Elections are a fundamental element of the democratic process. They require transparency,trust, accuracy and clarity. Haiti's political culture has almost left us confused as to the true importance and function of elections. Why do we have so much tension when we need to choose a new leader? Why are so many of our politicians afraid of elections ? why do our elections take place without any form of meaningful debate between candidates? These are the questions we will address in this first 2010 post of Caribbean Focus.
Why do we have so much tension when we need to choose a new leader?
I am a young man I don't wish to speak too much about the remote electoral history of Haiti, but the following recent years of election remain fresh in my mind as I began to get conscious of the situations that befall Haiti from its quest for a stable democracy. In 1988, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2004, 2006 we killed, we fought each other, we demonstrated violently throughout the country just to choose our president. In any democratic society, a leader must make his case to earn the trust of the people. In Haiti our politicians oppress the people, buy their trust under the canopy of extreme poverty, bribe electoral organizers for the top spot, instigate fear to force people to cast vote against their will, arm gangsters to disrupt electoral prospects , so we pervert every good process that would lead us to an established functioning state. As a result,Haiti is a fake democratic state where politicians and even the people pretend to be democratic. Democracy continues to elude us. I hope one day we will realize that all of us cannot be the president at the same time.
Why so many of our politicians are afraid of elections ?
Our politicians are numerous,we have a republic of political leaders. Every news cast is the announcement of a new political platform which has absolutely no base among the population, no political capital at all,but they can easily get the massively unemployed population of Haiti to demonstrate for the entire year as long as they have a truck with a few speaker boxes for the ambiance. To them, this is the test that they are legitimate and that they are ready to brag a presidential term. The problem is when they realize that the Haitian people has already chosen the leader even before any form of electoral campaign, everybody now starts pulling away from elections and they will give a million rationals why elections cannot take place. You know why?The answer is simple:they are afraid of the test of legitimacy.
An election is a test of legitimate positioning among the people,this is my definition, and most of our thousands of candidates never get even 0% of the national vote. This example was clear during the 2006 election. Many of our candidates stand absolutely no chance of becoming president of Haiti, they have no political or leadership mass ,they have no leadership flexibility, no sensitivity, even in times of extreme national disaster they want to keep the momentum of "dechoukage", all they care about is power by any means except good elections.
Why do our elections take place without any form of meaningful debate between candidates?
Let me start by saying that in this particular time in the History of the world, any elections conducted without a proper formal debate is meant to deceive the people. In Haiti our elections are based on high emotions and militancy nothing to do with competence , courage, vision, credibility and the list goes on... We all know that all these elements cannot necessarily be proven in a debate but it can reinforce the resilience of a candidate, it can place the people in a more conscious zone of decision, it can serve as an authentic means of positive differentiation of individual candidates. Furthermore, political debates also can serve as reference for the nations in their quest to be more attune to the concept of electing. A debate is also a great educational moment for the people and the candidates, it provides greater visibility to the future successes we so desperately need and the failures we encountered in the past. We must develop the culture of political debate in Haiti so that people can become familiar with our politicians under the microscope of our national or even the international media. I really don't see how democratic we can be if our elections continue to go as though they were a mere popularity contest or pageantry.
We must insist that in 2010 a strong debating agenda is put forward to the candidates ,we must bring them to the schools ,farming communities, slums ,everywhere not just to engage on a trip of political jargon, but to answer questions from the people, the media, from their fellow candidates and so forth. We cannot allow the meaning of our votes to be depleted by placing people in authority who cannot, by any means, carry out the responsibilities of manning our ship.Haiti is our legitimate ship. We need qualified captains to take us to destination.
We can avoid the extreme risks of crossing the ocean with fake captains that often leave us at the mercy of sharks or some foreign coast-guard.
This attitude has left us with a republic of NGOs, we cannot even fix a gully without the intervention of some foreign agency. This is unacceptable and we must fix it now. We must embrace the democratic principle for what it is and stop faking it. We must embrace integrity in leadership and also in our function as a nation to reject corruption in all its forms so that we may build Haiti as a model in this hemisphere. Haiti is meant to be a model of a free society not an epitome of poverty and despair as portrayed in the world media.
