February 7, 2026: A Political Oligarchy in Tatters
Sonet Saint-Louis av Politics without science risks disconnecting from facts. Conducted this way, it can only lead to dangerous decisions.
By La Rédaction · Port-au-Prince
· 8 min read · Updated 24 April 2026
Translated from French — AI-assisted and reviewed by the editorial team. The French version is authoritative. Read the original · About our translation policy
Sonet Saint-Louis av
Politics without science risks disconnecting from facts. Conducted this way, it can only lead to dangerous decisions.
The transition put in place after the catastrophic departure from power of former Prime Minister Ariel Henry benefited from the support of international “allies,” mainly to satisfy the political and economic interests of certain groups — dominant actors in Haitian society. This was an illusion quickly unmasked. Behind the acceptance of certain personalities at the top of the state was in reality a strategy: the elimination of a Haitian political oligarchy that had become, it seems, useless. I had seen this deadly blow coming; I had even announced it.
After February 7, 2026, a technocratic governance seems to be emerging, with political parties now forced to go through the ballot box before claiming to exercise power. A decisive question remains: how to win the popular vote when one is already discredited in public opinion? Will the resources from alleged corruption, “accumulated” over the past twenty-one months, be enough to buy support and win adherence in the upcoming electoral contests?
Nevertheless, beyond this deadline, some political actors might understand that there is nothing to gain by integrating an abnormal power, without control or ethics — other than the illusion of easy money. For years, the transition had become an infernal cycle, allowing some to govern without popular support while enriching themselves effortlessly. However, enriching oneself at the expense of the people, by deepening social inequalities, always ends up having a cost.
Those responsible for this debacle
The political sector, let's say it, is not solely responsible for the failure. A certain fringe of other sectors, involved in the direct exercise of power, also bears a share of responsibility, as highlighted by Madame Magalie Comeau Denis. We are facing a collective deception that has led to a profound degeneration of Haitian society. How to make fallen figures acceptable in the eyes of the international community? Such a strategy is far from judicious. Integrity and ethics are, however, major assets in inter-state relations: they form the basis of trust and respect between interlocutors. However, our leaders deviate from these principles, which explains their fragility when it comes to defending national interests and the State. The involvement of our leaders — and some aspiring to power — in acts of corruption, criminal networks, and deadly violence undermines their credibility with our international partners. Law is the limit placed on power. A government without independent control has only one duty: to act with probity. The problem is that there is no one left to compel it. The United Nations has already sent clear signals in this regard, declaring its intention to cooperate with the Anti-Corruption Unit (ULCC) to curb large-scale corruption in Haiti and prevent funds from organized crime and illicit trafficking from being used to buy votes. It is dramatic that on the eve of February 7, 2026, forty years after the official end of the dictatorship, Haiti opens a new chapter of uncertainty due to the failure of the ruling classes, who are putting the Republic on the path of all dangers. The bill is now presented to this elite. When national institutions are not protected against corruption, national sovereignty goes up in smoke. The rulers are down. Civil society itself shows imprudence when it refuses to sanction the excesses and indecent practices that compromise national sovereignty. The CPT and the Primature must leave at the same time
The refusal of the coordinator of the Transitional Presidential Council (CPT), Laurent Saint-Cyr — who does not have a casting vote within the Council — to submit to the resolution of his colleagues is not merely a violation of procedural or administrative rules, the very ones that had justified the said resolution. For if that had been the case, he would have requested a Council meeting to restore the regularity of the act. In light of the decree establishing the CPT, Mr. Saint-Cyr holds a power of representation and coordination within this structure. As such, he does not have a casting vote: his role is to orchestrate the execution of decisions taken by the advisors, in accordance with established rules. I have already emphasized in a previous article: the reservations formulated by Saint-Cyr must be recorded in the minutes — if they existed — of the meeting during which the decision was made. In reality, each advisor must ensure that the acts adopted by the CPT cannot be considered null, nor engage their personal responsibility. It is therefore essential to avoid any haste in such a fragile context. Whether administrative