The lesson of Haiti
By a correspondent
The collapse of the 28-year-old Duvalier regime of Haiti and the fleeing of 'Baby-Doc' to Paris, provides an appropriate background for an analysis of dictatorship in Third World countries and its effects on development of democracy.The first time I heard of Haiti was when as an eleven-year-old film buff, I went to see the film Lydia Bailey, which dealt with the slave revolt there in the 18th century. Then an impressionable boy, I thought the Haiti shown in the film was an exotic wonder, somewhere in the skies. So successful had Hollywood been in dulling the little sense I had. Several years later, I found out that Haiti was an island in the Caribbean; and that the reality of life on that island was so different from the idyllic nonsense I had entertained earlier.
Haiti was the jewel in the crown of French colonial possessions in the 17th and 18th centuries. In his classic study of the Haitian slave revolt, The Black Jacobins, the black historian C.L.R. James writes of the island as being among the most wealthy and productive of the French possessions in the 18th century. Haiti attained her independence in 1803, when the slaves under the leadership of Toussaint L'Overture fought and wrested power from the French.
After independence, Haitian politics followed a regular pattern. The light- skinned middle classes filled all govern- ment and professional posts. But the political dictator was usually a black man who could obtain the support of the army which to this day is still drawn from the impoverished black, lower classes.
Between the 1940s and 1960s, there was a significant move towards a measure of democracy notably under Estime and Magloire. The light-skinned classes began to dominate the supreme political power. This domination caused a reaction which Francois Duvalier (Papa Doc)) manipulated. It is interesting to note that he won the Presidency on the basis of a simple appeal - all power to the blacks. He won handsomely. In 1964 he had him- self re-elected as President for Life. On his death in 1971, he was succeeded by his son, the ousted President for Life, Jean Claude Duvalier (Baby Doc).
Although the politics of the Duvaliers appeared to be a continuation of Haitian politics during its 183 years of independence, Francois Duvalier, unlike his predecessors, introduced a new element- the Tonton Macoute his strong-arm force. The Tonton Macoute eliminated Duvalier's enemies and all potential opposition and held for official ransom both Haitians and foreigners alike in a manner not paralleled anywhere.
Graham Greene had it right when he described them in his memorable novel on Haiti, The Comedians. The Tonton Macoute soon achieved a notoriety which went far beyond Haiti's borders. After his father's death, Jean Claude announced that he would curb their excesses but there is evidence to suggest that this force retained its unsavoury character. Cynics suggested that Jean Claude made the promise so as not to lose the considerable American aid which helped to keep the country going.
Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world. Were it not for the American largesse, it would be difficult to imagine what sort of place it would be. The effect of the Duvalier dictatorship has been to accelerate the decline in an already weak economy; to the extent that most Haitians eke out a miserable subsistence living. For 15 years, Jean Claude held un- rivalled power and even though he promised changes from time to time, nothing really happened. Suddenly the people were up in arms against him. Thousands of men, women and children protested against the government and repeatedly called on the Armed Forces to take over; if only to rid themselves of a hated ruler and begin a process of political, social and economic change.
A key grievance of the people was that while they tried to survive on less than £70 a year, the President, his family, and supporters, are worth millions around the world. In particular the President's wife, who regularly shops in Paris and, despite Haiti's tropical heat, has one of the world's biggest collections of mink coats.. Sounds familiar. The above would read like the familiar story in a host of African countries.
So what, you might ask, is the relevance of what is happening in Haiti to us in Africa, or for that matter in Ghana? What is the lesson of Haiti to our dictators and their regimes of repression?
The first is that dictators should learn that they have no guarantees of permanency of their power; and that whatever they do to perpetuate this, there is the insecurity which comes from their knowing that the people can and will one day challenge their hold on political power.
The second is that their legitimacy does not come from their ability to seize and hold on to power; but that it springs from using political power "to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." Unless they do this, the people will dispute their authority.
One interesting point which has emerged in the Haitian saga is that there is a limit to the people's patience and their tolerance of the dictators' misrule; and that once aroused, the people cannot be kept in check by repressive measures. There comes a time when the paraphernalia of weaponry and security that dictators often deploy to maintain themselves in power, no longer frightens them.