Louinel Jean
May 15th 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Jamaica and the Changing Global Economic Landscape
The cost of living in Jamaica is rising at breakneck speed and government has one solution for it, IMF. The number one solution for economic decay is productivity, it is absurd to try fix an economy or a third world economy with just more and more borrowing. The Jamaican people need to move away from the extravagance syndrome.
Every Jamaican wants to drive a 'Avalanche' while, in fact , the country has no backbone to support such life style. Jamaica lives too far beyond its means. In addition, we should want to know why Jamaica really needs an army, two airports or maybe a third one will soon be in construction? One thing I know, the Jamaican people is resilient and hard working, at least one section of the population.
There is, on the other hand, a 'Get Rich Quick' mentality that will make the country suffer enormously. Too many young men are just waiting to be the next super star while in reality stardom is one of the most fickle aspects of human destiny.
The other critical aspect that Jamaicans may need to take a hard look on is the judicial system. Lack of proper procedures and lack of result driven investigations as it relates to crime is a severe dark spot in daily life. Jamaica records over one thousand murders per year, and for the most part, approximately one hundred criminals tried. This is absolutely disturbing for the Island nation as this has the potential to affecting its economy further.
It may be easy to blame the current government based on the fact that "everything rises and falls on leadership." However, we cannot forget that this government is, in fact, just the 'new kids on the block' and those who ruled the country for nearly 20 years did very little to engage in real sustainable development. The politics of the past years are hurting Jamaica real hard and it does not seem that the leaders really understand the extent of the struggle that ordinary Jamaicans face.
I am not from Jamaica, but I am in many ways a Jamaican. I have lived here for nearly ten years, not as a passive alien but, as a fully engaged member of the Jamaican society. Hence I conclude that Jamaica needs a compelling voice to make its case to the institutions from which it wishes to borrow and legislate policies that will validate youth empowerment, thus put the nation to work.
May God help us overcome!
Written by Louinel Jean
Protected by Copyright. All rights reserved
Every Jamaican wants to drive a 'Avalanche' while, in fact , the country has no backbone to support such life style. Jamaica lives too far beyond its means. In addition, we should want to know why Jamaica really needs an army, two airports or maybe a third one will soon be in construction? One thing I know, the Jamaican people is resilient and hard working, at least one section of the population.
There is, on the other hand, a 'Get Rich Quick' mentality that will make the country suffer enormously. Too many young men are just waiting to be the next super star while in reality stardom is one of the most fickle aspects of human destiny.
The other critical aspect that Jamaicans may need to take a hard look on is the judicial system. Lack of proper procedures and lack of result driven investigations as it relates to crime is a severe dark spot in daily life. Jamaica records over one thousand murders per year, and for the most part, approximately one hundred criminals tried. This is absolutely disturbing for the Island nation as this has the potential to affecting its economy further.
It may be easy to blame the current government based on the fact that "everything rises and falls on leadership." However, we cannot forget that this government is, in fact, just the 'new kids on the block' and those who ruled the country for nearly 20 years did very little to engage in real sustainable development. The politics of the past years are hurting Jamaica real hard and it does not seem that the leaders really understand the extent of the struggle that ordinary Jamaicans face.
I am not from Jamaica, but I am in many ways a Jamaican. I have lived here for nearly ten years, not as a passive alien but, as a fully engaged member of the Jamaican society. Hence I conclude that Jamaica needs a compelling voice to make its case to the institutions from which it wishes to borrow and legislate policies that will validate youth empowerment, thus put the nation to work.
May God help us overcome!
Written by Louinel Jean
Protected by Copyright. All rights reserved
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Why does Haiti have twenty Ambassies?
Taken from a discussion on the Rene Preval Blog on the above topic. Purely argumentative!
Gents and Why Does Haiti Have 20 Ambassies?
Flo is gone.
As I agreed with what she said in the post that you are addressing, I will try to respond for her. I have neither the time nor the inclination to put details in my answer (that was Flo’s specialty), but I will give you a broad idea of why I do think that she is right.
First let me respond to what I thought were Louinel Jean’s very interesting, yet problematic statements.
