The Great Promise of 1986
On December 31st, 2009, it was not difficult to believe that one was living through the greatest moments of Haitian political history. The country had recently gone through its fair share of troubles, but there was a sense that the nation was writing a new chapter in its history. February 1986 dared to promise every single Haitian citizen something that even the Haitian revolution did not: a say in the destiny of their country. The wisdom of such a trajectory was not evident to all; a former minister of finance and university professor pointed out in 2020 that when Haiti chose democracy, few countries in the region had done so. While his statement was meant to echo the belief that Haiti was failing at democracy because the country was not ready to embrace it, it also highlights the audacity of such a choice 24 years prior. It may also be proof that the main barriers to Haitian democracy have been its elites. In the debate on Haitian democracy, a question often came up: how does one allow a majority of illiterate souls with no understanding of the affairs of the world to have a say in the destiny of the country? This question is, above all, a criticism of direct universal suffrage. These worries and questions fail to consider a blatant truth: if the decisions of the state are going to affect everyone, including the most illiterate Haitian, then everybody should participate in the decision-making. The denial of Haitian democracy as an inappropriate system of government for the simplistic Haitian, and the idea that a dictator would be more suitable, is above all a rejection of the concept that everybody should have a voice. However, despite the nobility of the democratic approach, it is clear that the hopes stemming from the promise of 1986 did not materialize; widespread poverty, desperation, the crumbling of the security apparatus, and the failure of the state itself have often created arguments for a more brutal approach to decision-making. The issue with that argument is that Haiti tried it before; it failed to deliver too, which led to the demise of the filthy dictatorship on a fateful morning of February 7th, 1986.
Of Authority and Institutions
On May 18th 2024, most of the Haitian capital and several parts of the country were controlled or under threat of armed gangs. A few weeks prior, the main prison of the country was emptied after an attack from armed groups, providing the ultimate proof that the Haitian state, along with its security forces, had completely crumbled. It was clear that unless the international community intervened, there would be no end to the reach of the forces of darkness. One could ask; how does a country go from a brutal dictator controlling every inch of the country to a generalized state of lawlessness? When the dictator left, he entrusted power to the armed forces of Haiti. Yet these armed forces went on to make a fundamental mistake: an inability to distinguish the state’s authority from their own. The army could only see an orderly Haiti with its generals at the helm. This led to massacres, coups against their own and against elected leaders and cohabitation with paramilitary death squads. By the time the armed forces were demobilized in 1995, it was clear that the army was unwilling to exist in a democratic Haiti. One of the oldest institutions in the country vanished because it could not exist in a fairer and more modern nation. Some right-wing experts who love to blame the failure of the security apparatus on the demobilization of the army tend to ignore this basic fact: the army was no longer interested in securing the state. It wanted to be the state at any cost. In a Haiti that desired to give a voice to all its sons and daughters, such armed forces could not exist.
The disappearance of the army was but a symptom of a greater illness: the country’s unwillingness to build reliable and strong institutions. The police forces that replaced the army and the political institutions designed to be the backbone of the new Haitian state got mired in a web of corruption. In 2021, during a protest for the creation of a police syndicate, the police officer in charge claimed she would trample over anyone trying to block their request. It was yet another example of security forces threatening the state and the order they were created to protect. Professor Manigat, a former president deposed by the army, would explain Haiti’s democrats thus: “The merit of Duvalier is that he had the courage to be a dictator, but now we claim to have democrats, but it is the same approaches and practices as Duvalier.” By weakening institutions, the leaders of the country thought they could control them. This led to the inevitable crumbling of the Haitian nation-state as a whole, leaving the country to experiment with unconstitutional paths and beg for help from international institutions. Haiti created its own chaos, asked for help, and wondered why the help would not come fast enough. 2024 became the greatest example of a country sabotaging and fumbling the greatest moment of its history.
Hope and the Diaspora
During an event honoring one of its members, the Haitian diaspora gathered some of its prominent constituents in a restaurant in South Florida. The group agreed that there was still hope for change in Haiti and that the diaspora would play an important part in it. It was a powerful sight to witness this burst of hopefulness when thousands of Haitians had died, countless women raped, families destroyed, and the state in shambles. Then came the realization that it may not be very difficult to be hopeful when one does not have to face the reality of life-shattering bullets. Time was taken to point out that some foreign groups were profiting from the miseries of Haiti, and this is true. Less emphasis was put on the fact that all the guns flowing to Haiti were very likely facilitated by members of the South Floridian community. The realities of the Haitian diaspora cannot be limited to the actions of a few; while they produced gun runners, they count within their midst some upstanding citizens who are bringing and will bring significant change to their community. But the fundamental mistake of the diaspora is the same that Haitians living in Haiti made: standing-by and sometimes applauding while the institutions of the country were being obliterated. Today, the only hope for Haitians lies with the American people and its leaders; an unwillingness to help Haiti would have surely brought the emergence of a gang leader as the next leader of the country. The gangs’ last major effort was to take the seat of the presidency. Despite the future arrival of an international police force to Haiti, it may not be wrong to think that Haiti as a nation-state is getting its last chance. Twenty-four years from now, there may no longer be a Haitian state despite the diaspora’s hopes. A changing political landscape in the United States or the emergence of a non-Western superpower could embolden the troublemakers of the future to take-over the ruins of Haitian institutions. On that day, Haitians may wish they had kept a dictator, a self-serving national army, or even their mediocre democratic leaders. The truth will remain that Haiti crumbled politically at the best time in its history; the time when it desired to build a country with the voice of all its sons and daughters. Its elites, whether they never believed in Haitian democracy or had self-serving designs, will have to understand that it is on the ruins of the Haitian institutions that the great promise of 1986 was forfeited.
Dennery Alain Menelas
C.Paribus Management 
Leave a comment