Building ‘low‐intensity’ democracy in Haiti: the oas contribution

Abstract

This article explores the phenomenon of democracy assistance by examining Organization of American States (oas) efforts to restore and promote democracy in Haiti between 1990 and 2000. The case study reveals that marked contradictions emerged as the organisation tried to promote a democratic outcome while both supporting and facilitating the workings of a profoundly undemocratic economic and trading system. Because the oas has proclaimed its commitment to advancing democracy as well as its support for economic and trade liberalisation, privatisation of national industries, and a deeper insertion of the region's economies into global markets, it provides an excellent vantage point from which to explore this form of political intervention. The article concludes by reflecting on the recent fall of the country's ill‐fated president, Jean‐Bertrand Aristide and, in keeping with the theme of this piece, it examines the role of the oas and other international actors in shaping events leading up to the collapse of his government.

Notes

Yasmine Shamsie is in the Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5, Canada

Robert Fatton Jr, Haiti's Predatory Republic: The Unending Transition to Democracy, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002.

Some would argue that Haiti is exceptional since the country lacks even the most rudimentary conditions for democratic development and therefore does not provide a good case study of democracy promotion. I would argue, however, that the conditions in Haiti are similar to those of an increasing number of weak, failing and failed states (states unable to provide for the needs of their citizens). Therefore, a detailed study of the Haitian case could allow us to better understand democratic development work in an increasingly large number of states. Moreover, the less than propitious conditions for democracy have not prevented outside actors from carrying out democratic development work in these countries, thus underscoring the need to understand and analyse these interventions. Lastly, academic work on democratisation has tended to privilege those countries perceived as having the necessary conditions for democracy, leaving a gap in the research and literature on democracy promotion, which this study hopes to address.

Thomas Carothers makes this observation in his work Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999. Carothers is one of the most prolific writers on democracy assistance. His work focuses on practical questions related to aid application. See in particular his evaluations of usaid's democratic development work, In the Name of Democracy: US Policy Toward Latin America in the Reagan Years, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1991; ‘The Reagan years: the 1980s’, in Abraham F Lowenthal (ed), Exporting Democracy: The United States and Latin America, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991; and Assessing Democracy Assistance: The Case of Romania, Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment Books, 1996. Other important works which focus on the role of external actors in promoting democracy include P Burnell (ed), Democracy Assistance. International Co‐operation for Democratization, London: Frank Cass, 2001; Mark Malloch Brown, ‘Democratic governance: toward a framework for sustainable peace’, Global Governance, 9 (2), 2003, pp 144–146; Charles T Call & Susan E Cook, ‘On democratization and peacebuilding’, Global Governance, 9 (2), 2003, pp 233–246; Michael Cox, G John Ikenberry & Takashi Inoguchi (eds), Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; Anita Isaacs, ‘International assistance for democracy: a cautionary tale’, in Jorge I Domínguez (ed), The Future of Inter‐American Relations, New York: Routledge, 2000; Abraham Lowenthal (ed), Exporting Democracy: The United States and Latin America, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991; Marina Ottaway & Theresa Chung, ‘Debating democracy assistance: toward a new paradigm’, Journal of Democracy, 10 (4), 1999, pp 99–113; and Marina Ottaway, Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2000.

Neoliberalism refers to a body of thought and an economic project which is directed at increasing and assuring the mobility of capital on a global scale. Consequently, neoliberal restructuring aims at eliminating barriers to trade, ensuring macroeconomic stability and the harmonising fiscal and monetary policies since these are essential to increased transnational capital investment.

See the work of Barry J Gills, J Rocamora & Richard Wilson, Low Intensity Democracy, London: Pluto Press, 1993; and William I Robinson's densely rich study of US democracy promotion aid, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, from which I drew both inspiration and research material. Robinson's work is both formidable and impressive. In sum, he suggests that the US drive to promote democracy world‐wide represents a dual objective on the part of Washington: an attempt to prevent more radical forms of democracy from taking hold in transition countries as well as a means of advancing American economic interests in those societies. Moreover, he astutely notes that the ability to control the definition of democracy is extremely important given its overwhelming resonance with ordinary people, regardless of their social or political stripes.

