in hand, they would crouch down to the ground to hide while they marked their candidates of choice.
There was no method universally followed for how to mark the register when a voter had voted. At the counting, in some cases, ballot boxes were found to contain votes folded together in a bunch, obviously a case of stuffing.
Late opening of polling stations. This was due to materials not being distributed on time. Many bureaux were forced to open late, but most were able to open with enough time for all the voters registered to cast their votes. Some election observers were generous and following Haiti's first experiment with democratic elections, concluded: "After months of anticipation, lives lost to violence and fear coursing through the country, the elections had come and gone successfully." How successful, may be judged by the varying assessment of international observers. When the new representatives were being installed in parliament, the U.S. State Department said, "It is our view that Haiti's parliament has been prematurely seated, which calls into question the legitimacy of the new legislature. We are continuing to work with the OAS (Organisation of American States) and others in pressing Haiti to resolve its electoral impasse."
U.S. representative to the OAS, Luis Lauredo, described the process as "a flawed methodology for determining Senate winners..." and as "the most serious challenges facing democracy in Haiti." The Bill Clinton administration that had sponsored Aristide's return to power made an about turn and vowed to impose economic sanctions against Haiti if there was no improvement in the democratic procedures. Canada and the European Union also joined in the threat of sanctions against Haiti.
CONTROVERSIAL
Contrary to what is being bandied about, Aristide's election in November 2000 was highly controversial. The International Coalition of Independent Observers sent 26 representatives and CARICOM fielded four. However, the United States, the Organisation of American States and the United Nations declined to take part. Those responsible for the elections (CEP) estimated that about 60 per cent of the registered voters had participated, the sympathetic CARICOM put the turn out at 15-20 per cent, and the opposition that boycotted the proceedings said participation was hardly five per cent. In any event, Aristide was declared the winner with 92 per cent of the votes. But that was not the end of the argument. In fact it was the beginning of the intensified move to undermine and overthrow. At home, disgruntled Haitians began threatening to revolt, and abroad mounting pressure from the White House persuaded President Aristide to write President Clinton promising, among other things, to re-run election for 10 Senate seats given to his party in May 2000; set up new electoral machinery; include some of his opponents in the new government and allow international monitoring of human rights. Other terms involved the setting up of a permanent OAS mission to watch political negotiations, and preparation of workable plans for dealing with international financial institutions. He then did little to implement any of these promises and the result was isolation by the metropolitan powers that once helped his government with millions and millions of dollars.
In January of this year Aristide turned to CARICOM and at a meeting here in Jamaica he was warned by Prime Minister Patterson to take steps to mend his ways and release prisoners he was holding under questionable conditions. He promised, but never effected the changes. Meanwhile, in his own backyard the flames of discontent were rising. The upshot is now well known; but while so many speak of the overthrow of one man Aristide, it is the undermining of democracy for eight-million people that deserves greater attention.
with the overthrow and forced exile of its democratically elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide.
Predictably, the attention is focused almost exclusively on Haiti's history of political instability and its predilection for substituting violence and bloodshed for democracy each time the question of state power is to be decided.
Hence, while Haiti continues to be the subject of unflattering and racist comment, the dubious role-played by the "guardians of world democracy" (the U.S., France and Canada) in the toppling of President Aristide and the anarchy that preceded it, escapes obloquy.
Public opinion in Jamaica on the present state of affairs in our neighbouring island state is divided into three main categories.
The first category is comprised of those who contend that blacks have only been productive and disciplined under slavery and the rule of the white man.
For them abolition was a mistake, which has only been compounded by independence and the emergence of black political authority.
They point to the fact that since Haiti's independence, only five of its 48 rulers have died in office and only 10 have served a full term. Of the rest, 20 were violently overthrown, two have been assassinated and the remainder forced to resign.
For this category, Haiti provides conclusive evidence that all black people are incapable of making their way on their own in the modern world.
Unbelievably, this is not just the outlook of white racists; there is no shortage of "educated" black people who identify with this point of view.
Consciously or unconsciously they contribute to a philosophical justification for racism and the rationalisation of slavery.
How else could they look at the events in Haiti and conclude "what else can you expect from people like those".
EXPLOITATION EXCUSE
At the other end of the spectrum, we find the second category. These are people, comfortable in the "castle of their skin" and proud of their African ancestry.
Their weakness is the tendency to rationalise and excuse every shortcoming of the black man on the basis of the dehumanizing effect of two centuries of the Atlantic slave trade and plantation slavery.
Every opportunity is taken to recite the litany of cruelties and to expose the level of barbarism that blacks have experienced at the hands of whites.
They have yet to learn that the mere repetition of racial exploitation impedes the very cause to which they are committed.
They pin their hopes on a future in which reparations will become a reality and satisfy their need for self-worth by looking backward to the achievements of their race in a former time.
As far as they are concerned, Africa had its proudest moment on the world stage before the arrival of the Europeans, and the behaviour of England, France and America only confirm that Africans and people of African descent have never had a chance in the modern world.
For each member of this group, the pain of Haiti and the racist condemnation of all black people is a personal indictment.
Were it not for the solidarity of fellow Jamaicans with the Haitian refugees and the principled and dignified leadership of Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, their demoralisation would have been complete.
TIME FOR ACTION
The defining characteristic of the third category is their conviction that despite the odds, Haiti must find a way to move forward and that all forward movement is first of all self-movement.
For them, history is only important to the extent that it informs theory and guides practice.
They know that over the years Haiti's political leadership has proved unequal to the task of economic and social development. They are also aware that the Haitian people cannot sustain development on their own.
The country requires the solidarity and cooperation of the Diaspora as well as the assistance of developed countries, particularly the U.S. and France, who have had the longest mutually beneficial relationship with Haiti. It is this coalition that CARICOM, led by Prime Minister Patterson, is attempting to build.
In all of this, Jamaica has special responsibilities. After all, it is the only country in today's world where black people exercise political power, have maintained a stable democracy, own substantially in the national economy and, most importantly, see themselves as masters of their own destiny, with a long history of influence and activism on the international stage.
While knowledge of the process by which the first black republic with unprecedented wealth two centuries ago has now degenerated to the perceived status of a failed state is important. People of African descent can only move forward by successfully competing with the rest of the world in selected fields of endeavour.
Expressions of solidarity with, and empathy for, Haiti is not enough. What is needed is an example of success and the material and psychological support to enable Haiti to take its place in the modern world.
They know it's time for action.
* To be continued
