The events in Haiti have a serendipitous connection with a problem I have been thinking about for a little while. The immediate issue in Haiti is the removal of the elected President by a group of opponents including both political organizations and Duvalists and thugs. The immediate discussions revolve around whether Aristide was forced out by the United States, whether the elections since 2000 were free and fair, whether the economy was sabotaged by international aid embargo or that embargo was a proper response to corruption and illegality. Sometimes there is a little attention to the prior history, the Duvalier family and its overthrow, up to Aristide’s return to the Presidency. Along the way there is a funny transformation of arguments and sides. Some on the right are sure in the argument that a corrupt government should not be protected, and flawed elections should not deter. That the opposition is riddled with murderers and others no one can trust is not to the point so long as there are legitimate political opponents intermixed. This sounds in certain respects like an argument from the left twenty years ago. Some on the left argue that Aristide’s election settles things until the next election. Any failures of government should be handled through ordinary political means. In any event, an opposition associated with death squads is not an opposition to be countenanced. And that sounds a bit like an argument from the right twenty years. Move the discussion back and replace Haiti with El Salvador or Honduras, and the echoes are a bit discomfiting. But that is the introduction, not the issue I am trying to get grasp of.
Would it matter if Aristide had been fairly and freely elected? Letelier poses this for us as well, and as one drifts along in history, a number of leaders in the Middle East and Africa present themselves as case studies. It is all very well to allow for Aristide’s removal as a bad leader and head of a disastrous government (assuming he was), but the arguments are not persuasive if dishonest. By dishonest I mean that they do not move to action those advancing them. Lay out the case for removing Aristide, and if it commands action elsewhere, then advocate and act there as well. For some, no doubt, there is consistency. But for most it seems to me there is none. Or, more directly, how could those arguments lead to acceptance of an alliance with the likes of Guy Phillipe?
Anyway, what difference does an election make?
Comments