rules were respected or not, history will remember that Laurent Saint-Cyr did not publish the resolution of his colleagues calling for the “revocation” of Prime Minister Didier Fils-Aimé, by retreating behind the stated and public opposition of the United States to the implementation of this decision, despite it being adopted by a majority. Many wonder if the Prime Minister will remain in office after February 7, 2026. In my opinion, the Primature, like the CPT, is a transitional body whose deadline is set for February 7, 2026. The Prime Minister reports to the CPT, from which he derives his political legitimacy, enshrined by the Agreement of April 3, 2024, and by the decree establishing the said Council. When the body that establishes authority disappears — that is, the Council — the executive stemming from that body also loses its foundation. The CPT does not have the authority to designate its successor, as its formation results from a political agreement. Similarly, the government stemming from it cannot renew itself without a new political agreement that would confer new legitimacy upon it. The provisions of Article 149 are not applicable, nor are those relating to the handling of current affairs in the event of the Prime Minister's resignation, because we are in a situation of unconstitutionality. This makes these mechanisms inapplicable and inoperative, since the Prime Minister was not designated by an elected president, and his appointment was not ratified by a Parliament. Fils-Aimé's continuation or departure will depend on internal and external power dynamics. If the de facto head of the Primature, lacking a social base, were to remain beyond February 7, 2026, it would not be in the name of representativeness, but by delegation from the powers that control almost everything in Haiti — due in particular to our economic weakness and that of our leaders. No sovereignty without financial autonomy
Haiti is poor; and in the current world order, it is not the people who set the agenda, but the markets. Therefore, ideology fades. “National wealth will be the strength of the national flag,” Emperor Jean-Jacques Dessalines already maintained two centuries ago.
Economics guides law and politics, out of necessity and for the sake of efficiency. Politics is not a matter of emotion: it relies, in the short or long term, on a cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit strategy. Economics does not merely guide politics and law; it also judges decisions based on their results. This is why our leaders are not truly free to decide: they operate under a double constraint, internal and external. In such a context, sovereignty without a solid economic base is an illusion. The country does not even have the necessary structures to receive massive humanitarian aid. A nationalism of proclamation, flirting with exaggeration, becomes unproductive and boastful, because it changes neither the balance of power nor material dependencies. The case of Prime Minister Ariel Henry, detained in the United States while on a mission for his country, is revealing: the powerful strike where and when they wish. Therefore, what is the cost of engaging in a useless confrontation with the United States, when, through our own faults, they can take advantage to destabilize the governing elites with sanctions? The central question therefore becomes that of room for maneuver. Only integral and competent leaders can create one, in the face of this geopolitics of law — an instrument of domination and power between states, particularly in the economic field — which enshrines the law of the strongest to the detriment of often trampled international law. “The reason of the strongest is always the best,” except when David faced Goliath — and when Haiti faced France in 1803, when an army of former slaves made possible what the established order held to be impossible. La Fontaine's fable thus remains relevant: it describes an international reality where the strongest further strengthen themselves and use fallacious pretexts to crush the weakest. We are gradually moving away from the UN — whose mission was to manage global conflicts and defend international law as well as multilateralism as we knew them after 1945 — to enter a new, still unformed world. I wonder if Haitians are grasping the extent of these changes: an international pragmatism, often cynical, already weighs heavily on our fragile national realities. In this landscape, we must ask the questions that matter: what leverage do we have to advance the national agenda, when the extraterritoriality of American law applies widely and targets natural and legal persons beyond its borders? And what real recourse do those affected by such measures have? Forty years of destruction, enough!
There is no longer any law in what is playing out between the CPT and the government of Alix Fils-Aimé. The lie of legal narratives, dictated by mafia interests, is everywhere. Far from these manipulations, I tend to believe that we are facing large-scale organized savagery, revealing the inability of national elites to evolve in a modern Haiti, founded on the principles of the rule of law.
