by Isabelle L. Papillon (Haiti Liberte)
After rallying Duvalierists in Gonaïves on Jan. 1, 2014, President Michel Martelly is now trying to peddle what he calls “political and institutional dialogue” in an attempt to escape from the growing political and economic crisis engulfing Haiti.
This new round of “dialogue” has ostensibly being orchestrated by the Catholic Church hierarchy, which historically always takes the side of the propertied classes against the disenfranchised masses. This “dialogue” between the executive branch, legislative branch, and some political parties, with a few “civil society” (read bourgeois) groups as observers, has three basic themes: governance, elections, and amending the constitution.
What is the real goal of this dialogue? Will it lead to the dismissal of Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe and his government and of the Transitional College for a Permanent Electoral Council (CTCEP) of Emmanuel Ménard? Do the political players involved in the dialogue have any credibility with the public? Why are some parties not a part of this “dialogue” while others complain that they were not invited to these meetings? Who will implement any resolutions which come out of these talks?
The “political and institutional dialogue” began on Fri., Jan. 24, 2014, at the El Rancho hotel in Pétion-ville, in a room filled with government officials, parliamentarians, political parties, and civil society. Tellingly, two major opposition sectors, the Lavalas Family Political Organization (FL) and the Patriotic Movement of the Democratic Opposition (MOPOD), a center-right coalition of parties and organizations, were not in attendance, while several other very small parties demanded to be included.
Following a heated debate over the core document around which dialogue is taking place, President Martelly, the new Haitian cardinal Chibly Langlois, and Senators Steven Benoit and Edmonde Supplice Beauzil all spoke at the opening session of the talks, which should last for two or three weeks, according to the Catholic mediators.
President Martelly thanked the members of the Mediation Committee of the Catholic Church and all other actors involved in the process. He then invited political players to engage in deep dialogue and negotiations. "The key for us now is to be able to talk among ourselves, to resolve our differences, and to think of the greater good of Haiti," he said, adding that there was an urgency to act now and to introduce into all levels of the state qualified people to modernize the Haitian political landscape and consolidate democracy.
Cardinal Chibly Langlois, meanwhile, insisted that there be real change and a focus on the main objective of these discussions: the collective search for durable solutions. "This search for solutions must be done truthfully," he said.
Sen. Edmonde Supplice Beauzile, representative of the Fusion of Social Democrats party, welcomed the “dialogue” initiative, saying it implies it should be the work of Haitians themselves . She also said that the participants do not have room for error because the Haitian people “expect a lot from these discussions,” especially a commitment to put Haiti on a path towards change.
Sen. Steven Benoît, representing the parliament in the absence of Senate President Simon Dieuseul Desras (who was in New York over the weekend), thanked the initiators of the talks and asked for the FL and MOPOD to join the discussions in order “to give the nation a chance.”
The FL’s Executive Committee apparently heard Benoît’s call and rushed to get on the “dialogue” train. In a Jan. 27, 2014 press statement, the party wrote: "Following the letter of the Episcopal Conference of Haiti (CEH), dated Jan. 25, 2014, in which Monseigneur Chibly Langlois, President of the CEH invited the Lavalas Family to join the dialogue process, the Lavalas Family, which wants dialogue and always encourages dialogue, has decided to participate [in the talks], as requested by the CEH which is playing the role of mediator... The Lavalas Family, while participating in this dialogue, does not put aside [the need for] a national dialogue with the participation of all sectors, creating the conditions necessary to bring to the dialogue table all popular demands." The note was signed by four members of the FL’s Executive Committee: Dr. Maryse Narcisse, the party’s coordinator, former deputy Lionel Etienne, agronomist Anthony Dessources, and businessman Joël Edouard “Pasha” Vorbe.
The same day, Jan. 27, Narcisse, Dessources, and Vorbe showed up at the talks. (Interestingly, FL Executive Committee member Claude Roumain, the former leader of a right-wing party, Generation 2004, did not sign the note and has not yet attended the talks.)
Along with the FL leadership, this “dialogue” involves only political parties from the same political family as Martelly: the Struggling People’s Organization (OPL), the Fusion of Social Democrats, the Konbit of Workers and Peasants to Liberate Haiti (KONTRAPEP), and the Democratic Unity Confederation (KID ).
The West Department’s senator, John Joël Joseph, expressed doubts about the outcome of the talks. He doesn’t think the president is acting in good faith, but rather that the difficult political situation compels him to take part in the talks. He advised Cardinal Langlois to proceed with caution so as not to be manipulated by both national and international players, who want simply to waste time. However, since the country is at an impasse, Sen. Joseph doesn’t dismiss the need for “Haitians from all sectors to talk” and be serious about it.
The deputy representing the southwestern town of Dame-Marie, Acclush Louis-Jeune, took a position diverging with his own party, the OPL, on the issue of dialogue. He called on the CEH to stop the process of dialogue until many other national sectors were participating in the discussions. It does not make sense, he added, that someone like MOPOD’s Dr. Turneb Delpé, who has long advocated dialogue in the form of a National Conference, not to be involved. For Dep. Acclush, the parties involved in the discussions are not mandated to represent the peasantry and other key sectors of Haiti. Furthermore, he said, the participating parties are not in conflict with the Martelly government in the same way as the member parties and organizations of MOPOD and some progressive popular organizations which have repeatedly condemned the way Martelly wields power.
Béguens Théus, the deputy for La Gonâve, also deplored the lack of other national sectors at the discussion table. He also chided the three branches of the government for not being able to resolve their disputes and called on participants to discuss the real obstacles to development in Haiti.
Paul Denis, a spokesman for the Unity party (INITE), said that the real problem of Haiti is none other than Martelly himself and does not believe it possible that Martelly would respect any resolutions that might possibly be taken as a result of discussions. Mr. Denis also believes that Haiti’s real problems will not be on the table, nor will the many outrages already committed by the Martelly/Lamothe government.
Lawyer André Michel, who has brought corruption suits against the Martelly regime, thinks that the “dialogue” will result in nothing substantive and that only some government posts will be given to some of the participants. He called it a “gathering of friends” and asserted that none of Haiti’s real problems are actually being raised.
Meanwhile, MOPOD held a retreat this past weekend to discuss how to the to structure and transform itself from a political platform into some kind of new party. During 2013, MOPOD’s slogan was "elections or resignation," but there were no elections, and President Martelly remains in office. So MOPOD is having to revise its strategy. Nonetheless, it has so far refused to take part in the “political and institutional dialogue” and continues to demand Martelly’s resignation.
We should recall that the de facto coup government of President Alexandre Boniface and Prime Minister Gérard Latortue (2004-2006) also had initiated a supposed “dialogue” of this kind, which led to nothing but a waste of state resources and time. In 2012, a similar dialogue was led by Religions for Peace, which resulted in the formation of the CTCEP, which was supposed to organize elections for one third of the Senate and for municipal posts. But the CTCEP was vassalized by the Martelly government and elections have never been carried out to date.
In short, President Martelly is afraid of elections and cannot overcome the troubles that confront him. To save face, he and the international community are hiding behind the Catholic Church’s robes as it organizes this meaningless “dialogue” of principally bourgeois and Duvalierist (Macoute) parties.
Free, fair, and sovereign elections will require Martelly’s resignation and an end to Haiti’s military occupation by U.S. imperialism’s proxy force, the UN Mission to Stabilize Haiti (MINUSTAH). Neither of these conditions have been mentioned by the initiators of the current “dialogue.” It is quite clear that the “dialogue” participants are more interested in salvaging what they can of the status quo than in any revolutionary transformation of Haitian society, which will be necessary to create a participatory democracy.