Empowering Who in Haiti?

Welcome to the first entry of Equanimity! Everyone is welcome to read, comment and stay awhile. Since this blog is in its early stages I’m open to input on its content and format. Thank you very much for taking the time to drop by.

For this first essay I’m going to be writing about the crisis in Haiti.

Haitian government gets just 1 cent of every aid dollar.
And
Haiti - a UN protectorate?

Together these two articles address the issue of who should be responsible for the relief and reconstruction of Haiti. The gist of the first article is that donors from the United States are bypassing the Haitian government and relying on established organizations inside the country to provide disaster relief aid. The second article underscores the international community’s obligation to help in Haiti, but then suggests that the best way it can help is by taking over control of the country. If the analysis conducted in the first article is to be believed than the sidelining of Haitians has already begun.

There are compelling reasons for relying on outside actors at the current time, when lives depend on receiving aid promptly, but this not good for the country in the long run. Bypassing the governments of corrupt countries is nothing new. Few donors want their money to go towards a new Mercedes for some corrupt official- thus it is common for money and resources to non-governmental organizations which then provide the service.

The problem in Haiti is that this is already established practice. NGOs provide many services that governments are responsible for. This has contributed to the privatization of the government’s functions. Thus the government performs fewer services and has less responsibility and less accountability. A government like this has less and less to do with the needs of Haitians and more to do with the adventures and intrigues of the elite.

Yes the government is corrupt, but continuing the long running trend of bypassing the government will continue to erode Haiti's government and the country’s independence. It was not only homes and schools that were destroyed in the earthquake, but the very institutions of Haiti's government. These institutions had already been in decline before the disaster. They will certainly need rebuilding after it. NGOs, for all the good work that they do are not a substitute for a government.

Haiti’s government will need reconstruction, but more importantly it needs a change in philosophy.

The protectorate article addresses this very thing, but comes to the wrong conclusions The most striking statement is at the tail-end this article.

"Given the enormity of this disaster aid alone cannot save Haiti, and certainly not with its existing institutions. Undemocratic as it sounds I believe the United Nations should declare Haiti a UN protectorate and take direct control of all institutions and the economy for a period of not less than ten years. During this period Haiti should be a tax-free zone with the cost of reconstruction borne by the international community (especially the US and France) as a form of reparation. During that period institutions can be rebuilt under UN supervision with local leadership in an advisory role. Democracy can wait until after economic recovery. And may God help Haiti."

The academic the author quotes (Prof Sir Hilary Beckles of the University of the West Indies) says several things. One the United Nations should act as the government and administration of the country. Second that Haiti shall not collect taxes, and the costs of governance and reconstruction should be covered by the international community. Third, Haitians will only serve in an advisory capacity; Haitian democracy will wait until there is an "economic recovery".

Can a protectorate be effective in building a clean and efficient government? A protectorate is essentially foreign rule. The problem with a protectorate is that it can be easy to get into one, but very difficult to achieve the goals needed to get out. In Bosnia and Herzegovina for example, the international community established a protectorate that has governed the country since 1997.  In Bosnia the international community oversaw an elected Parliament (this is less ambitious than what the author is suggesting here). Even with elections and somewhat functioning institutions this protectorate has been unable to achieve the goals for its closure- despite working towards this since 2005!  The approach employed by the international community in Bosnia has been unable to cultivate the things that make democracy work such as an empowered and engaged citizenry.

In Haiti the author is suggesting that a completely new state be rebuilt by the international community for Haitians. It will have an indefinite timeline based on the economic recovery of a country that has been in economic and ecological freefall for decades (I mention ecological because Haiti’s economy remains based on agriculture). Haitians are invited to participate as advisors not leaders in their own country.

How is this going to build local leadership? How is this going to empower Haitians? If the international community (or whoever takes over) creates a new set of institutions from above it will fail to address the politics that contributed to Haiti’s misery.

I’m not opposed to the international community taking a prominent role in Haiti. However any intervention in the national government should temporary and linked to discrete and achievable goals. The international community should avoid acting as a grand engineer of new Haitian institutions, but instead use its resources towards supporting and restoring institutions at the local level. The goal should be to create an environment where the Haitians can build their confidence and the tools they need to improve their government. This will mean pursuing both economic and political initiatives simultaneously- not waiting for an economic recovery before emphasizing democracy.

At the same time it’s necessary to address the issue of corruption and reconstruction at the national level in the near future. Taking responsibility for reconstruction would limit corruption but would further undermine the nation’s independence (further delegitimizing the government). Instead of bypassing the government more aid needs to be sent thought it, but with strict conditions on reporting and how resources can be used. These funds would not be allocated towards specific projects per se, but could be allocated towards specific competencies (roads, hospitals, clean water). These reports should be made available to all Haitians. Not only would Haitian leaders be accountable to their donors (funding would be reallocated to more honest players), but their constituents would know when and how much their leaders have cost them as it happens.

This approach would help reinforce accountability in Haiti’s politicians while empowering the Haitian people. This would do far more to rebuild Haiti’s institutions and improve the quality of life than a semi-permanent protectorate. In the years to come, Haitians need to be given more initiative and leadership in their country, not less. While in the short term it is necessary for the international community to take a leading role so that lives can be saved, if it stays in this role too long it risks undermining the very goals it seeks to promote.