The future of democracy in doubt

It is a known fact that any political or economic system has a natural life span. As such, economic liberalism, widely considered the best socio-economic system ever devised by humans by its proponents, cannot escape that time-honored reality. Moreover, the strength of its appeal (consent of the governed) and the benefits associated with it (economic prosperity) lead many to believe in its infallibility and that no other alternative political system could pose a serious challenge to its existence, a dubious rationale that needs to be revisited in light of the current global economic downturn. Indeed the writing is on the wall, but its supporters remain oblivious to it. Generally, political-economic systems crumble because of their failure to meet the expectations of their citizenry. For example, Soviet communism fell apart not because of moral deficiencies or a fatal blow from its nemesis (western capitalism) but its apparent failure to produce the expected result: an egalitarian and prosperous society free of the worst human excesses.
Apparently, only a few western policy makers see the symbiotic relationship between meeting the people’s expectations and the success or failure of an economic system. The reason may the divergent ideological structure of communism and capitalism (one relying on the omnipotence of the state and the other on the ability of the individual), even though the purpose of government is fundamentally the same: meeting the citizenry’s expectations. Fittingly, the current global economic failure not only exposes economic liberalism’s flaws but could well bring its demise and by extension the retreat of democracy in many countries since the path of least resistance to needed reforms has always been repression. We are inevitably heading toward fascism with a human face, whereas the framework of democracy will continue to exist with the state determining its application to a greater purpose: aggrandizement of its power.
As the ascent of China as an economic superpower attests, economic prosperity is based on manufacturing not outsourcing and other financial gimmicks that constitute the mainstay of economic liberalism. With banks lending money to entities or individuals and then betting on their clients’ inability to repay the loans, one is left with the impression the system is running out of options. Moreover, the safety net against social grievances (welfare state) in place in Europe and the U.S is in danger of collapsing because of the deteriorating economic conditions that require painful and politically unpleasant adjustments.
It is this palpable fact that leads Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Trade Union Commission President to issue a warning two weeks ago that countries such as Portugal, Greece and Spain run the risk of falling victims to military coups and popular uprisings. Is this the cry of an alarmist or the reasoning of a wise man? The story does not end there. Britain, France, Italy and, to a lesser extent, Germany are swamping under mountains of debts, low growth and mounting social pressures such as ageing population, low birthrate and the perennial immigration issue, which in the eyes of many, is threatening the ethnic and cultural fabric of these nations. Granted the situation is nowhere near the dark years of the 1930s that facilitated the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany and subsequently WWII, but the similarity should not be discounted on the account of economic liberalism being the best anchor against totalitarianism. After all, one needs only to remember that it was actually the war that saved the democracies, as Germany’s economic model in the 1930s was openly admired in Britain, France and the U.S because it provided stability and prosperity, the twin pillars of any economic system.
More worrisome is the fate of the U.S economy whose debt ratio this year of 13.6 trillion is 93% to its gross domestic product (GDP) of 14 trillion of dollars, according to a Treasury Department report to Congress. While no one expects a Greece-type scenario in regard to the U.S debt, as long as the dollar remains the main global currency, its negative effect on investments, the engine of growth, is clearly a drag on the prospect of a global recovery. Even Japan, the world’s second largest economy, once lauded for its high saving rate, is staggering under the weight of debts and anemic growth. Naoto Kan, who became the fifth Japanese prime minister in less than four years, cautioned his countrymen on the magnitude of the problem and made it clear that urgent reforms are needed to prevent a catastrophe.
With the developed world sucking up every available dollar and euro to finance their astronomical debt, it is not hard to imagine the reverberations in the underdeveloped nations. The relevant question is: will the developed countries agree to a restructuration of the system, which requires painful sacrifices or continue to bet on its infallibility? This is not the biblical Joseph interpreting the dream of the Pharaoh of Egypt. The writing is on the wall for everyone to see, except that western policy makers, confident of the infallibility of economic liberalism, consider these latest developments cyclical adjustments. They need to remember that economic power is the mainstay of the West’s political power and the surest way to military confrontations with ascending nations, like China and India, is economic dysfunction at home. With China totalitarian gobbling up Africa’s mineral resources and the west looking askance, the end of economic liberalism and, by extension, democracy, is drawing closer.

