Mr. Malval,
I read with interest your article published this week in the columns of the ‘Nouvelliste’. I fully share your intellectual and political concerns. Your writing highlights the harsh learning of reality that our current leaders are facing.
The current reality requires me to raise a series of essential questions to encourage stakeholders to engage in an informed and patriotic debate, given that the very destiny of our nation is at stake. Initially resistant to the idea of an alternation during this transition, I am now firmly opposed to a third. Each transition following another only further delays our march towards democracy. Far from constituting progress, these repeated transitions represent a democratic regression, hindering development on all fronts.
Why use the Constitution to legitimize absurdities? I appreciate your questioning. And these absurdities must be brought to light.
The Presidential Transitional Council (PTC), proclaiming itself the presidency, took an oath on the 1987 Constitution. By this act, it solemnly committed itself to respecting the Constitution and the laws of the republic. What connection does the PTC have with the Constitution? Why invoke it if not to deceive the national conscience? Because an executive that emerges following an international coup d’état does not need formal legitimacy; it imposes itself de facto. It is worth noting that Dr. Ariel Henry was detained outside his country during an official trip. This case poses a significant problem and will undoubtedly stimulate the reflection of international relations scholars. The latter are confronted with an international order that should be governed by rules rather than by the equitable law of states as actors in the international system.
How could such an exceptional structure have sworn an oath on a constitution that sets the conditions for access to power and its exercise? This is either a gross manipulation of the national conscience, not to say a total absurdity! In any case, it will have consequences.
The deposed government led by Dr. Ariel Henry, the CPT, as well as the current government of Dr. Conille, have all, by certain acts of general scope, violated the Constitution to which they constantly refer.
In many decisions taken by the current team, we notice that the 1987 Constitution is always mentioned. For a lawyer accustomed to legal matters, this makes sense. When we mention in a decree or order “having regard to the Constitution”, this has a significant scope. This formula indicates that we are referring to the current state of the law in force. It serves to justify the action undertaken by affirming respect for the national legal system, dominated by the Constitution. However, in our country, this reference to the constitution is only a facade, an attempt to hide the true nature of things behind legal appearances. A vast scam.
There are absurdities, we will not point out. Indeed, the need for a constitutional reform is announced that promises to lead to a transformation of the regime in place. However, to establish the Provisional Electoral Council, we continue to rely on the Constitution of 1987. The same was true for the implementation of a two-headed executive provided for by this same Constitution and which resulted in an executive structure composed of eight heads (seven presidents and a government led by a Prime Minister) and two feet. Two reforms are announced: one concerns criminal justice, the other the Constitution. We can legitimately wonder whether the Constitution will be inspired by the penal code. The need for a reform of our law is undeniable, but how can we initiate and implement these vast reform projects?
All this staging had the sole purpose of deceiving the nation, claiming constitutional and legal legitimacy for an exceptional regime. In the logic of these underhand maneuvers, it is not surprising that the economist Fritz Alphonse Jean once declared that he had been appointed president of the republic following a second-degree election, an election in which the current president of the CPT, former senator Edgard Leblanc, also participated. These shenanigans represent nothing less than a real usurpation of national sovereignty, a right that belongs solely to the people. The story of these indirect elections, widely relayed by our media, also aimed to conceal reality and, consequently, to obscure the truth for the people. Unless it is the most crass ignorance!
The reality is that even before the brutal assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, the democratic and constitutional order was already broken. The madness of our politicians lies in applying the Constitution when there are no longer any institutions capable of implementing it. Your article reinforces my approach according to which the Haitian elites, by being savage elites, are incapable of living in a society governed by order, respect for democratic rules, the rule of law and good governance.
President Jovenel Moïse held a legitimate constitutional mandate, despite a low voter turnout that marked his election. He was therefore unable to amend the Constitution on which he had taken the oath. Why could a government, which is devoid of both legality and democratic legitimacy, but which constantly and irregularly refers to these principles in its actions, claim such a prerogative? How can a de facto government, supported by certain allies, allow itself to create and impose codes (criminal and criminal procedure) affecting human rights and individual freedoms without legislative debate? A penal reform decided behind the scenes, without any serious reflection on justice or criminal law, is nothing more than legal tinkering, thus destabilizing the coherence of the national legal system. In such a case, we find ourselves in a system of approximation.
Constitutional reform as well as that of our criminal justice system involve serious issues in a context of occupation of the national territory by foreign armies. At the same time, we often forget that the Haitian people are the author of the 1987 Constitution, although they are not the direct drafters of the text. Our Charter benefits from a double legitimacy: on the one hand, the people had chosen in majority the constituents responsible for the development of the text, and on the other hand, they had validated this text by a referendum. From then on, a question arises: who holds the power to decide on its abolition?
