It’s a war of narratives! It is one, and it’s pretty combustible.
It’s a war of narratives! It is one, and it’s highly combustible. The post-Jovenel Moïse dilemma proves that we have to despair over a transition built like a fragmentation bomb that will end up like a thriller thanks to the little tricks of the crisis-makers. That’s why Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé, who today has the obligation to succeed, calmly and pragmatically embodies the pro-election or electoralist current. The anti-electoralist current people think of is characterized by supporters of another kind of transition. But there aren’t many left who truly believe in breaking the electoral process, which is facing terrible challenges, starting with insecurity and the scattering of several million voters. But as the Prime Minister cleverly pointed out, organizing and successfully holding the upcoming elections involves the participation and commitment of all sectors of national life.When you take the trouble to decipher the situation, you should consider these two hypotheses or scenarios (rii) that open up completely different areas of thought and perspectives: elections with the sanctioned individuals (former presidents, presidential advisors, prime ministers, parliamentarians, ministers, general directors, business leaders, gang leaders) will be completely opposite to elections without the sanctioned individuals! It’s pretty clear, actually, this approach, this lack of subjectivity in the analysis.
First scenario: elections with those sanctioned for corruption and collusion with gangs by the United States and Canada, by the United Nations and the European Union, by the Dominican Republic, and by public outcry or public opinion. Which court – national and/or international – will end up judging all these alleged guilty parties? Legally speaking, none of these sanctioned individuals (allegedly candidates in the upcoming elections) have so far faced legal proceedings, let alone been convicted by any court. And the United Nations? That’s both a good and a bad question. Not being a candidate myself, but living in Haiti, I have a non-partisan view on Haitians and their future, which is facing monstrous challenges. The UN approach, in humanitarian and operational terms, remains the same,As limited as possible: above all, you must not tell the patient that it’s serious or that the medication, which won’t be mild, is on their own initiative.From a political and electoral standpoint, it’s a bad attitude or a pointless stance – even for the international community, for our partners actually – to think that the electoral decree, which has some contentious points but is worth explaining, has already solved the issue of exclusion or the ineligibility of those sanctioned. It’s an issue that will need to be addressed transparently, but simple interpretations from the authorities or public opinion aren’t enough, and it has to be done before the election campaign. And the electoral calendar officially published by the Provisional Electoral Council (CEP), which reflects all the confusion and risky challenges faced by decision-makers, hasn’t managed to ease the tensions and doubts.
Second scenario: elections without the sanctioned individuals to hide the inefficiency of the justice system and the goodwill of foreign powers, which can’t do everything. National justice is incapable of making a decision. International helplessness, with well-meaning people content to just point out the guilty; in short, it’s an attack on rights that are said to be inviolable, like the presumption of innocence, “the main cornerstone of proof beyond any reasonable doubt,” to quote the American chargé d’Affaires Henry T. Wooster. Guilt can’t just be declared, in other words. When it comes to elections, eligibility rules and conditions must be applied strictly. But you can’t give special rights to some candidates while penalizing others.For most of them, candidates themselves, presidential hopefuls and theatrical candidates, the supporters of elections without penalties are now counting on a sterilized electoral process, which plunges ever deeper into uncertainty and chaos. It’s something to fear and to be prepared for. If the logic of popularity mobilizes voters, it also guides the process. It will be complicated, unpredictable, and even explosive, not to say unlikely, but it’s essential; it will be dangerous and, in the end, beneficial, with or without the current leaders and aspiring leaders.
And the voters? All things considered, voters can only truly choose freely within the framework of a competitive, inclusive electoral process. Polls have the advantage of keeping any electoral competition open. This is the reasonable and legitimate assumption that makes media leaders and influencers of all kinds explode, those dark autocratic voters who are paving the way for more insecurity. After a quick look at the situation, which is going to worsen with the deportations of our compatriots who were enjoying the benefits of TPS, the average person, the citizen-voter, can’t hide their doubts: the main merit of the CEP’s electoral calendar, which needs to be revised, is to show its willingness to finalize the electoral process as long as the current government, anxiously (or impatiently?) relying on the operations of the Gang Suppression Force (FRG), does its part to improve the security climate.And the Constitution? The current laws? The institutional standards? Strangely, no one can boast about taking positions outside of them. Everywhere, you can see just how much the one-upmanship is on the rise. One thing’s certain, though: everything comes to an end, even the security-elections equation or, depending on how you look at it, the elections-security equation like under René Préval’s second presidency.
