Leadership Crisis in Haiti

As I write, Haiti is once again facing a leadership crisis. Short re-cap: protests the began on April 3 to air greivances about the rising cost of living turned violent, bringing upheaval to the capital and third largest city, Les Cayes. Receiving the brunt of the criticism is Prime Minister Alexis, who has been the face and mouthpiece of the government in the past few months regarding the cost of living crisis. Of particular concern for Hatians is the rising cost of staple foods - rice, beans, and cooking oil have seen up to 50% price increases in the past few months. This is no small matter in a country where most of the population struggles to get by on less than $2 per day. Although the violence that broke out during the protests is thought to be instigated by individuals with political and criminal agendas (rather than out of concern for the price of rice), and that violence has captutred recent headlines, this should not overshadow the primacy of the orginal message of the protests. Namely that Haitians are hungry, and the government has done nothing to help them.

As I write, PM Alexis is facing the prospect of either accepting the Senate's request for his resignation, or face a vote of no-confidence in the Senate, scheduled f0r 11:00 Saturday. There's a good chance that by the afternoon Alexis will be out - if if he does not resign, enough Senators necessary to vote him out have signed a letter stating that they would. The question remains, however, whether this coalition will remain disciplined enough to do so.

My intent is not a discussion of the news from Haiti, but rather to present another Latin American case of crisis of leadership in the absence of strong government. As is often the case in developing democracies, the benefit of kicking out an underperforming leader must be weighed against the damage done to the process of institutionalizing the legitmacy of leadership positions. On the one hand, it is certainly a good idea to toss out poor leaders, but that should not be the default action taken in hard times. Although the Haitian Senate is acting within the Constitution to call Alexis in for a vote, it will likely be disruptive to any number of other policies/programs in the works. Elections to renew 1/3 of the Senate have been delayed since November, and still have yet to be scheduled, and the government is scheduled to host a high profile International Donors Conference at the end of the month - these important events can only suffer with a government shake-up.

In other words, the removal of Alexis may do no more than buy President Preval a bit of time to try to come up with a fix to the food crisis, but this may come at the cost of other forward-looking initatives. Bravo to the Haitians for going out and protesting their legitimate concerns, but it is unfortunate that the political answer to the crisis may serve to set back other much-needed concerns.

Will history absolve him?

OK, I haven't read the speech, but it's a good question to start off with, and I wonder if Fidel has asked himself the question recently.

My answer to the question is "no," with a "but." No, history will not absolve Fidel of his larger body of work, the totalitarian Cuban state as we know it. But he should also be remembered for doing a service to the Cuban people by tossing out Batista. Does this make up for 49 years and counting of his brand of totalitarianism? No. When he overthrew the government with popular support in 1959 did he tell anyone that in a few years he'd go back on his plan to hold elections and instead favor repressive Communism? No. Had he told his supporters that that this would be the lasting legacy of the Revolution, would he have had the support that he did? Well I leave that one open.

Fidel has always been a dilemma for liberal-minded folks because he's not as bloodthirsty or overtly personally consumptive of public resources as some of his bretheren in the Latin American and Communist dictator circles. (Well when those are your friends, I suppose the bar is pretty low.) And of course there's the healthcare and education (see Luis' post). But I've always thought that one's revolutionary credentials are tarnished if revolting against the Revolution by peaceful means (i.e. the through the ballot or MLK-style) is actively suppressed, no matter how long one wears a scruffy beard and fatigues.

So in the context of the speech given in 1953 after the Moncada attack, OK, sure, throw off the shackles of wretched oppression, I'm with you to an extent - absolve away. But he went on to substitute one lousy regime for another, which in my opinion is desabsolviable.

Leadership and Institutions in Haiti

It's no secret that Haiti's political institutions are exceedingly weak, where they exist at all. 200 years of "predatory,"* exploitative rule has left scant opportunity for even basic democratic institutions (like the legislature) to develop. Only once in 200 years has an elected president served his full term (Preval '96-'01), the judicial system is a farce, and precious little of the 1987 Constitution has ever been implemented. Recent confusion and mismanagement has led to the delay of Senate elections for an undetermined period of time. The Senate, as it is, and the Chamber of Deputies are largely facades of institutions. Senators and Deputies have no staff, no offices, no money, and few institutionalized means to spend money. Thus the members of the Haitian Parliament serve quite literally as a front-line "face" with no support behind it.


The classic balance found in developing political systems between building institutions while encouraging responsible leadership is in full display in Haiti. At the risk of oversimplification, the lack of political institutions has been a contributing factor in the disruption of Haitian democracy, whether in the form of coups or the persistance of overt corruption. The abscence of strong institutions leaves the leader du jour to operate with more discretion and less oversight or accountability. Men being men, this scenario usually leads to pilfering of public funds, new cars, expensive liquor, exoitc women, and whatever else the leader can get away with. However, on the other side of the coin is the potential that a good leader emerges, and through responsible rule, cuts through the underdeveloped institutions not for his own benefit, but for the good of the people.

I believe this to be the case in Haiti today, at least in terms of three prominent and influential leaders. President Preval has his shortcomings, but he has not shown a tendency toward exploitation or personal gain at the expense of the people. He also seems committed to cleaning up politics rather than getting drawn into the corruption that surrounds him. The head of the national police, Mario Andresol, is by all accounts a stand-up guy and above getting trapped in the nastiness of politics. The newly elected president of the Senate, Kely Bastien of the president's Lespwa coalition, has legitimately worked his way up the political ladder, amid a Senate rife with accusations of corruption and illegal business practices. I think that this quality in leadership has had a positve effect in the progress made in Haiti in the past few years.

The paradox is that this reinforces the need to build political institutions. (With enormous international effort propping the country up), these individuals have risen to Haiti's political apex. But individual leaders who respect democratic practices are inherently limited in the time they have to affect and make policy. Therefore, to ensure continuity of their reform policies, responsible leaders, paradoxically, should do all they can to develop institutions that serve to 'check' whims or (self-benefiting) preferences of individuals and encourage the benefits of playing the democratic game.

I suspect that a significant part of Haiti's recent progress has to do with responsible leadership (from Preval, Andresol, the heads of myriad international groups, etc.). While this is good for the here-and-now, one wonders if this stability rests too much on the shoulders of a few leaders, and what this holds for the future. Established institutions bring predictability; reliance on the qualities of individual leaders brings ...... well I guess we'll see.


(* not sure who coined the phrase "predatory rule," but I find it very appropriate. Robert Fatton, a Haiti scholar uses it a lot in his work.)