Democratic Deforestation

Paul and Joegodson

Joegodson wanted us to post some reflections about the election that has been “occupying” his country lately. Many Haitians went to the polls on March 20. Joenaara is now two months old and she, literally, adds her voice to our discussions. Joegodson holds her in one arm, the phone in the other. From time to time, she interjects quite forcefully. It makes me (Paul) happy to hear her voice so very alive and well.

These few thoughts will be limited to Manigat and Martelly, the two candidates that no-one-knows-exactly-how were chosen to perform in the run-off spectacle for the presidency. Joegodson participated only insofar as he observed the elections closely and engaged everyone he knew in debate.

He didn’t vote. Since a number of political parties, most notably Lavalas led by Jean-Bertrand Aristide, were excluded from participating, the elections were illegitimate for Joegodson. Among the group of twelve candidates who joined forces on November 28 to protest that the fraudulent first round was proceeding fraudulently were Manigat and Martelly. Like the other candidates, they had suddenly become defenders of democratic principles half-way through election day. It was nice to see the word “solidarity” floating around Haiti for a few minutes. But Manigat and Martelly received seductive telephone calls the following day telling them that they stood a chance to participate in the run-off and they were immediately back in the spirit of the elections. Solidarity is a noble idea … unless you’re winning.

Joegodson accepted that many people chose to vote. They weren’t democratic elections, okay. But he knows that there was still a choice to be made in what he reminded everybody were undemocratic elections. For Joegodson, the voting booths were made inaccessible by the piles of hypocrisy that surrounded them. Others in his entourage found ways to get through.

The candidates spoke incessantly of their desire to help Haiti. So, why are you running for president, Joegodson asked? The post of president, as offered, is an opportunity to amass some power and wealth by allowing the more powerful and wealthier free access to the island and its people. Manigat and Martelly both spoke of their readiness to lead Haiti. This system that has been imposed so clumsily on Haiti first separates the leaders from the people. And then the candidates are supposed to connect with the people to demonstrate that they are in solidarity with them. Of course, the Aristide phenomenon was different. He was an organic leader who continued to feel more comfortable with the people than with the political class that pulls the strings, as long as it follows the direction of the business class. Imagine how the pretentious elite must hate such a person! How could the halls of power ever be kept clean if the poor were allowed access? No. First, renounce the poor. Then, bond with them. Once elected, ignore them.

Martelly and Manigat both said that education was a priority. So, teach! Open a school! Organize a mechanics’ institute! There are any number of ways to pass along knowledge. The state of Haiti, as long as it has been controlled by the United States, has demonstated over and again that education is a waste of money that could otherwise line bottomless pockets. You’ll know when a candidate is serious about universal education, Joegodson reminded his friends. He will be forced into exile.

The two candidates offered different images for the spectacle of the elections. She was elderly and dignified. He loud and brash. Both were well rooted in the establishment: he as a businessman, she as an academic. Both want to help Haiti by holding the office of the president. They presented platforms and said that they would implement them. (Once you believe that the candidates accepted by the United States will work for the people of Haiti, you are so far down the road of delusion that it will be tough to find your way back to sanity. Why, oh why, do you think that Aristide can’t play? What will be their relationship with the Interim Commission whose many billions of dollars Bill Clinton has so generously consented to manage?) But Manigat and Martelly have never distinguished themselves by working alongside the people that they say they want to represent. How do they see that relationship? Joegodson thinks he understands how they look upon him. It’s not a relationship he is willing to enter.

On the last day of the campaign, Joegodson and his friends watched them on television. Among his friends were people who were committed to one or the other candidate. However, the final day changed their minds.

Manigat was at a campaign stop in the north of Haiti. She was introduced by someone who had much more energy than she was able to muster. She presented herself to the crowd as their mother. They would vote for their mother, she said. It wasn’t working. She asked for people to raise their arms if they were going to vote for her. A quarter of the people didn’t bother to raise their hands. For a campaign rally, it seemed underwhelming. But she smiled with her mouth if not her heart and carried on. She said that it was with those arms (in the air) that they would build the new Haiti. It was kinda creepy. Each arm, apparently, was to represent a branch in a tree that was the new Haiti. Everyone with Joegodson was trying to get their head around this image: “She’s going to take our arms off now?” No one could connect with this twisted metaphor. But it got worse when she threatened to hug every one of them in her own arms. Manigat said that she too was going to raise her arms to embrace them. However, one of her arms, she said, was weak, so she would have to hug them with the arm that was still strong. Strong enough, she said. No thanks, said everyone watching.

It was a perfect demonstration of the poverty of the political system imposed on Haiti. Manigat’s claims have been consistent. Her supporters have echoed them. She is an intellectual. She has had much experience in and around politics (she has run for office before and was once, briefly, the first lady). She is a university professor and therefore intellectually capable. But the people with Joegodson understand Haiti as it is lived. They live under tents; they struggle to survive. They doubt that a carefully coiffed professor who wants to hug everyone could possibly know how to build their Haiti from the ground up. And so even the people who had been prepared to vote for Manigat changed their minds. Theirs is not an anti-intellectual position. It means that people, like Manigat, who think that the intellect cannot grow in the dirt where it is planted are mistaken.