The Constitution and laws, however carefully drafted, will not have any real effect without the support of moral, intellectual, social, political and economic forces. However, those who resist the law often come from the elites of knowledge, wealth and power. It is not well-drafted texts that will resolve the complex and difficult relationships that these elites have with the law. It is above all a question of education: it is essential to train elites in the rule of law and, more broadly, in civic education.
Our Constitution is not a perfect work, but it represents a deep commitment to democratic hope. Despite its imperfections, the true strength of the law lies in education. However, Haitian elites, responsible for enforcing this law through their institutions, are often lacking in this area. It is therefore crucial to engage in a process of re-education and transformation of these elites to ensure effective implementation of our Constitution. The elites of chaos seem reluctant to accept and respect the law; their attitude towards it is often characterized by a lack of commitment. It is therefore futile to give laws to elites who are not ready to respect them, like throwing pearls before pigs.
Can you imagine a city like Montreal or Boston without a mayor for a month?
Haiti defines itself as a republic where suffrage is one of the pillars allowing the people to exercise their sovereignty. However, the elites, with the support of the international community, have taken the decision to confiscate this national sovereignty of which the people are the exclusive depositary. Thus, these elites of chaos will have the opportunity to govern for five years, without a popular mandate, the duration of a presidential term. Why does this situation not provoke any reaction?
Haiti has not had an elected official for some time. Everyone has had their own transition project in their pocket. Do you know why? Because the transition in Haiti, far from being a period of innovation and production, is rather an opportunity to plunder the resources of the State with impunity. We have a penchant for extraordinary governments, around which we concentrate all our energies. Ariel Henry, the two-headed monster, has given way to another ten-headed monster. It is therefore quite normal to find ourselves managing a monstrous situation created by political monsters.
Like Ariel Henry, Dr. Conille is only responsible to himself. There is no control, no transparency, no accountability. There is no parliament. Any conscious elite could have asked the following question: in the context of our political system, what is the role of the Prime Minister in the absence of parliament? Why this total lack of reflection on the part of our intellectuals? Where have these do-gooders gone?
With the establishment of this presidential council, is there a risk of reliving the situation that prevailed before François Duvalier came to power? Could this plunge us back into a perpetual circular transition cycle?
The reality that is given and imposed on us is that of the stakeholders who form the basis of the transition. These parties will be in competition with other political sectors, far from power, during the next elections. When Dr. Garry Conille speaks of the neutrality of his government, does he really know what he is talking about? In addition to the legal problems related to the formation of the Electoral Council, the lack of neutrality of the government compromises the entire process. Setting up a body responsible for organizing elections according to the formula established by the Constitution means that we are in continuity. Will this Provisional Electoral Council have a mission different from that assigned to it by the Constitution?
Who is leading the transition? It is the seven stakeholders who come together in a hybrid governance in which the private business sector as well as civil society organizations are involved. There is no neutral, credible and responsible voice. Everyone seems to defend their own group interests, to the detriment of the general interest.
Garry Conille only meets with the stakeholders involved in the creation of the Presidential Council and the government. It is likely that he will organize elections between these same stakeholders. It is difficult not to see that this approach risks not working. The question of the neutrality of the team responsible for leading the country towards the elections arises acutely. This is not an issue that can be addressed and resolved without debate. A political agreement is necessary. The Agreement of April 3, 2024, which has not been published, cannot be implemented as it is, because it could not be concluded between the parties in power alone. This political agreement that I am talking about should involve not only those who are leading the transition, but also those who wish to ent access to power through democratic means. Will these stakeholders who are leading the transition participate in the next elections? The idea of being both judge and jury is a strategy that leads to disorder and generalized chaos. Unfortunately, it is in this direction that defies political and democratic equity that Dr. Garry Conille seems to be leading us.
Mr. Prime Minister, I encourage you with renewed intensity to continue to nourish the nation with your intellectual and patriotic reflections. History is shaped by those who dare to leave their comfort zone to question everything. Three foreign military interventions in thirty years are a sign of an almost inevitable decline. But I refuse to let my generation be marked by this fatality. We want, alongside thousands of patriots, to be the advanced sentinel of freedom and justice.
To do this, we must draw on our history to illuminate our future, in a world where geopolitical reality is constantly changing. It is crucial to ask what black and mulatto elites can accomplish together to preserve national independence in the face of any challenge.
With all my respect.
Sonnet Saint-Louis by
Professor of constitutional law at the State University of Haiti.
