Download full text
The ousting of Haiti’s prime minister, Michele Pierre-Louis, was justified by her failure to effectively combat widespread poverty. However, after only a year in power, Haiti’s unresolved problems cannot be attributed solely to government inaction. Criticism was led by the Lespwa party, which is loyal to President Réné Préval. But local voices suggest the involvement of Préval, who wants to weaken the opposition and strengthen his position before the elections next year.
It is also regrettable that the removal of the head of government may dissuade much-needed international investment. Governance, and strengthening of national institutions, remain the core challenges to be addressed by Haiti, before it can embark on sustainable development.
-----
Haiti added another chapter to its complex political history last week with the dismissal of Prime Minister Michele Pierre-Louis after only a year in power. President René Préval acted swiftly and presented the Minister of Planning and External Cooperation, Jean Max Bellerive, as candidate for prime minister, only hours after 18 senators passed a no-confidence resolution.
One can only speculate as to the motivation for ousting the Prime Minister at this moment. The no-confidence ballot was in protest against her failure to effectively combat widespread poverty. The 18 senators included all members of the Lespwa platform, which remains loyal to President Préval and is his main source of support in the Parliament, and some representatives from other political parties. There were also open allegations of misuse of Petrocaribe funds, released after the hurricanes that ravaged Haiti last autumn.
Michele Pierre-Louis decided not to attend the Parliamentary session to which she had been summoned, arguing that it was unconstitutional and that the result had already been decided – which was in all likelihood true. In general, there is no tradition in Haiti of constructive dialogue on the country’s many problems, and therefore no common vision or long-term strategy for the future of the country. In the absence of the political will to give and take, which is necessary to achieve a common consensus, the way is left open for short-term solutions dominated by personal agendas.
While Haiti’s problems remain unresolved, no experienced politician could claim that this is the fault of a government which has been in power for less than a year. It is particularly disturbing that the removal of the head of government and the cabinet happens at a time when powerful international actors are promoting investment and sustained financial support in vital sectors such as agriculture and industry. The UN Special Envoy’s mission to Haiti in October with a delegation of 200 businessmen is one notable example.
Consequently, there has been a flurry of allegations about the hidden political agenda behind removing Pierre-Louis from office. President Préval has been accused of being directly responsible for the current situation, although he denies any role in it. However, it is probable that the decision to summon the Prime Minister had been carefully planned, and it is unlikely that the President’s support base, Lespwa, did not consult with the President at an early stage.
Those who interpret the situation as a quest for power by Préval and Lespwa will not view the situation as a political crisis, but rather as another controlled step in the path the President started to carve out before the last senate elections, when Lespwa won several seats in the Senate. According to these voices, Préval wants to weaken the opposition and strengthen his position before the elections next year. However, there are considerable doubts as to his motives.
The answer may be found in the decision to review the constitutional reform bill which was voted in parliament earlier this autumn. Constitutional reform, especially relating to the electoral system and issues of nationality, has been one of Préval’s main priorities since he became President, and this effort has been strongly supported by the international community. However, several politicians and civil society actors suspect that his engagement hides a personal agenda whereby the President aims to consolidate his power at the expense of other national institutions.
Whether his agenda is based on a political vision or a personal quest for power, or both, it is beyond doubt that Préval is currently securing a support base in Parliament which will accept the changes he eventually proposes. In all likelihood, this move is in preparation for the forthcoming presidential elections in late 2010. The President wants a government, and a head of government, that will not hamper his strategy in the coming elections, including his recent initiative to create a new party (Unité), using the Lespwa platform as a launching pad.
The ousting of Pierre-Louis has created strong reactions from other political parties such as the Organisación du peuple en lutte (OPL) and Fanmi Lavalas. Influential representatives from both parties say the President increasingly shows dictatorial tendencies. It should be remembered that Lavalas remain outraged because they were blocked from elections last spring after they failed to produce a signature from party leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide authorising Lavalas senatorial candidates. More street protests against Préval may ensue, and this will put the UN mission, Minustah, in an uncomfortable position as its prime role will then be to protect an increasingly controversial President.
What does Lespwa gain from bringing down Pierre-Louis who, in any event, has no political base, and therefore does not represent a political threat? One explanation is that the President’s power base, Lespwa, wishes to appear genuinely engaged with the poor masses, hence the use of forceful language to complain about government inaction on living conditions for the poor. In this way, Lespwa may take advantage of a Lavalas weakened by internal divisions, to angle for votes in traditional Lavalas waters. President Préval is doing this at present as he is meeting local representatives in his drive to create the new Unité party. Also, the new prime minister, and the eventual new ministers, will be seen as interim care-takers in view of the upcoming elections, thus giving the President and his political allies more space and freedom to operate behind the scenes.
One thing is certain, that this is definitely not a step in the right direction vis-à-vis the international community. Unless international actors are reassured quickly, potential investors who accompanied UN Special Envoy Bill Clinton on his visit to Haiti, will likely be dissuaded by the unpredictable and unstable situation. This manoeuvring also reveals that responding to the socio-economic challenges of Haitians does not feature very high on the agenda of the political elite. Governance, and strengthening of national institutions, remain the core challenges to be addressed by Haiti, before it can embark on sustainable development.