Louinel argued “the worst thing a poor country could do is to isolate itself from other nations” and “Isolation breeds poverty.” The problem with the first statement is that Louinel might have a very good point, but it is based on a misread of Flo’s statement.
Nowhere in her statement does she say or even imply that Haiti should become an isolationist nation.
She only questions the need for our small and very poor nation to have so many ambassadors, seemingly in many places that might have no real benefit to us. Thoroughly analyzing a person’s statement before answering helps the flow of a discussion, reduces fiction, and promotes collaborative efforts.
I am sometimes just as guilty as Louinel of not thoroughly reading a post, but I try to make up for it by offering a denial statement ahead of time, as I did with Flo and Djakut the last time they posted something that worried me. Sometimes I’ll say something like “I’m sorry if I misunderstood your argument, but here’s what I understood from what I read so far.” That kind of statement tends to keep the peace.The second more interesting argument made by Louinel is “isolation breeds poverty.” I simply disagree with this one, primarily because the evidence does not support it. Although neither Flo’s statement or my supporting statement said anything about isolation, the fact is that isolation can breed social stability and economic progress.
Isolation was good for Japanese economic stability and national solidarity.
It is during the period of isolation that the Japanese merchants developed a new national credit system that allowed them to become--by any standard--very wealthy.
It is also during the isolation period that independent farms and farming multiplied in Japan, which then led to the strong development of cash crops like cotton and tobacco that are now at the root of modern Japanese agriculture.
Today’s Japanese economy yields one of the world highest rice crops.
Another benefit of social isolation is that the national culture is protected.
As I stated many times on this blog, in my opinion a nation loosing its culture and national identity is worst off than a nation that’s poor (short version).
It is during Japan’s period of isolation that the Japanese samurai sword was perfected.
During this period, the Japanese use to promote the use of firearms in combat as something that is to be reviled.
It then became dishonorable to use firearms in any form of combat.
Rejecting the use of European types of firearms as cowardly and un-Japanese, the use of traditional weapons were encouraged; resulting in the Japanese Samurai sword becoming the best and most sought after sword in the world today.
Even after it opened itself to the international community, Japan still maintained a relatively secluded society.
You can get most of this info on the web, but historian Yuji Ichioka wrote a fairly good book about it.We also know that the Chinese were also basically isolated with all sorts of trade embargos against them, especially after the fall of Russia.
Look where they are today! Cuba is another example of (relative) isolationist success.
They are not as far as they could be, but even with the Giant (US) breathing down their neck constantly, they are still far better of than we have been in years.
It is not that I think that isolationism is a good thing, nor do I think that that was what Flo meant to say.
It is simply that perhaps we are a bit more realistic about the situation than you. Most people who know our history would understand the value of Flo’s question, and not be obfuscated by it.
Realistically:1. We all know that most of these ambassadors are doing nothing for Haiti--nothing at all.2. We all know that no real strategy or plan of action or real training was given to them, making their presence in those other nations futile.3. We all know that most of these ambassadors are just people who knew people who knew people.4. We all know that no serious research was done to determine where to place these ambassadors so that they could really be useful to our nation.5. We all know that for every two ambassadors who might actually care about making a difference for the country, there are five who are now living it up at the expense of the Haitian people.6. We all know that right now Haiti has developed nothing to trade.
No surplus of anything.
I am sure that a carefully thinking person could find better use for the little money we have.
You don’t rebuild a nation by running around with your little cup. You start by redeveloping the national structure and infrastructure, and by creating ways for your population to create trade goods…What exactly are even the good ambassadors doing? Are they again discussing how we are not self-sufficient and need help? Are they again passing our little tin cups? What has happened to our pride and dignity.
In my very humble opinion (maybe it’s the way I was raised) if you have nothing to offer, you stay in your corner and build on the little you have.
You only make contact with the most crucial outside elements—at least until you have something to offer.
I think that’s where I was going with this, and maybe so was Flo. I could probably go one to explain this further, but I don’t really want to. Sorry Jean-benito Mercier; I'll try to get to yours tomorrow.
Reply to: Msg 5215 Posted by Linda on 12/16/07 10:29 AM in respond to Louinel's argument on International relations.
Gents and Why Does Haiti Have 20 Ambassies?
