Haiti

“When people understand the
way the winds are blowing, they
trim their sails accordingly.” With
these words, Andrew Young
pressured the Duvalier regime to
better comply with the Carter ad-
ministration’s “human rights”
policy during a visit to Haiti in
August 1977. In the two years
since, the U.S. State Department
has worked hard to bring about
greater “relaxation” of the Haitian
political climate, carefully nurtur-
ing a “free” and “independent”
press, and unofficial political par-
ties. Despite government foot-
dragging, and occasional inci-
dents of harassment, violence,
and censorship, things were pro-
gressing slowly, but progressing.
Then, last August 29, the
regime launched a blitzkrieg
repression which ended in the ar-
rest of the leaders of the fledgling
political parties and over 200
others, the ransacking of party of-
fices, the closing down of a radio
station, and the complete muzzling
of the press.
After similar incidents in past
years, the regime has beat a hasty
retreat in the face of ensuing U.S.
disapproval, blaming “irrespon-
sible” or “unauthorized” elements
or completely disavowing any in-
volvement. But this time, Jean-
Claude Duvalier has stood fast
beside the August crackdown and
behind his defiant statements
made just weeks before: “I alone
can blow the winds of liberaliza-
tion. No one else can be put in
power to blow the winds more
strongly than I do. Never!”
TECHNOCRATS VS. DINOSAURS
These strong words reflect a
sharpening crisis between the U.S.
and the Duvalier regime. The U.S.
is trying to “modernize” Haiti, but
despite reform efforts, the regime
remains a stumbling block to these
designs. This conflict is reflected
in a growing contradiction within
the regime itself between two
tendencies which essentially rep-
resent the two sectors of Haiti’s
ruling class.
Ever since independence in
1804, these two sectors have
been engaged in a fierce rivalry for
political power, with each sector
trying to enlarge and consolidate
its share of the surplus product ex-
49update * update * update . update
tracted from the peasantry. Today
this conflict has sharpened due to
an imperialist penetration aimed at
replacing the now dominant semi-
feudal mode of production with
capitalist production.
The “comprador” sector great-
ly benefits from the increased cir-
culation of goods that expanding
imperialist penetration brings. It
provides the primary seedbed for
an emerging class of managers
that will head the imperialist-
controlled industries and planta-
tions.
But the “feudals” oppose this
change, since the introduction of
large scale capitalist production,
especially in agriculture, means
the elimination of the economic
foundations of their class.
The “feudal” tendency within
the regime, also referred to as the
old guard or the “dinosaurs,” is
the force most responsible for the
recent wave of repression. It has
always been resistant to “liberali-
zation.” The “comprador” tenden-
cy, also called the “technocrats”
or the “Jean Claudistes,” on the
other hand, favors the develop-
ment of bourgeois democracy and
has emerged in the past eight
years as the primary vehicle for
U.S. policy in Haiti.
To understand why Jean-
Claude, as the leading representa-
tive of the technocrats, is present-
ly in confrontation with im-
perialism, we must glance at re-
cent history.
SHARPENING CONFLICT
Since 1971, when the staunchly
feudal Francois Duvalier died and
bequeathed the Presidency-for-
Life to his nineteen year old son,
Jean Claude, the theme of the
regime has been “liberalization.”
The year 1971, not coincidental-
ly, also marks the beginning of in-
tensified corporate penetration.
Until 1975 the penetration was
characterized primarily by study
and planning for the real thrust.
The Haitian government’s
1976-1981 five year plan, in ac-
cordance with the prior studies
and reports by the State Depart-
ment, World Bank, Inter-American
Development Bank, and other
multi-lateral lending institutions,
essentially forecast the establish-
ment of a basic infrastructure
which would permit the develop-
ment of large-scale agricultural
production, all to be financed by
these same institutions, at an
estimated cost of $800 million.
As Carter arrived in the White
House in 1977, capitalist pene-
tration in Haiti was shifting into
high gear. “Liberalization,”
previously halting and uneven,
was accelerated in an effort to
dislodge the “dinosaurs” from
power. The technocrats grew in
numbers and strength.
