HAITI CRISIS – UNFAIR TO LINK IT TO PAPA?

KWAME  Nkrumah, Ahmed Sekou Toure, Julius Nyerere, Jomo Keynatta, Milton Obote, Kamuzu Banda, Kenneth Kaunda, Patrice |Lumumba, Mobutu Sese Seko, Phllibert Tsviranana, Marien Nguabi, Robert Mugabe and Nelson Mandela – and others – laid the foundations of their countries’ destinies after colonialism and white oppression in general.

In the Diaspora, Haiti ’s Papa “Doc” Duvalier can be described as one such pioneer in Haiti .

All these countries fared differently in the years immediately after they had thrown off the yoke of colonialism.

It has always been useful for pundits to remember that some of the new leaders rushed, almost indecently, to change everything. They were impatient. Some of the results were catastrophic. To this day, in a number of cases, the damage control work is still continuing – at a great cost.

Most reacted to what was termed “the crisis of expectation” among their people. But that crisis could have been of their own making. Once in power, what did they expect to be – the people’s servants, responding urgently and only to the people’s needs?

But some reacted to their own demands. Others decided to settle old scores with the colonialists. They either kicked them out en masse or made life a living hell for them. Once they had reconciled themselve3s to rejection, they left the country – often for good.

What is indisputable is that these first leaders shaped the future of their countries. Some would blame colonialism for the poverty that persisted in their countries after independence. Others would blame what they called neocolonialism or imperialism. They alleged the former colonial masters wished to retain an economic or even a political grip on their former charges.

The “regime change” accusation against the West did not start with Mugabe.

Needless to say, there were many among the former colonisers who longed for the “good old days” were they lorded it over the “subjects”. They did not hesitate to aid and abet any “locals” who believed “independence” was not exactly what they had expected – that it was a “terrible mistake”.

There are many examples of such leaders believing the former colonialists were labouring day and night to remove them from power once they had set up their own governments. To ensure any attempts to remove them were nipped in the bud, most of them built up a massive security and political cordon around themselves. Others simply surrounded themselves with their own “people” in positions of power and trust – it was called “tribalism” in the early days then it became patronage and nepotism. What it entailed, in most instances, was that the needs of the ordinary people were given almost last priority.

Eventually, the “people’s wishes” were put on the “back burner”.

Meanwhile, the leader took care of the needs of his “circle”, the cohorts and cronies who lied through their teeth – to the leader and to the people – that everything was sweet and dandy. This was even while people were dying of hunger or the rickety health delivery system.   

Few of the new leaders had any experience of government. Yes, some may have been university graduates or professionals – doctors, engineers, university professors, architects,  gynecologists or pediatricians or plant geneticists.

After that brief digression, let us return to Haiti : Whatever that island nation achieved – or not - during Papa Doc’s reign from 1957 until his death in 1971 can, generally, be attributed to the tacit acquiescence of all Haitians. But the people were essentially under the tutelage of Papa Doc. What they failed to do – as many Africans and other people of the developing have failed to do -  was to act decisively against such leaders.

What they feared then and still fear today bloodshed – mostly their own. In most cases, what they forget is that were it not for the bloodshed during the struggle against colonialism, independence would probably have been postponed, indefinitely.

You don’t make an omelet unless you break an egg – why should the removal of a dictator be any different?

When Papa Doc died in 1971, his son Baby Doc took over. He was removed in 1986 and has lived in exile in France ever since. He has publicly offered to contribute aid to his nation’s present crisis after the devastating earthquake. Some critics have commented, cynically, that whatever aid he could provide today would never compensate for the damage he and his father inflected on their country.

The Duvalier years in Haiti were years of poverty. A breath of fresh air coincided with the arrival on the scene of a Catholic priest named Aristide. His rule wasn’t entirely squeaky clean. But he did not indulge in the sort of odious self-indulgence that characterised the rule of the Duvaliers. He may yet bounce back, having lived for a while in exile in South Africa. 

Aristide’s legacy could never be as relevant to Haiti as the Duvaliers’. It is fashionable in many quarters in the developing world to blame most of our ills on colonialism and its stepbrothers and stepsisters of imperialism and neocolonialism. The argument has always been that, having conquered colonialism, Africa, particularly, should not have had a problem with neocolonialism or imperialism. One reason for the failure to confront these two menaces was the preoccupation by the leaders of surviving internal competition. It drove them to dictatorships. Assassinations were resorted to routinely, once the policy of spreading fear throughout the country failed

Experiments in true democracy were tried, but mostly with the stern warning that this was “home-grown” democracy. It was said to contain none of the freedom of speech and expression, of association, of movement that are such pillars of true democracy. Nobody thought of coining the phrase “indigenous democracy”. It would be a contradiction: democracy is universal. If there is a “Chinese” or a “Zimbabwean” democracy, then we are engaging in double-speak.

In Zimbabwe, as we approach the second anniversary of the Global Political Agreement (GPA), the final goal is still as far away as ever – a government elected by the people, not by Sadc or the EU or the US . This is a government resulting from a free and fair election in which Sadc, the UN, the EU and the US will enjoy equal status as observers.

The sparring over sanctions is almost farcical. It suggests a willingness, particularly on Zanu PF’s part, to drag this thing on until the opposition says; “We give up. Take the whole shebang.” But that is not likely to happen. The MDC has invested too much in this enterprise to give up so easily. Their constituency is waiting, almost breathlessly, for the promised change.

What has to be overcome is the bizarre notion that the MDC, which has never run this country as the government of the day is now being asked to actually settle all its myriad problems. What Zanu PF does not realize is that, in banking on the MDC to have the so-called sanctions lifted, it is conceding its toothlessness as a political force on the international arena. .

The likelihood that people will, as a result, now blame the MDC for all their economic problems since 2000.is far-fetched. That Zanu PF is betting everything on exactly that eventuality shows how far it has gone in believing its own propaganda.

It lost the 2008 parliamentary election on those grounds alone.