Flo is gone.
As I agreed with what she said in the post that you are addressing, I will try to respond for her. I have neither the time nor the inclination to put details in my answer (that was Flo’s specialty), but I will give you a broad idea of why I do think that she is right.
First let me respond to what I thought were Louinel Jean’s very interesting, yet problematic statements.
Louinel argued “the worst thing a poor country could do is to isolate itself from other nations” and “Isolation breeds poverty.” The problem with the first statement is that Louinel might have a very good point, but it is based on a misread of Flo’s statement.
Nowhere in her statement does she say or even imply that Haiti should become an isolationist nation.
She only questions the need for our small and very poor nation to have so many ambassadors, seemingly in many places that might have no real benefit to us. Thoroughly analyzing a person’s statement before answering helps the flow of a discussion, reduces fiction, and promotes collaborative efforts.
I am sometimes just as guilty as Louinel of not thoroughly reading a post, but I try to make up for it by offering a denial statement ahead of time, as I did with Flo and Djakut the last time they posted something that worried me. Sometimes I’ll say something like “I’m sorry if I misunderstood your argument, but here’s what I understood from what I read so far.” That kind of statement tends to keep the peace.The second more interesting argument made by Louinel is “isolation breeds poverty.” I simply disagree with this one, primarily because the evidence does not support it. Although neither Flo’s statement or my supporting statement said anything about isolation, the fact is that isolation can breed social stability and economic progress.
Isolation was good for Japanese economic stability and national solidarity.
It is during the period of isolation that the Japanese merchants developed a new national credit system that allowed them to become--by any standard--very wealthy.
It is also during the isolation period that independent farms and farming multiplied in Japan, which then led to the strong development of cash crops like cotton and tobacco that are now at the root of modern Japanese agriculture.
Today’s Japanese economy yields one of the world highest rice crops.
Another benefit of social isolation is that the national culture is protected.
As I stated many times on this blog, in my opinion a nation loosing its culture and national identity is worst off than a nation that’s poor (short version).
It is during Japan’s period of isolation that the Japanese samurai sword was perfected.
During this period, the Japanese use to promote the use of firearms in combat as something that is to be reviled.
It then became dishonorable to use firearms in any form of combat.
Rejecting the use of European types of firearms as cowardly and un-Japanese, the use of traditional weapons were encouraged; resulting in the Japanese Samurai sword becoming the best and most sought after sword in the world today.
Even after it opened itself to the international community, Japan still maintained a relatively secluded society.
You can get most of this info on the web, but historian Yuji Ichioka wrote a fairly good book about it.We also know that the Chinese were also basically isolated with all sorts of trade embargos against them, especially after the fall of Russia.
Look where they are today! Cuba is another example of (relative) isolationist success.
They are not as far as they could be, but even with the Giant (US) breathing down their neck constantly, they are still far better of than we have been in years.
It is not that I think that isolationism is a good thing, nor do I think that that was what Flo meant to say.
It is simply that perhaps we are a bit more realistic about the situation than you. Most people who know our history would understand the value of Flo’s question, and not be obfuscated by it.
Realistically:1. We all know that most of these ambassadors are doing nothing for Haiti--nothing at all.2. We all know that no real strategy or plan of action or real training was given to them, making their presence in those other nations futile.3. We all know that most of these ambassadors are just people who knew people who knew people.4. We all know that no serious research was done to determine where to place these ambassadors so that they could really be useful to our nation.5. We all know that for every two ambassadors who might actually care about making a difference for the country, there are five who are now living it up at the expense of the Haitian people.6. We all know that right now Haiti has developed nothing to trade.
No surplus of anything.
I am sure that a carefully thinking person could find better use for the little money we have.
You don’t rebuild a nation by running around with your little cup. You start by redeveloping the national structure and infrastructure, and by creating ways for your population to create trade goods…What exactly are even the good ambassadors doing? Are they again discussing how we are not self-sufficient and need help? Are they again passing our little tin cups? What has happened to our pride and dignity.
In my very humble opinion (maybe it’s the way I was raised) if you have nothing to offer, you stay in your corner and build on the little you have.
You only make contact with the most crucial outside elements—at least until you have something to offer.