The fieldwork for this paper was carried between 1997 and 1999. I conducted interviews at oas headquarters in Washington in both April 1998 and September 1999, and travelled to Haiti on two separate occasions: from September 1996 to May 1997, and from December 1997 to March 1998. During my stay in the country, I spent time in cities and towns throughout the country, particularly where observers from the UN/oas International Mission in Haiti (micivih) were stationed (Jacmel, Gonaïves, St Marc and Les Cayes).

The Unit for the Promotion of Democracy was established in 1990, The ‘Commitment of Santiago to Democracy and Renewal of the Inter‐American System’ and Resolution 1080, entitled ‘Representative Democracy’ were crucial to helping manage crises in Haiti (1991), Peru (1992), Guatemala (1993) and Paraguay (1996). Also, the 1992 Protocol of Washington took effect in September 1997, following ratification by two‐thirds of its signatories. The Inter‐American Democratic Charter was adopted in Lima, Peru, on 11 September 2001. The oas applied the newly created Inter‐American Democratic Charter for the first time during the April 2002 political crisis in Venezuela.

Gills et al, Low Intensity Democracy.

For a full discussion of this phenomenon, see Robert Cox, ‘New policy directions for the state’, in D Drache & M Gertler (eds), The New Era of Global Competition: State Policy and Market Power, Montreal: McGill‐Queens University Press, 1991, pp 338–339.

Brendan Martin, New Leaf or Fig Leaf? The Challenge of the New Washington Consensus, London: Bretton Woods Project and Public Services International, 2000.

Ibid, p 2.

Of course, one must also be mindful of the specificity of the Haitian case. The oppressive socioeconomic conditions and the tragically long legacy of authoritarian rule provide particularly hostile conditions for any and all democratic development efforts.

Isaacs, ‘International assistance for democracy’, pp 278–279.

Adam Pzreworski, ‘The neoliberal fallacy’, Journal of Democracy, 3 (3), 1992, p 56.

More than US$100 million was withheld by the imf and the World Bank and $4.6 million by usaid. Given that the country's entire budget was only $350 million, this sum represented a substantial loss in revenue.

Andrew Reding, ‘Haiti: an agenda for democracy’, a special report prepared by the North America Project of the World Policy Institute, World Policy Paper, February 1996, p 223.

The imf, in collaboration with the World Bank and Haiti's Ministry of Finance, was very specific in its instructions to the Haitian government regarding credit. While the state was allowed to establish policies enabling others to raise credit funds, the government was instructed not to provide funds for agricultural research, extension and productive credit to the poor. See Lisa McGowan, Democracy Undermined, Economic Justice Denied: Structural Adjustment and the Aid Juggernaut in Haiti, Washington, DC: The Development Gap, 1997, p 19.

To be sure, the idb and other donors supported the strengthening of tax enforcement among wealthy Haitians. But even this policy would not assist poor Haitians if the tax code continued to be regressive in nature. McGowan, Democracy Undermined, p 14.

Interview with Chenet Jean‐Baptiste, Secretary General, Platform of Haitian Human Rights Organisations, Port‐au‐Prince, 16 February 1998.

David B Moore, ‘Development discourse as hegemony: towards an ideological history—1945–1995’, in David B Moore & Gerald Schmitz (eds), Debating Development Discourse: Institutional and Popular Perspectives, New York: St Martin's Press, 1995.

Wendy Hunter, ‘International financial institutions: changing perspectives and policy prescriptions’, in Dominguez, The Future of Inter‐American Relations, p 124.

Gerald J Schmitz, ‘Democratization and demystification: deconstructing “governance” as development paradigm’, in Moore & Schmitz, Debating Development Discourse, p 77 (emphasis in original).

National Coalition for Haitian Refugees (nchr), No Greater Priority: Judicial Reform in Haiti, New York: nchr, 1995. The Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (fraph) was a militant right‐wing militia that targeted Aristide strongholds, such as Cité Soleil, Port‐au‐Prince's largest slum, in an effort to decimate all opposition to the military regime. Early statements by US officials had referred to the group as a legitimate opposition party. It was later reported that Washington had a hand in its creation.

