[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

26330: Hyppolite Pierre Re: Haiti and else (fwd)




From: Hyppolite Pierre <hpierre@irsp.org>

I must first apologize to a reader on the list who emailed me some information about the pending La Scierie trial, after that person had read the post. Although the communication between us was off-list, I think it's important for me to simply say to him "I'm sorry", publicly, for my line of rationale at the time was incompatible with his effort at making me comprehend what was going on. As I emailed him the following day on this very issue, I hope he accepts my apology. There ws no rational need for my outburst. Now to the issue at hand. I think it's important to apologize also because he had made clear that the La Scierie trial will be one without jury. Nonetheless, it's important for that trial to be as transparent as possible so any perception, of unfairness or overzealousness, can evaporate or be confirmed (if indeed we're dealing with a political witch hunt, as suspected). There is also a larger issue at play with this case. RNDDH had lobbied extensively the curent executive branch. The executive in return, pressured the judicial branch to have a "La Scierie trial" which by all account was not their initial intention. They thought there was no case against the detainees. This shows that indeed, RNDDH does have overwhelming power leverage on the current government, and by extension from this perspective, Haiti's judicial system. But here is where the danger is greatest, I think. Perhaps they have not even thought this issue through, to analyze the consequences. Nevertheless this interest group, RNDDH, is helping maintain an autocratic system in Haiti. Here's how. What they had succeeded to do was to pressure one branch of government (traditionally the only relevant governmental and powerful branch: the exceutive through the Ministry of Justice) to force another branch (the Judiciary) to do things that reportedly the latter didn't think was appropriate. In other words, they are helping to maintain a system which they had rightfully decried yesterday as autocratic, when the government in power was, as evidenced through this case for instance, not of their liking. If tomorrow, or even in 10 years, a left-leaning group wins elections and controls the executive branch, how would or will RNDDH be able to decry it once more as autocratic when they are in deeds, helping perpetuate a political system that had only done harm (economic and otherwise) to an entire nation and people? We habe to think and act differently from tradition, if the ultimate goal is truly the development of Haiti and the effective structuring of the country's democratic process. Such politics by an interest group, if it was pursued by say "Fondation 30 Septembre" a formerly close ally of the previous government which equally pretended to defend human rights exclusively, many if not most among us would have thought of it as wrong because of the consequences. It is important and even necessary for interest groups of all kinds, from all political persuasions to have structured and codified access to the primary branches of government (exec., leg., and jud.). However, when in as weak a country as Haiti, there is a built-up perception and reality that some group has overwhelming influence on the political system even to the detriment of good working government, that creates the same traditional problem. Haiti has already a problem with a too-powerful branch of government, the executive branch. This case actually typifies it. Again, this is not about RNDDH per se but perhaps one would say, per quod. That, to me at least, is the crux of the issue. It has to do with the perhaps unintended consequences of this whole affair on the running of good government. In any case, I still hope and pray that a trial will take place in the most transparent of ways, and that justice will be done to those who stand accused and to all victims. Best regards,
Hyppolite Pierre