Anti-intellectualism is, sadly, well-represented by the alternative candidate, Martelly. He will probably win. Poor and ever poorer Haiti.

There is something in between these two. Unfortunately, those who impose their will on Haiti are careful to make sure that that any intellect that grows organically in Haiti is cut down before it reaches maturity. That is the primary deforestation tragedy of Haiti.

Haitian Education

Joegodson and Paul

On Saturday, Joegodson strolled around the streets of Port-au-Prince, listening carefully to how his co-citizens understand the current situation. The Place de l’Aéroport was teeming with people, so he decided to spend his time there.

The Place de l’Aéroport is a reminder of the Aristide moment in Haiti’s recent past. It is one of a number of public spaces built by the Lavalas government to accommodate the penchant of ordinary Haitians to gather together. Before the earthquake, people would congregate in Champs de Mars to debate current issues. Now, since that space has been transformed into a big tent camp, the Place de l’Aéroport has taken over the role. It is similar, but not equivalent, to Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park in London. In Canadian history, you would need to revisit the nineteenth century to witness a similar phenomenon.

Many people congregate in the Place de l’Aéroport to meet with friends, play games, and participate in open-air debates. The only Haitians excluded from the discussions are those who exclude themselves. And so, the bourgeoisie and politicians, who cultivate a sense of superiority over the masses, will not show themselves. Otherwise, it is a cross-section of the remaining ninety-five percent of the population.

Thousands of kilometres to the north of Place de l’Aéroport, the media offers Canadians images of violent protests in Port-au-Prince. Why? It may be because Canadians want to see those images. It may be because the media like to show them. Maybe both. Violence may result in higher ratings. Most importantly, it demonstrates the refusal of the Canadian establishment to allow Haitians to define themselves in the debate concerning their country’s governance. This problematic is not unique to Canada or to Haiti. However, if Canadians want to build a more rational world, they would need to turn off their violent television sets and to listen carefully to the people they claim to support. Place de l’Aéroport could not be captured on film, because part of its charm is the fact that the conversations that take place there are spontaneous and intimate. A camera would obliterate the dynamics that the crowds produce and reproduce. So, this story must be told in print.

As an aside for the Canadian audience: as long as journalists who report on Haiti do not speak Creole or probe Haitian culture, the calm and rational aspects of Haitian society are hidden from them. So, when ‘consumers’ of Canadian media judge that Haitians are a hopelessly violent and ignorant people, they are in fact describing their journalists who are incapable of recognizing the profound native intelligence of that country. Canadians arrive at that conclusion because their media lead them to it. This is one case where it is correct to blame the messenger. At the same time, those ungenerous conclusions need to be propped up on a foundation of racism or chauvinism that the viewer supplies: Haitians are innately violent, ignorant, and incapable of controlling their own country.

Upon surveying the Place, Joegodson was first drawn to a man who was discussing the cholera epidemic. He had attracted a modest but engaged crowd. As he shifted his focus from cholera to the state of the global political economy, one of the listeners gradually took his place as the moderator of the discussion. Then the numbers began to swell well beyond the thirty participants that the initial discussion had attracted.

Each discussion creates a circle around the speaker. As the circle’s perimeter expands, it also draws more tightly to the speaker who is focal point. It is as if the participants were being attracted to the nucleus of the debate. As that dynamic proceeds, the speaker often finds himself, as in the present case, only centimetres apart from the closest participants. 

There are many forms of discussion. Some are debates among all members of the crowd. Others tend towards a speech whereby one person is allowed to develop his or her argument. Sometimes, as in the case of both of the speakers under consideration, certain participants engage the listeners in a Socratic debate, leading them along to a final destination by asking questions that everyone is invited to answer. With each answer, the argument moves to the next logical step towards the conclusion.

How did the second speaker captivate the crowd? What was the result of his intervention?

The first speaker was having difficulty defending a tough thesis. However, in keeping with the accepted etiquette, the crowd allowed him the right to marshal his evidence. They would judge his propos only after hearing him out. (The vitriol and ad hominem attacks that have come to structure North American debate have no place at the Place de l’Aéroport.) He was arguing that the deaths ravaging the country were not a result of the cholera microbe. He suggested that they were the result of a poison that foreigners had implanted in Haiti. This was a difficult proposition for his listeners to accept. They questioned him; he questioned them back. In order for us to appreciate the exchange, it would be better for us to enter it in the spirit of the participants. That requires that, whatever your actual position, you listen and probe. (Again, this may be difficult for people schooled in North American parti pris.)