But today the “dinosaurs” still
exercise sizable, if waning, power
within the Duvalierist machine.
They have undermined and set
back “liberalization” several
times: in December, 1977 a major
publisher was publicly pummeled
unconscious by members of the
Tontons Macoutes, a ubiquitous
semi-official terror force still large-
ly under “feudal” control; in
February 1979, widespread fraud
and intimidation marred legislative
elections that went to the
“dinosaurs,” while 9,000 copies of
the magazine Le Petit Samedi Soir
reporting on the abuses were
burned before they could reach
the streets; and in May 1979, the
government ordered the shutdown
of several critical theatrical pro-
ductions.
Moreover, the Duvalierist state
has been greatly hindering the
progress of “development” pro-
grams. Problems have ranged
from disorganization, inefficiency
and corruption, to physical sabo-
tage of certain “development”
projects.
Piqued at all these difficulties,
the U.S. last May mounted and/or
encouraged major pressures on
the regime for more fiscal and
political reforms. First, Washing-
ton slammed the door on several
major aid packages to Haiti. The
NACLA Reportupdate * update . update . update
press was given full rein to decry the May theatre censorship, and there ensued the largest open pro-
test against a government decree
in the history of the Duvalier
regime. Journalists formed a new
press association implicitly opposed
to the government controlled one.
Full and extended coverage was
given to the Haitian Human Rights
League’s head-on criticisms of
repression and torture.
The coup de grace, however,
was the emergence of three politi-
cal parties for the first time in over
two decades in July and early
August, each party calling itself
“Christian Democratic.” The U.S.
embassy then began behind-the-
scenes pressure on Duvalier to
hold new legislative elections. A
new legislature would supposedly
appoint Jean Claude as President
with a seven year mandate, there-
by ending his inherited life term.
The sharpening conflict be-
tween the U.S. and the “feudals”
was pressing Jean Claude to make
a move. He imagined that Wash-
ington might turn to more “radical”
technocratic currents, in the coun-
try or even in exile. On the other
hand the “dinosaurs” were still too
influential to risk the major power
struggle necessary for acceler-
ated reform. He has apparently
chosen to try reconciling the
forces within his regime by making
concessions to the “dinosaurs”
with the hope that the U.S. will
ease off in the face of a “united”
Duvalierism. Baby Doc, in a
speech in late July before the ma-
jor internal security force, the
Volontaires de la Securit6 Na-
tionale (VSN), declared:
We must straighten out all those
who think that liberalization
means free rein, who under-
stand democratization to mean
NovlDec 1979
anarchy, as if anyone can do
what they please….
But the warning went unheed-
ed. On August 28, Sylvio Claude,
one of the party leaders, organized
an impromptu political meeting of
about 2,000 people in Port-au-
Prince. The next day repression
began. Claude “disappeared.” A
press clampdown was codified
and enacted into law. Despite
almost immediate reaction from
the State Department, no public
retreat has been forthcoming. On
the contrary, in his national ad-
dress on September 22, Jean
Claude called his critics “impa-
tient and blind.” He accused them
of being “westernized,” “dream-
ing only of those models built on
the banks of the Potomac, the
Thames, and the Seine.”
Whether the U.S. will bear with
Jean-Claude Duvalier’s faltering
regime is not yet clear. Carter’s
announced plan of bolstering
Caribbean regimes to “contain”
Cuba may rule out any shifts at this
time. At the least, the Cuban issue
might provide a pretext for the
resumption of the $18.4 million aid
package, which Congress, earlier
this year, made contingent on ad-
ministration decisions. In addition,
with elections approaching Carter
may not want to risk another crisis,
following Iran and Nicaragua.
But with the electoral course ef-
fectively blocked, if the U.S.
decides to switch horses in Haiti
despite the risks, we may witness
a “democratic” military coup, like
the recent one in El Salvador. (See
accompanying article.)
In either case, we must see the
essence of imperialism’s pressure
for more “democracy” in Haiti.
As a Haitian proverb says, “A
dog has four legs, but can only go
in one direction.” No matter what
forces imperialism relies on at this
point, its goal remains the same:
the maintenance and reinforce-
ment of exploitation.