A weak state by the non-virtue of our constitution?

It is almost impossible for the state of Haiti to assert its authority effectively in the spirit of our current constitution. Why would I say such a thing when it is generally assumed that our current constitution was the brainchild of Haiti’s finest legal minds? The reason behind my assertion--without my pretending to possess any legal expertise--- is that the constitution of 87 exaggerated the statute of civil liberties at the extreme expense of state authority. In other words, the constitution secured, for instance, the rights of citizens to assemble, to speak freely, and to protest via physical manifestations or strikes without any stipulation of reserved state authority with regard to eventual abuse of these secured rights.
No constitution is written in a historical vacuum. Therefore, it can be argued that the constitutional narrow-mindedness that came out of the 87-convention may have been the psychological result of years of civil rights abuse under the Duvalier dictatorship. But that does not in any way justify the short-sightedness of the framers of our constitution; for in an attempt to emphasize the sanctity of civil liberties, our so-called finest legal minds created a very weak state. As history shows, the state finds itself with no constitutional authority to deal with prevalent anarchy in the form of frequent strikes and constant street protests organized by individuals or organizations that may have selfish motivations. In this spirit, protests tend to no longer be a reasonable citizen-reaction to eventual state abuse or neglect, but become a corrupt means to secure group or individual interests no matter how nefarious they may be. For instance, any drug-dealer with sufficient cash can literally destabilize the state upon his/her arrest by paying off needy individuals to make daily protest against his/her incarceration.
Not only did the current constitution create a weak state, but it also in the process pushed the state to react in the shadows via proxies. For instance, the state would at times employ illegal means such as allowing civilian sympathizers to systematically harass oppositional protestors. Often the state would even organize counter-protests, a desperate move that ironically would lead to more anarchy.
Not only does the weakness of the state reflect itself in the corruption of civil liberties as previously demonstrated with numerous examples of physical anarchy, it also reflects itself in the criminal aspect of anarchic speech. For instance, oppositional political elements may explicitly call for the assassination of the president without any legal consequences. In such an anarchic atmosphere, even a stay-away-order, in times of crisis, from the vicinity of the presidential palace would be misconstrued as a repressive police-act; as if the protestors had a right to threaten the life of the president feet away from the palace.

In the absence of rules that govern the behavior of civic responsibility, all of our civil liberties are readily corruptible; and one of the worst corruptions of civil liberties in Haiti is that of calling for a general strike. Any organization can utter on radio that any particular date is set aside for a general strike. But what is a general strike? A general strike is the worst kind of anarchic behavior---it intends to disrupt the very existence of the state. Unless a nation is going through the worst of state-sponsored repression, a general strike should always be avoided; for in a general strike, it is always the poorest that are the worst affected; for not having a private chauffeur, they need the “tap-tap” to get to work, not having a family doctor, they need a functioning “lopital jeneral” to take their sick. Therefore, due to the fact that a general strike is integrally disruptive with serious consequences for the lives and welfare of citizens, a comprehensive set of rules must be established to prevent a general strike. In other words, judges should be given the right to postpone or criminalize a particular strike if there is a serious willingness on the part of the executive to consider the grievances (reasonable they must be!) of the protesting party.



In conclusion, it is imperative for us to modify the constitution in such a way that both civil liberties and civic responsibilities be given equal status. In other words, a right-based society will always be out of reach unless we create a constitutionally stronger state--- one whose authority will be respected without the sacrifice of civil liberties.

Observer,

Je suis d'accord que la Constitution de 1987 est un boulet pour la democratisation meme de ce pays, mais pas pur les raisons que vous invoquez.

J'y reviendrai plus tard.

I HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO ANALYZE THE DICTATOSHIP OF THE LEGISLATURE IN MY THESIS FOR INSTANCE. MY THESIS IS BASED ON A SPECIFIC ASPECT AMONG MANY OTHERS WHAT WEAKEN THE STATE. MY ANALYSIS DOES NOT PRETEND TO DISSECT THE ULTIMATE AND DEFINITIVE REASON BEHIND THE WEAKNESS OF OUR STATE. I HAVE DECIDED TO LOOK AT THE CORRUPTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES, SOMETHING FOR WHICH THE EXPERTS HAD MADE NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. HERE IS AN ANALOGY: IF I CLAIM THAT SMOKING CAUSES CANCER, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SMOKING IS THE ONLY CAUSE OF CANCER. THERE CERTAINLY ARE MANY OTHER CAUSES. IN OTHER WORDS, GWOTORO, EVEN IF YOU SUCCEED IN DEMONSTRATING OTHER CAUSES THAT MAY BE MORE RELEVANT THAN THE ONES THAT I HAVE OUTLINED IN MY ANALYSIS, IT WILL NOT IN ANY WAY INVALIDE MY THESIS; FOR NOWHERE DID I PRETEND TO MAKE OF MY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES THE EXCLUSIVE CAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE STATE.
I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!!!!

Ne vous en faites pas cher ami,

Mon but n'est pas de faire un debat philosophique sur vos arguments. Nous allons echanger simplement.

Pas de panique...