He put forward a number of observations: the microbe was said to have started in the Artibonite and yet it is everywhere in Haiti, whereas the Artibonite remains confined to the central plateau. His interlocutors explained that the microbe was transported in human feces and urine to other areas. He replied that if contact with human feces was deadly, there should be no Haitians anywhere in the world. There is no sanitation in the entire country – never has been. The companies that profit from collecting human waste have always just dumped it in another neighbourhood. Then, the fecal matter dries, turns to powder, and is airborn. Everywhere! Everyone should have cholera. As he had put some time into this, the circle decided to let him expound upon his thesis.

Since the earthquake, he has been working for a foreign NGO. Even in the early days, the blan (singular form: blan means both ‘white’ and ‘foreigner,’ a word that obviously can’t have the same significance outside of Haiti, even when spoken by native Haitians) told him repeatedly that a deadly disease called cholera could appear and kill Haitians. Everyone must be careful of personal hygiene. The speaker claimed that those blan knew in advance that something was coming. He argued that they knew that there would be deaths because the deaths were intentional. He claimed that the cholera microbe may not be in Haiti at all, but that a poison might be killing Haitians – a poison planted by foreigners. (Here, we remind readers that our purpose is to understanding this man and his worldview. If you refuse to do that at this point, you would be as ineffective as the NGOs have proven themselves to be in Haiti. Why? Because this man’s point of view is as much a part of the reality of Haiti as the cholera bacteria. ‘Science’ that stops short of including the human experience is dangerous and habitually ineffective.)

He said that, up until that point, he had been laying the foundation for his real topic of debate: Haiti’s place in the global order. He said that those who found his proposition far-fetched should consider the meaning of the elections. He said that everything that is happening shows that the United States consistently creates chaos in Haiti in pursuance of its interests. They kill people with guns, he said, to get their way. Why should it surprise anyone that they would do the same thing with poison? His evidence?

The United States has been happy with Préval for the last five years. Unlike Aristide, he has been a pushover, implementing America’s will. Préval is the front man for the United States. But the Americans made a big mistake. They thought that, through the CEP, they had got rid of all the candidates that might conceivably cause trouble by inspiring the Haitian people. Before the elections, Martelly had such a reputation as a vakabon that the Americans took him as inconsequential; few Haitians would ever cast their votes for him. However, when he started to connect with the Haitian poor, the Americans were hoisted with their own petard. Now, in order to keep him out of the presidential palace, they are working with their man, Célestin, to incite violence as their last line of defence against the Haitian people. Killing Haitians to keep them from controlling their country is old hat for the Americans. So, why would anyone doubt the possibility that they might implant poison to create chaos and force their choice upon Haitians?

This largely concluded his argument. A listened took over the reigns of the conversation. In contrast to the first speaker, he did not cloud his lucid argument with theories about the cholera epidemic. He led a Socratic discussion, asking the growing crowd questions that led them to a seemingly inevitable conclusion.

The crowd identified the three powers that have always controlled Haiti: the United States, France, and Canada. Conclusion: Haiti does not belong to Haitians. The Haitian people have always been sold out by whatever government they vote in. The Americans crash the inauguration ceremony and present their own plan that the government is required to implement. Washington forces Haiti to remain an infant. It is not allowed to grow up to be independent of its step-parent.

Both times that Aristide was elected, Washington came, with the support of the United Nations, to tell him how he must govern the country. Aristide refused. Since he would not accept orders, the order was given to remove Aristide. (The pubic space where the discussion was proceeding is a symbol of Aristide’s defiance in the face of American bullying.) Préval, on the other hand, ignominiously submitted to American pressure.

And so, the gentleman described the simple and eternal tension that has, and will, structure all Haitian elections. The United States requires that the president and government govern in its interest. The people insist that the government serve them. When the people get their way, the United States, in cooperation with Canada and France, puts pressure on international and multilateral organizations to force the government out of office. If the United States gets its way, the people do everything that they can to undermine and refuse the legitimacy of the puppet government. That government serves at the displeasure of the people. It garners only contempt from them. Préval is the latest example.

He further led the people to see that the United States is in a bind this time. The crowd established that there were three candidates in contestation: Manigat, Martelly, and Célestin. The United States is not happy with Manigat because she is too close to France and has spoken respectfully of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. No friend of Chavez can be a friend of Washington. She has shown herself to be an unreliable ally by that sole utterance.

Martelly is far too popular. He has made common cause with the people. How far would he go in representing the people who are voting for him? He’s a wild card. The United States cannot take the chance. A Haitian president representing the people of Haiti is Washington’s greatest nightmare.

Jude Célestin is the only viable option for the United States. He represents continuity with Preval. He can be relied upon to allow the United States to ravage Haiti in exchange for a free hand to profit personally.

Finally, the speaker asked the people, “Who will win the election?”

Everyone came to the same conclusion, having accepted his argumentation, “The United States will win.”

”Then what are we doing?”

Everyone, again, agreed with the reluctant response of one in the crowd, “We are participating in a deadly spectacle with only one outcome allowed.”

The very large crowd then broke up in a pensive mood. People milled around thinking it over. Had the gentleman correctly outlined the situation? If so, are there options that they can’t yet see?