Sunday, February 17, 2008

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.)

2 comments:

Luis Esquivel said...

Doubtlessly, Haiti is quite a challenging puzzle for anyone that believes in the need for strong institutions. In this particular case, it could be said that what is needed is not strengthening institutions but building institutions. I think El Hidalgo puts in the table a very interesting issue: what is the relationship between leadership and institutions building? How can a leader who believes in institutions build (or set the foundations) for them in a relatively short period? What could guarantee, once the foundations are set, that the next administration will continue the work, instead or tearing them down?
Personally, I do not believe that having a leader perpetuating him/herself on power in order to build institutions is a feasible solution, as we have seen this many times, particularly in the Caribbean.
Clearly, I do not have a solution for this puzzle, however, a possible alternative could lay on how leadership emerges. The following question would be then how to foster the emergence of responsible leadership?

el_hidalgo22 said...

It's the paradox of good leadership in the context of weak institutions - a responsible, forward-looking leader we hope would strive to build institutions that in turn check the whims of future leaders. But it is difficult to get those guys who enjoy the power now to submit that authority to others. Even those leaders who want to build institutions for future developement may be skeptical of ceding power to a group of people with unknown, or possibly known and nefarious, motives. If you're surrounded by a bunch of crooks, why would an honest leader want to build institutions to give these individuals more power? I think that presidents in situations like Preval finds himself face that kind of dilemma.