Forty years of destruction and perdition, enough! This catastrophe we are experiencing is also due to the poverty of leadership that has dominated political life during these four decades. The time has come to take stock of our mistakes. From this chaos, an alternative must emerge, carried by forces truly dedicated to change. It is about making hope possible in our country. For this, we must recreate forces for good. While awaiting new elections, organized under favorable conditions — where the people can exercise their sovereignty by choosing their representatives — social mobilization and a new political agreement are needed. Its objective must not be the prolongation of the power of a few groups, but a return to the essence of democracy: the people must be able to elect those they wish to govern them. On the eve of this date meant to end anarchy, selfish ambitions must be silenced. For once, a political solution serving the nation — and one that lasts — is needed. Sonet Saint-Louis av
Professor of Constitutional Law and Advanced Legal Research Methodology
Professor of Philosophy.
Université du Québec à Montréal
Montreal, February 3, 2026
Email: sonet.saintlouis@gmail.com
The political sector, let's say it, is not solely responsible for the failure. A certain fringe of other sectors, involved in the direct exercise of power, also bears a share of responsibility, as highlighted by Madame Magalie Comeau Denis. We are facing a collective deception that has led to a profound degeneration of Haitian society. How to make fallen figures acceptable in the eyes of the international community? Such a strategy is far from judicious. Integrity and ethics are, however, major assets in inter-state relations: they form the basis of trust and respect between interlocutors. However, our leaders deviate from these principles, which explains their fragility when it comes to defending national interests and the State. The involvement of our leaders — and some aspiring to power — in acts of corruption, criminal networks, and deadly violence undermines their credibility with our international partners. Law is the limit placed on power. A government without independent control has only one duty: to act with probity. The problem is that there is no one left to compel it. The United Nations has already sent clear signals in this regard, declaring its intention to cooperate with the Anti-Corruption Unit (ULCC) to curb large-scale corruption in Haiti and prevent funds from organized crime and illicit trafficking from being used to buy votes. It is dramatic that on the eve of February 7, 2026, forty years after the official end of the dictatorship, Haiti opens a new chapter of uncertainty due to the failure of the ruling classes, who are putting the Republic on the path of all dangers. The bill is now presented to this elite. When national institutions are not protected against corruption, national sovereignty goes up in smoke. The rulers are down. Civil society itself shows imprudence when it refuses to sanction the excesses and indecent practices that compromise national sovereignty. The CPT and the Primature must leave at the same time
The refusal of the coordinator of the Transitional Presidential Council (CPT), Laurent Saint-Cyr — who does not have a casting vote within the Council — to submit to the resolution of his colleagues is not merely a violation of procedural or administrative rules, the very ones that had justified the said resolution. For if that had been the case, he would have requested a Council meeting to restore the regularity of the act. In light of the decree establishing the CPT, Mr. Saint-Cyr holds a power of representation and coordination within this structure. As such, he does not have a casting vote: his role is to orchestrate the execution of decisions taken by the advisors, in accordance with established rules. I have already emphasized in a previous article: the reservations formulated by Saint-Cyr must be recorded in the minutes — if they existed — of the meeting during which the decision was made. In reality, each advisor must ensure that the acts adopted by the CPT cannot be considered null, nor engage their personal responsibility. It is therefore essential to avoid any haste in such a fragile context. Whether administrative rules were respected or not, history will remember that Laurent Saint-Cyr did not publish the resolution of his colleagues calling for the “revocation” of Prime Minister Didier Fils-Aimé, by retreating behind the stated and public opposition of the United States to the implementation of this decision, despite it being adopted by a majority. Many wonder if the Prime Minister will remain in office after February 7, 2026. In my opinion, the Primature, like the CPT, is a transitional body whose deadline is set for February 7, 2026. The Prime Minister reports to the CPT, from which he derives his political legitimacy, enshrined by the Agreement of April 3, 2024, and by the decree establishing the said Council. When the body that establishes authority disappears — that is, the Council — the executive stemming from that body also loses its foundation. The CPT does not have the authority to designate its successor, as its formation results from a political agreement. Similarly, the government stemming from it cannot renew itself without a new political agreement that would confer new legitimacy upon it. The provisions of Article 149 are not applicable, nor are those relating to the handling of current affairs in the event of the Prime Minister's resignation, because we are in a situation of unconstitutionality. This makes these mechanisms inapplicable and inoperative, since the Prime Minister was not designated by an elected president, and his appointment was not ratified by a Parliament. Fils-Aimé's continuation or departure will depend on internal and external power dynamics. If the de facto head of the Primature, lacking a social base, were to remain beyond February 7, 2026, it would not be in the name of representativeness, but by delegation from the powers that control almost everything in Haiti — due in particular to our economic weakness and that of our leaders. No sovereignty without financial autonomy
Haiti is poor; and in the current world order, it is not the people who set the agenda, but the markets. Therefore, ideology fades. “National wealth will be the strength of the national flag,” Emperor Jean-Jacques Dessalines already maintained two centuries ago.