When this happens, dictators usually realise that far from cowing the people into submission, these appurtenances of absolute power only serve to infuriate them. Since dictators only understand the logic and language of force, they are unable to use any other means to defuse the situation their actions create. Because they do not enjoy the people's confidence, the continued force worsens the situation and increases those pressures which persuade other elite groups to make a bid for power.
It is therefore no surprise that Haitians called on the Armed Forces which have been deployed to contain the crisis to take over and a three-man junta has been installed after Baby Doc fled to Paris in a plane provided by the United States.
Unfortunately dictators never seem to know when to bow out of power, in the face of popular pressure to do so. They believe that they will lose their lives and their fortunes. They also feel that if they leave the scene, chaos will reign. To the extent that they refuse to leave, they actually increase the opportunities for a breakdown of order because the people refuse to accept the dictators' edicts and escalate the level of violence to bring them down. In such an environment, the new popular leaders who are thrown up, are those who, like their predecessors, believe in the efficacy of violence and are most likely to resort to even more repressive methods of staying in power.
The scenario outlined above does not bode well for democrats. The longer such a situation persists, the greater the opportunities there are for anti-democrats to take over. A long period of violent eruptions in the state does not exactly enhance the prospects of democratic rule. This problem is exacerbated when there does not appear to be a mature and experienced political leadership in the country concerned.
If, like in Haiti, most of them have been murdered, the danger is always that those who emerge as leaders may not be of the quality that assures long-term peace and stability. The military may then fill the vacuum but the problem is that they are reluctant to leave, once they become entrenched in office. From experience, we know too that they are unable to create the conditions for a stable political framework.
There is a school of historical thought which believes that in the debilitating poverty of countries like Haiti, dictator ships can only survive and that no amount of popular pressures can remove these regimes provided they show resolution and firmness. That dictatorships have usually fallen when they show signs of accommodation with the people.
But it is the will, not the physical strength, of dictatorships that is undermined by the popular revolt and often paves the way for the often ill-fated attempts at accommodation. For once they are aroused and know the potential of their power, the people cannot be herded back into submission.
The dilemma of any dictatorial regime today is the dilemma of sustaining accountability, efficiency, growth and development in an environment which does not place much premium on these; and which draws its strength from flattery, an obsessive desire to cloak its activities in secrecy and in the primacy of the use of force. Therefore as the years pass, waste and inefficiency are erected into an art form. The years of abuse, neglect and consequent decline bring their natural consequences as witnessed by economic and political stagnation and then deterioration. These generate pressures the people can no longer sustain. Thus popular explosion and revolt and revolution. And freedom?
The scenario outlined above does not bode well for democrats. The longer such a situation persists, the greater the opportunities there are for anti-democrats to take over. A long period of violent eruptions in the state does not exactly enhance the prospects of democratic rule.
In the light of the above, what should democrats do? They should:
- Unite their efforts to use all available means to end the dictatorship.
- Place themselves in such a position that they will be able to assume leadership and direct the situation along a democratic course, should the dictatorship be brought down by popular pressure.
- Use every opportunity to educate and persuade the people on the strengths of the democratic system.
- Use their free time to find ways and means of not only preserving the frame- work but also how to encourage popular enthusiasm for it. For indifference and apathy have also contributed to the death of democracy.
But the oldest truth in politics is the one that teaches that power must be held by all and not a minority. Otherwise you will eventually have a mayhem. That is the real lesson of the current crisis in Haiti.
In my view, only a stable political framework provides the basis upon which a society can develop. A stable framework rests on these guiding rules:
- The people should freely choose their leaders by elections organised on a fair and regular basis.
- The rule of law should govern everybody
- There should be tolerance of differing thoughts, religion, and attitudes within the framework of the established law which should seek to guarantee these.
Finally for those Ghanaians who despair of the future of freedom in our country, the conclusion to be drawn from the present crisis in Haiti is that "no condition is permanent," and today's dictatorial rulers in Ghana will find that weapons and extensive security are of no consequence when the combination of economic and political malaise finally force Ghanaians to take action.