Suzy Castor, ‘Democracy and society in Haiti: structures of domination and resistance to change’, in Suzanne Jonas & Edward McCaughan (eds), Latin America Faces the Twentieth Century, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994, p 163.

Ibid, p 159.

Isaacs, “International assistance for democracy', p 272.

While the focus here is on oas work in the area of justice reform, it is important to note that the US government had the central role in Haiti's justice reform process. French‐speaking countries familiar with the Napoleonic Code on which Haitian law is based played a minor role.

Cited in Haiti Info, 5 (2), 14 December 1996, p 3.

Ian Martin, ‘Paper versus steel: the first phase of the International Civilian Mission in Haiti’, in Martin, Honoring Human Rights and Keeping the Peace, publisher unknown, nd, p 114.

Interview with Camille Chalmers, Executive Secretary of the papda, 8 October 1996.

Juan E Méndez, ‘Accountability for past abuses’, Human Rights Quarterly, 19, 1997, p 258.

Michel‐Rolph Trouillot, Haiti: State Against Nation: The Origins and Legacies of Duvalierism, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1990.

Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy.

Robert E Maguire et al, Haiti Held Hostage: International Responses to the Quest for Nationhood 1986 to 1996, Occasional Paper No 23, Providence, RI: Thomas J Watson Jr Institute for International Studies, 1996, p 13.

Ibid, p 27.

The largest US democracy aid effort in Latin America has been in Haiti. After the 1994 US‐led military intervention, Washington devoted more than US$100 million in democracy aid to the country over the five years that followed. Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad, p 43.

Castor, ‘Democracy and society in Haiti’.

See Trouillot, Haiti: State against Nation. Trouillot's works (1980, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995) are widely believed to be some of the most insightful and authoritative analyses of Haitian history and politics. See R Fatton, Haiti's Predatory Republic, 2002.

Sydney Mintz, ‘Can Haiti change?’, Foreign Affairs, 74 (1), 1995, p 86.

See Amnesty International, Abuse of Human Rights: Political Violence as the 200th Anniversary of Independence approaches (8 October 2003), AMR 36/007/2003; iachr, Report on the Situation of the Freedom of Expression in Haiti, OEA. Ser L/ V/ II.117, Doc. 48, 15 July 2003; Amy Wilentz, ‘Coup in Haiti’, The Nation, 4 March 2004, at http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040322&s=wilentz, accessed 16 March 2004; Greg Chamberlain, ‘Haiti bleeds on an altar of savior politics’, Los Angeles Times, 27 February 2004; and Robert Fatton Jr, ‘For Haiti, 200 years of mixed results’, New York Times, 4 January 2004, Section 4, p 7.

Wilentz, ‘Coup in Haiti’.

Sydney Mintz, Caribbean Transformations, New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p 267.

Daniel Erickson, ‘The Haiti dilemma’, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10 (2), 2004, p 293.

Haitian Platform to Advocate for an Alternative Development (papda) press release, 24 January 2004, at http://haitisupport.gn.apc.org/PAPDAstatement.htm, accessed 10 April 2004.

Robert Pastor, ‘A community of democracies in the Americas: the agonizing journey to instill substance into a wondrous phrase’, paper presented at the conference on ‘The Inter‐American Democratic Charter: Challenges and Opportunities’, University of British Columbia, 12–13 November 2002.

undp, Democracy in Latin America: Towards a Citizens' Democracy, available online at undp.org.

Roberto Marchado & D Robert, ‘Haiti: situation économique et perspectives’, Inter‐American Development Bank, Economic evaluation of Haiti 2001, cited in Paul Farmer, ‘Haiti: short and bitter lives’, Le Monde Diplomatique, July 2003, at http://mondediplo.com/2003/07/11farmer?var_recherché=Haiti, accessed 16 February 2004.

‘No help for Haiti’ (Editorial), Washington Post, 19 February 2004, p A22.

Maxwell Cameron, ‘We’re failing elected leaders', Globe and Mail, 9 March 2004, at www.theglobeand mail.com/servlet/Articlenews/Tprint/LAC20040309.

undp, Democracy in Latin America.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Yasmine Shamsie

Yasmine Shamsie is in the Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5, Canada