Economics guides law and politics, out of necessity and for the sake of efficiency. Politics is not a matter of emotion: it relies, in the short or long term, on a cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit strategy. Economics does not merely guide politics and law; it also judges decisions based on their results. This is why our leaders are not truly free to decide: they operate under a double constraint, internal and external. In such a context, sovereignty without a solid economic base is an illusion. The country does not even have the necessary structures to receive massive humanitarian aid. A nationalism of proclamation, flirting with exaggeration, becomes unproductive and boastful, because it changes neither the balance of power nor material dependencies. The case of Prime Minister Ariel Henry, detained in the United States while on a mission for his country, is revealing: the powerful strike where and when they wish. Therefore, what is the cost of engaging in a useless confrontation with the United States, when, through our own faults, they can take advantage to destabilize the governing elites with sanctions? The central question therefore becomes that of room for maneuver. Only integral and competent leaders can create one, in the face of this geopolitics of law — an instrument of domination and power between states, particularly in the economic field — which enshrines the law of the strongest to the detriment of often trampled international law. “The reason of the strongest is always the best,” except when David faced Goliath — and when Haiti faced France in 1803, when an army of former slaves made possible what the established order held to be impossible. La Fontaine's fable thus remains relevant: it describes an international reality where the strongest further strengthen themselves and use fallacious pretexts to crush the weakest. We are gradually moving away from the UN — whose mission was to manage global conflicts and defend international law as well as multilateralism as we knew them after 1945 — to enter a new, still unformed world. I wonder if Haitians are grasping the extent of these changes: an international pragmatism, often cynical, already weighs heavily on our fragile national realities. In this landscape, we must ask the questions that matter: what leverage do we have to advance the national agenda, when the extraterritoriality of American law applies widely and targets natural and legal persons beyond its borders? And what real recourse do those affected by such measures have? Forty years of destruction, enough!
There is no longer any law in what is playing out between the CPT and the government of Alix Fils-Aimé. The lie of legal narratives, dictated by mafia interests, is everywhere. Far from these manipulations, I tend to believe that we are facing large-scale organized savagery, revealing the inability of national elites to evolve in a modern Haiti, founded on the principles of the rule of law.
Forty years of destruction and perdition, enough! This catastrophe we are experiencing is also due to the poverty of leadership that has dominated political life during these four decades. The time has come to take stock of our mistakes. From this chaos, an alternative must emerge, carried by forces truly dedicated to change. It is about making hope possible in our country. For this, we must recreate forces for good. While awaiting new elections, organized under favorable conditions — where the people can exercise their sovereignty by choosing their representatives — social mobilization and a new political agreement are needed. Its objective must not be the prolongation of the power of a few groups, but a return to the essence of democracy: the people must be able to elect those they wish to govern them. On the eve of this date meant to end anarchy, selfish ambitions must be silenced. For once, a political solution serving the nation — and one that lasts — is needed. Sonet Saint-Louis av
Professor of Constitutional Law and Advanced Legal Research Methodology
Professor of Philosophy.
Université du Québec à Montréal
Montreal, February 3, 2026
Email: sonet.saintlouis@gmail.com