In the absence of the truth: there cannot be a viable solution

Everyone knows there are three sides to Haiti’s odd social, political and economic situation: the version put forward by the international community and the local barons, that of the voiceless and persecuted majority and the truth. Unfortunately, the accepted version is the one disseminated by the first group that acts as the legitimate representative of the country’s interests. Complicating matters is the sad reality that Haiti is actually on its knees and more pressing issues take precedence over correcting this anomaly.
The callousness of the current regime and its sponsors in disqualifying country’s largest political party from participating in the yet-to-be scheduled next general elections tells the whole story. Change or stability, as seen through the lenses of the local barons and the international community, revolves around maintaining the status quo and quelling the aspirations of the majority. The February 29, 2004 infamy that saw the forced departure of a constitutionally elected government was the most noticeable aspect of this shortsighted and arrogant policy that will inevitably produce more of the same: a cycle of violence and instability. Perhaps this is exactly what the international community wants, since Haiti could not possibly move forward with the same politic of exclusion that remains the primary source of its torments.
Naturally the paternalism of the international community “we know what is best for you” masquerading as genuine empathy is emblematic of the dilemma facing Haiti in the wake of the January 12 disaster that killed 2 percent of the country’s population. The onerous conditions attached to the financial pledges made by the international community completely ignore the social realities prevailing in Haiti and take away what little is left of the country’s sovereignty. The proposal to privatize the country’s ports, which in all likelihood will result in foreign entities controlling these vital parts of Haiti, is a case in point. The role of a future Haitian government in administering the country’s ports of entry will be reduced to that of a contractor operating within a framework predetermined by their nominal owners.
If implemented the proposal will be a 21st century version of the 1862 leasing of l’Ile-à-Vache by Bernard Kock, who swiftly drawn up a plan to populate the island with 5000 slaves from the U.S, in effect providing Washington with the perfect alibi to establish a protectorate over the island, since those slaves were U.S properties as dictated by the policies of the era. Unfortunately for Bernard Kock and fortunately for Haiti, the plan fizzled with the North victory over the South in the U.S Civil War (1861-65). With the Republicans intent on punishing the defeated South during the Reconstruction Era (1865-77) by extending citizenship to the freed slaves, the colonization project, as Bernard Kock’s scam was known, simply foundered as the freed slaves were no longer unwanted beings that need to be relocated far from U.S shores. Had the U.S Civil War dragged on a bit longer, Haiti would have had a mini-Liberia right under its belly.
There is also the worrisome problem of the NGOs, which seems to escape the attention of the regime. Created and funded by foreign entities, the NGO’s are the most conspicuous impediment to Haiti recovering its sovereignty and stability. Surprisingly they are included in the joint commission tasked for the reconstruction of the country, something that has never been attempted before in the annals of imperialism. Even Bill Clinton, the special U.N envoy to Haiti, saw the need for the government to rein them in. Apparently, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, since these NGOs, bona fide foot soldiers of the multinational corporations and foreign governments are essential to implementing the policy of subjugation envisioned by the international community.
Meanwhile peddlers of the gospel of resignation (evangelical Christians) are swamping the population with bibles and the promise of celestial salvation for their earthly sufferings. Many of them consider Haiti “the greatest harvest of new believers”. With a government devoid of any strategy to deal with the suffocating presence of these destructive agents, the future of the Haitian nation remains, at best, murky. The so-called opposition, more interested in getting the accolade of the international community, is not expected to rise to the challenge even if it were to be successful in the yet-to-be scheduled elections. Therefore the unholy alliance with the occupiers that characterizes the Préval regime will likely be reinforced in the next elections, leaving the prospect of a Haitian renewal more remote than ever before.
The sad truth is that the international community relies on foreign academics with cursory knowledge of Haiti and the local barons to formulate policies toward the country. The end result is a succession of flawed decisions, particularly the current experiment, which consists of maintaining the status quo and subduing the population for at least a generation. Nonetheless, the inevitable failure of this impractical and irresponsible policy will be attributed to Haitians’ unresponsiveness to the merits of western civilization and entreaties from its keepers. In this seemingly hopeless situation, do we, Haitians, want another century of apathy from our leaders; the instability, violence, misery, ridicule and perennial foreign domination? Divided, demoralized, and without a raison d’être, the population should brace itself for the worse, since a Charles-Henri Baker presidency may be in the offing.