I think that’s where I was going with this, and maybe so was Flo. I could probably go one to explain this further, but I don’t really want to. Sorry Jean-benito Mercier; I'll try to get to yours tomorrow.
Reply to: Msg 5215 Posted by Linda on 12/16/07 10:29 AM in respond to Louinel's argument on International relations.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
South Africa- Hmmm!
Truly, in the Caribbean, we are in shock to see the level of violence that South Africans wage against their neighbors. We are really saddened by the death of over fifty persons from neighboring countries; they died because they were immigrants, not for any crime against South Africa. They are killed because they were searching for life in a place they thought was better than their own. But the people of South Africa told them that to remain there could mean the most humiliating insults and death. We have heard of people being killed and thrown into fire. This is quite symbolic; it means that this place that those immigrants considered their heaven was in fact their hell.
After apartheid South Africa has been considered a symbol of peace and prosperity in the continent, but the latest waves of violence against foreign nationals raise the question of whether or not the south still holds its moral bearings on issues of human rights and social justice, not withstanding globalization which promotes the movement of professionals across borders. What makes the situation more alarmant is that the government of President Mbeki did very little to ensure the safety of those who took refuge under their wings. Now South Africa must be very careful that it does not fall under the same category as to what happened to the Jews under Adolph Hitler. The South African government should have confronted xenophobic violence with the same firmness that it would deploy if the country were attacked by a foreign army.
South Africa reveals itself a weak state, so weak that one should ask if it will be safe enough to host the world for the World Cup in 2010. If you are killing foreigners, how do you expect to host the world for such a big event as the World Cup? What makes those foreigners that you are killing less deserving of your protection? How comfortable will you want the world to be when they invade your hotels during the event? These are among others the questions that the South African government should answer.
Really, the world media must be swift to question the ability of the South African government’s to put certain level of lawlessness under control. In case of violence during the World Cup how long will you take before you act against it? It is really disturbing to many people in the Caribbean who wish to know why nothing concrete was done to stop the xenophobic violence that was waged against immigrants who simply wished they were asked to leave.
South Africa! South Africa! South Africa! Don’t forget the history and the reality that you represent to Africans and to the world! You are a land of inspiration, a land of forgiveness and grace, a land of love and reconciliation.
So when we see you kill 56 immigrants for the mere fact of their status we wonder what has happened to your deep sense of decency and pride. We want to question whether or not you are going to bow to the infamous culture of war and death that has plagued the mother land for many decades.
South Africans, you are strong don’t give in to the weakness of wickedness!
After apartheid South Africa has been considered a symbol of peace and prosperity in the continent, but the latest waves of violence against foreign nationals raise the question of whether or not the south still holds its moral bearings on issues of human rights and social justice, not withstanding globalization which promotes the movement of professionals across borders. What makes the situation more alarmant is that the government of President Mbeki did very little to ensure the safety of those who took refuge under their wings. Now South Africa must be very careful that it does not fall under the same category as to what happened to the Jews under Adolph Hitler. The South African government should have confronted xenophobic violence with the same firmness that it would deploy if the country were attacked by a foreign army.
South Africa reveals itself a weak state, so weak that one should ask if it will be safe enough to host the world for the World Cup in 2010. If you are killing foreigners, how do you expect to host the world for such a big event as the World Cup? What makes those foreigners that you are killing less deserving of your protection? How comfortable will you want the world to be when they invade your hotels during the event? These are among others the questions that the South African government should answer.
Really, the world media must be swift to question the ability of the South African government’s to put certain level of lawlessness under control. In case of violence during the World Cup how long will you take before you act against it? It is really disturbing to many people in the Caribbean who wish to know why nothing concrete was done to stop the xenophobic violence that was waged against immigrants who simply wished they were asked to leave.
South Africa! South Africa! South Africa! Don’t forget the history and the reality that you represent to Africans and to the world! You are a land of inspiration, a land of forgiveness and grace, a land of love and reconciliation.
So when we see you kill 56 immigrants for the mere fact of their status we wonder what has happened to your deep sense of decency and pride. We want to question whether or not you are going to bow to the infamous culture of war and death that has plagued the mother land for many decades.
