Washington's Risky Bet with its 'Beloved Son'!

Some jurists and law professors manipulate the concepts they use, often haphazardly. Yet, there is no scientific knowledge without scientific theory to form its pillar. In sciences, words refer to precise terms, vocabularies, or concepts. However, in law, concepts are inseparable from a legal theory: each theory of law defines its own concepts, its framework for interpretation, and its structure for understanding reality. In Haiti, unfortunately, we have ended up debasing everything — monocephalic power, bicephalic power, transition, etc. — to the point of emptying these notions of their meaning. The concept of monocephalism is generally linked to the presidential system, in which all executive power is concentrated in the hands of the President of the Republic, elected by universal suffrage. In such a system, the executive is monocephalic: this is the case in the United States, where the president exercises both the function of head of state and head of government. The American system is based on a strict separation of powers. It corresponds more closely to the classical theory of the separation of powers, as elaborated by Montesquieu. In the United States, the president can dissolve neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives. Similarly, he is not accountable to the elected members of Congress. It is the principle of reciprocal irrevocability that underpins the presidential system, of which the United States is an emblematic model. Without a parliament, the function of Prime Minister is abnormal In Haiti, the 1987 Constitution adopted a democratic system based on a flexible separation of powers, within which a debatable originality emerged: the President of the Republic cannot dismiss Parliament, while the Prime Minister is supposed to act as his counterweight. The latter can only be revoked by Parliament, to which he is accountable. However, in the Haitian case, the principle of reciprocal revocability — a pillar of the parliamentary system, allowing mutual control between the executive and the legislative — did not capture the attention of the 1987 constitutional drafters. They rather sought to reduce the president's power in favor of strengthening the rule of law, by multiplying checks to moderate presidential power. This parliamentary democracy, although it has certain problems, protects citizens against the arbitrary actions of rulers and ensures that all authorities act under the respect of the law. These checks and balances, however, did not weaken the presidential institution. The President of the Republic, on the contrary, under the aegis of the 1987 Charter, holds real powers. With the arrival of Didier Fils-Aimé as the sole head of the executive power, we are witnessing a return to monocephalism in Haiti. But a strictly monocephalic executive does not exist in our constitutional architecture. What currently exists in our country has no stable name: it is institutional chaos, structured in the form of unregulated authoritarianism. However, from the perspective of constitutional operational logic, our system is supposed to rest on three articulated principles, which form a coherent whole and mutually balance each other: The government's accountability to Parliament, which implies effective political control and, if necessary, institutional sanction;
Ministerial solidarity, which requires collegiality in decisions and the common responsibility of ministers for government action;
Dissolution, understood as the faculty — in a system of balance — to refer Parliament to popular suffrage to resolve a major political crisis and restore legitimacy through the arbitration of voters.
Without these mechanisms (or when they are neutralized), the executive ceases to be framed by law and begins to operate according to a de facto logic: it no longer governs within a regime, it governs above the regime. Ministers, collaborators or decision-makers?
It is legally and constitutionally abnormal to assert that the Prime Minister governs with the Council of Ministers, since the article organizing the presidential vacancy is neither valid nor applicable to a head of government not appointed by an elected head of state and whose general policy statement has not been ratified by the Chambers. With this new governance, as was the case with Dr. Ariel Henry, the ministers who are part of Fils-Aimé's cabinet are not rulers, but mere collaborators whom he can revoke at will. Ministers do not share political responsibility with Fils-Aimé, who exercises both distinct and separate powers from the President and those provided for the Prime Minister. The principle of ministerial solidarity disappears in this type of governance. However, this principle requires that decisions be made collegially during the Council of Ministers, presided over by the President of the Republic. How can a de facto Prime Minister, without a declared vacancy, preside over the Council of Ministers, the country's highest political body, where major state decisions are deliberated? To say that the Council of Ministers is convened under the authority of the Prime Minister is to acknowledge that a minister can only be disapproved by the Chambers. Where is Parliament? The Council of Government only meets to monitor or evaluate government action. Any profound disagreement from a minister on a fundamental issue automatically leads to their resignation. The principle of collegiality requires that all decisions made in the Council of Ministers be executed by all ministers: even if a minister personally opposed them, they must apply them. This is the principle of solidarity. Do not try to lull the population with fallacious words. American action has not destabilized the current regime. The CPT was forced to remain until the end of its mandate. The stakeholders who were part of the CPT maintain their grip on public administration through the ministerial cabinet, general directorates, and diplomacy. No government member has resigned or been recalled by their party. They accept the tutelage imposed by Washington. Let's stop the demagoguery! The Americans are not acting alone: that is the least we can observe. Thus, the level of political comfort Fils-Aimé receives from the international community is the same as what Dr. Ariel Henry once had. Yet, he was removed from power and replaced by a CPT that ended its run in shame. In the current context, the political class doesn't really have a problem with the formula used by the Americans to hand over total power to one man. These leaders who criticize Fils-Aimé would simply have wished to be in his place. They too would have wanted to be Washington's 'beloved son.' Their dream is not the democracy we believe in. Their aim is to get easy money, without effort, to fill a lack of personal value. These are internal enemies who have long worked for foreign interests. They preach a progressive, nationalist, anti-imperialist discourse, but in reality, they lack national consciousness. Time has unmasked them all. The power exercised by Fils-Aimé has been delegated by the United States to accomplish specific actions. It is therefore important to know what this agenda consists of, as everything lies outside the legal, republican, and democratic framework. The country's new strongman has declared that he will not hand over power until an elected government is established. His de facto government seems to set no time limits for itself. Just as its constraints are only his will, his morality, or his American guardian. However, a transition is defined within a time limited by law. This limited time must be the result of political consensus. It is not the decree that will give birth to consensus, but the inverse. Consensus is a political fact meant to be framed by law. Therefore, without a limitation on the transition's mandate, the Prime Minister finds himself in a situation of eternal present, escaping the constraints of time (present, past, and future). We move away from the law of transition to fall into pure metaphysics, whereas the purpose of the former rests on a constitutional rupture and reforms, potentially including a new Constitution. Indeed, if the current de facto power decides to organize elections under the 1987 regime, it means that we were not in a political transition, but in a situation of rupture or interruption of the constitutional and democratic order, caused by force majeure or a coup d'état. For without the inclusivity of various groups in power management or the decision-making process, there is no transition. Given the current situation, without the involvement of the people, there is a risk of falling into arbitrariness and authoritarianism on the part of the rulers, and a loss of the sense of reality. The limited activities of a few intellectuals, however relevant, can never, on their own, shift the lines. Mass engagement is crucial to bring about change and ensure the success of any political action. Only the people possess the resilience and strength necessary to guarantee the success of an undertaking. A transition without delay, without inclusivity, without political agreement, without structural or constitutional reforms, and without the people is not a transition: it is a confiscation of power, disguised as a promise of elections. Sonet Saint-Louis av
Professor of Constitutional Law and Advanced Legal Research Methodology at the Faculty of Law and Economics of the State University of Haiti.
Professor of Philosophy
Université du Québec à
Montréal
sonet.saintlouis@gmail.com