Signed, sealed and delivered

Signed, sealed and delivered

In the lopsided relationships existing between the great powers and the rest of the world, even the most outrageous deed emanating from the former can be rationalized. Hence the greatest challenge facing poor or insignificant countries is to avoid becoming victims of arrogance of the great powers, which invariably use perverted rationale for their actions. Avoiding great powers’ malevolence however may be unavoidable especially in so-called “sphere of influence” (the doctrine that defines international relations and denies condemned countries a say about their fate).
In Latvia at the 60th anniversary of the end of the war in Europe in May of 2005, then-U.S president George W Bush remarked: “Once again when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable.” The remark was in reference to the August 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that condemned the Baltic States to 52 years of communist rule during which millions of Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians were enslaved by the Soviets. Emanating from the most powerful player in world affairs, the statement was heartfelt and contrite because Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were innocent victims of the sacrosanct doctrine “sphere of influence”, which effectively sealed their fate. Luckily for the Balts, their conqueror and tormentor, the Soviet Union, disintegrated in 1991 and their freedom restored. Though the Baltic States have since become members of NATO, the world’s most powerful military alliance, their restored independence is not guarantee since they theoretically remain within Russia’s “sphere of influence.”
As for the Polish and Finnish territories seized by the Soviet Union in 1939 and 1940 respectively, they are irretrievably lost since Poland and Finland could never win a war against nuclear-armed Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union. Aptly, the Poles and Finnish bear no illusions about recovering these lost territories, despite the unambiguous and encouraging verdict of history denouncing the naked aggression of the late Soviet Union. The wrongful deed, as Stevie Wonder would say, is signed, sealed and delivered. Not surprisingly these unlawful deeds continue with the creation of the United Nations (1945) whose stated purpose is “ To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.” Paradoxically, the permanent members of the U.N Security Council, guarantors of this principle under the U.N Charter, have been its most flagrant violators.
In 1956, Britain and France, reacting to the Egyptians’ nationalization of the Suez Canal which they considered an extension of their homeland, invaded Egypt. As geopolitical realities then dictated, Britain and France’s actions ran counter to the interests of the U.S and the USSR, which ordered them to withdraw their troops. Conclusively, it was the converging interests of the Superpowers not the application of the principle enumerated in Article 1(2) of the U.N Charter that saved the Egyptians from permanently losing their sovereignty.
In 1959, Mao Tse Tung’s communist China, using the fallacious claim of Tibet being Chinese territory, invaded and annexed the peaceful country. 51 years after the fact, ethnic Tibetans are a minority in their own country. No one expects China to voluntarily relinquish its conquest or the Tibetans to organize a successful insurrection against their nuclear-armed tormentor and permanent member of the U.N Security Council. China’s deed is therefore signed, sealed and delivered.
On February 29th 2004, French and U.S forces invaded Haiti; hours later the U.N Security Council declared the country “a threat to international peace and security” and mandated its occupation under resolution 1529. Subsequent Security Council resolutions not only reaffirmed the unlawful action but also consistently ignored any wishes the Haitian people might have had since no referendum has ever been held. The sacrosanct “sphere of influence” notwithstanding, Haiti’s occupation also validates George Bush’s aforementioned remark of small nations being expendable when powerful governments negotiate.
Though instability was used as rationale for the occupation of Haiti, in which case a disproportionate number of countries would qualify as threats to international peace and security, the real motive was seething revenge for an unpardonable offense. Until Russia was humbled by Japanese arms in 1903, France, a stalwart of the western civilization, had the distinction of being the only European power to have been defeated in battles by so-called uncivilized non-white savages. It was not a coincidence that the invasion, ostensibly an act of piracy and lawlessness, happened in the year of the bi-centennial of the African slaves’ impressive victory over the arrogance of a self-styled promoter of civilization. Unfortunately Haiti’s past could never be erased because history can be revisited or re-interpreted but not undone despite the concerted and unlawful action of the great powers.
Though Haiti was not incorporated into a larger entity following the February 29th 2004 infamy, the deed is essentially similar to what happened to the Baltic States in 1939. When great powers use military force to subdue a defenseless and insignificant nation, it is indicative of their moral compass gyrating in the wrong direction because coercion must never be utilized to impose or propagate values, regardless of their merits. Despite the February 29th 2004 infamy, the French should know that their defeat at Vertières on November 18th 1803 has irretrievably been signed, sealed and delivered to history. The concerted UN action only validates the righteousness of the Haitian cause and invalidates the notion of the Security Council as guarantor of peace and security in the world.