South Africans, you are strong don’t give in to the weakness of wickedness!
Saturday, May 10, 2008
DARFUR :WILL,WAR,WHEN
Looking at this title on a blog from the Caribbean may trigger an interrogation; what does Darfur have to do with Caribbean issues? Darfur's distance and our lack of media coverage of the prevailing conditions (hunger, rape, and murder) may serve to validate our decision to cast a 'blind eye' on this genocide. Yes, I said genocide; the argument about whether or not it has reached this point is incredible. A recent report by the BBC states that the total number of murders now stands at approximately 300,000 people, not withstanding over 20,000 reported cases of rape and children reduced to their skeletal structure before crumbling to dust while war lords and their legions wrestle for power. This is GENOCIDE!
I could not continue to write about Haiti and other concerns of the Caribbean while our brothers and sisters are living under the threat of extinction. It has been said that 'a nation never dies' but when we consider a situation as the one described above, death is a daily prescription for the nation of Darfur; and this, at the conscious negligence of the most powerful nations on the planet.
Now, we must address the issue of WILL as it happens to be the motivating factor for change. We know without a doubt, that it is the will of the people of Darfur to live and dream, to labor and harvest, to raise their children in an environment of peace, justice and hope. But we are not quite sure whether it is the will of those who have the power, to help trigger the radical changes that are so desperately needed. We see a lack of will because it is not a lack of resource or capacity to bring about a new day for the people and send a clear message that the civilian people of Darfur are precious to the Human family and that the have the right to life. That oppression and misery in one part of our planet is a global threat that we should tackle with decisive action now and always. Let us not reinvent another Rwanda. If the rich nations could unite to fight a senseless war in Iraq, and with all the necessary resource that could be, why is it okay for this genocide to remain in Darfur? And what is the rational for remaining so passive towards it? These are questions that must be answered if we are going to really make poverty and extremism history.
The last question is when? When is the world’s going to see policies that mean real change to their conditions. There are steps that have been taken to find alternative energy such the cultivation of corn for fuel. But why was such decision taken without regard to the survival of the majority of the world’s population that lives on less then $5 a day. Now the world faces a food crisis that announces itself to be deadly. What is going on is world preparing itself for a global catastrophe or famine? What will happen to people in crisis such as those in Darfur, Iraq and many more? It is time create change, but first to scrutinize global leadership and see how they match with the principles of democracy, human right and Justice. We need to act with a sense of urgency because the need of the people of Darfur is urgent.
I could not continue to write about Haiti and other concerns of the Caribbean while our brothers and sisters are living under the threat of extinction. It has been said that 'a nation never dies' but when we consider a situation as the one described above, death is a daily prescription for the nation of Darfur; and this, at the conscious negligence of the most powerful nations on the planet.
Now, we must address the issue of WILL as it happens to be the motivating factor for change. We know without a doubt, that it is the will of the people of Darfur to live and dream, to labor and harvest, to raise their children in an environment of peace, justice and hope. But we are not quite sure whether it is the will of those who have the power, to help trigger the radical changes that are so desperately needed. We see a lack of will because it is not a lack of resource or capacity to bring about a new day for the people and send a clear message that the civilian people of Darfur are precious to the Human family and that the have the right to life. That oppression and misery in one part of our planet is a global threat that we should tackle with decisive action now and always. Let us not reinvent another Rwanda. If the rich nations could unite to fight a senseless war in Iraq, and with all the necessary resource that could be, why is it okay for this genocide to remain in Darfur? And what is the rational for remaining so passive towards it? These are questions that must be answered if we are going to really make poverty and extremism history.
The last question is when? When is the world’s going to see policies that mean real change to their conditions. There are steps that have been taken to find alternative energy such the cultivation of corn for fuel. But why was such decision taken without regard to the survival of the majority of the world’s population that lives on less then $5 a day. Now the world faces a food crisis that announces itself to be deadly. What is going on is world preparing itself for a global catastrophe or famine? What will happen to people in crisis such as those in Darfur, Iraq and many more? It is time create change, but first to scrutinize global leadership and see how they match with the principles of democracy, human right and Justice. We need to act with a sense of urgency because the need of the people of Darfur is urgent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
