Stepping off the scale in Haiti —for a time.
Recent (post assassination) foreign policy statements from U.S. Officials have been widely condemned. Some demanding greater involvement in solving Haiti’s many issues and some demanding the opposite. I am here to both defend the wisdom of recent U.S. Policy positions, as well as advocate for the opportunity I see that awaits them.
Recognition matters
In order to run a country you must govern land and treasure. In order to keep governing it you must also collect taxes, and in developing nations like Haiti, collect ODA (Official Development Assistance) as well. Excluding tyranny as an option, you will need all the various groups who currently possess the land, treasure, taxes, ODA etc. to submit to or support your governance.
Your administration will need to be recognized as the legitimate governing authority. If you are recognized as capable of governing taxes responsibly, the police force fairly, ports productively, and the schools wisely you will be recognized as the legitimate governor. Recognition matters.
In democratic nations this evaluation and recognition exercise is sought through efforts to conduct fair and legitimate elections to reflect the will of its populous.
Given the security realities in Haiti right now, most believe it impossible to conduct legitimate elections.
So an interim government would appear to be the next logical step in order to achieve sufficient safety in Haiti to then conduct an election.
So then, how to arrive at an interim government?
In Haiti, any would-be interim government will still need to receive recognition from each relevant group in order to begin governing and proceed in the work of conducting elections.
Here is a brief summary of the groups from whom recognition would be needed.
The U.S.
The Core Group
The U.N., The World Bank, etc.
Haitian Central Bankers
All Major Haitian Political Parties
Haitian Religious, Educational, Business and Civic Groups
The Haitian Populous
This list is of course not complete but seeks to communicate the idea that recognition from a majority of these and other groups is essential to be considered a legitimate interim government. While not all groups need to recognize the interim government unanimously, a significant consensus is essential for a smooth transition and the perceived legitimacy of an eventual election. It is also important to note that each aforementioned group will not grant there recognition simultaneously. There will be a sequence of recognitions.
Lets discuss this crucial sequence.
The risks of the U.S. being the first to recognize an interim government
American history is replete with examples of the U.S. supporting a particular leader or regime, only to find that a short time later, that same leader or regime was not what they’d hoped and in many cases, working directly against them.
“U.S. won’t pick winners and losers in Haiti”
- Brian Nichols, Asst. Sec. of State, Western Hem. Affairs
"‘Picking winners’ is a risky endeavor. There are many reasons for that. I’ll touch on a few.
First, imagine for a moment that you are on the front lines of The Revolutionary War. You have a few hundred soldiers in your battalion under your command. There are ‘bombs bursting in air’ just overhead. There are bullets and cannon balls flying. You see an opportunity to out maneuver your enemy and win todays battle. What do you do? Do you assemble a committee to discuss it? Do you gather the soldiers and take a vote? Of course not. Instead, you autocratically make a decision and command its execution. It is done, you win.
The point I seek to make here is that autocracy has its virtues. The speed and efficiency of autocracy are enjoyed by many leaders, even outside military ranks. Coaches throughout all types of sports, film directors and business leaders large and small — all enjoy the power, control, flexibility and yes, the autonomy of autocratic rule.
Jim Collins referred to a level 4 leader as “genius with a thousand helpers”. Apple’s Steve Jobs was well known for such autocratic methods, particularly in his first tenure as CEO. Later in his career he grew to appreciate the virtues of ‘Level 5 Leadership”, at least to some degree, characterized in the book Good to Great as “the triumph of humility and fierce resolve”. Quite different from the autocrat, a ‘Level 5 Leader’ achieves greater impact in the long term.
Finding leaders anywhere on Earth that are quick to listen to subordinates, slow to command them, build consensus, and encourage collaboration and engagement are rare.
We see this tendency toward autocracy is the U.S. as evidenced by the increased frequency of use of the Executive Orders in recent years (Donald Trump avg. 55/yr) in contrast to presidencies of the past (George Washington avg. 1/yr).
Speaking of George Washington, he is often held up as one of the few examples of prominent leaders to be willing to relinquish power. Of his willingness to relinquish his power following The Revolutionary War, King George III of England said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
It is human nature to seek greater power and control. This is another reason that ‘Picking winners’ is a risky endeavor. Are there great leaders in Haiti? Of course. Is there another George Washington? That seems less likely.
It’s just simply easier to become an autocrat.
Democracy is intended to represent it’s people. In order for a leader to represent the people he/she must listen them, understand their hopes and dreams - their will. High leadership ideals such as these are difficult to come by in any nation, and even more so in a still developing one. Democracy is still very new in Haiti and has yet to truly take hold.
It is highly likely that whatever ‘winner’ (leader) you pick, will have developed autocratic habits throughout their career. It will then need to be unlearned. This is not an easy task.
The risks of picking a winning accord
The second way that the U.S. can ‘pick winners’ is to pick a winning accord/interim government. There have been several competing accords that have been developed by various groups in Haiti (Montana, Louisiana, September 11th, December 21st). Each of which offers a recommendation as to how an interim Haitian government might be formed as well as how said government might execute elections. Each are imperfect. Each are better than nothing. If the U.S. were to lend its support to any of them, it would likely ensure it’s furtherance. That likelihood may seem to obviate the virtue of U.S. support for their favorite accord. However, risks abound in that course as well.
Risk number one: The U.S. could choose poorly. Haitians know their country better than foreigners. Presuming otherwise is risky. History can attest to this reality.
Risk number two: Many Haitians will see it as the accord that won out because of American influence. This will compromise the legitimacy of any interim government and subsequent elections.
Risk number three: The U.S. backed accord could and likely would fail in myriad ways before finding its footing and eventual progression. This will trigger credible blame toward the U.S. for once again overstepping in Haitian affairs.
All of these risks are significant. I can understand the choice of the current administration to resist the pressure to once again step on the proverbial scale and recognize any of the accords and by implication, their leaders too early in the sequence. I’m proud of their resolve to avoid early interference in the face of mounting opposition.
So what is the ideal recognition sequence?
The U.S. says that it won’t pick winners and losers in Haiti. What I believe they really mean is that they won’t pick (recognize) a winner first. In fact, they’d likely prefer to pick last.
So who should pick a winning accord (by implication, an interim government) first?
I believe that The U.S. envisions the ideal gate sequence looking something like this:
Political Leaders
All Major Political Parties
Religious, Educational, Business and Civic Groups (all representing The Haitian Populous)
The U.N., IMF, The World Bank, etc.
The Core Group and OAS
The U.S.
Let me explain:
Experience and willingness to execute an agreed upon accord necessitates that political leaders be the first step in the accords. Someone is going to have to do the work of governing. A successful interim government leader is likely going to have to opt out of the forthcoming election in order to prove impartiality and therefore successfully progress to the next gate in the sequence. That is not an insignificant sacrifice for some leaders.
These leaders are a key first building block in the accord recognition process. No accord proceeds through all the gates without considering the interest of each gate and its respective gatekeepers.
If the aforementioned political leaders present an accord that crosses the threshold of consensus (majority of power/influence) amongst all major political parties then it is ready to progress to the next gate in the sequence.
If the accord crosses the threshold of consensus throughout Religious, Educational, Business and Civic Groups, then he U.N., The World Bank, NGOs and other international organization will be ready to recognize the winning accord. At this point the recognition of The Core Group and The U.S. are largely a formality.
I acknowledge this explanation to be a gross oversimplification. In reality, this process will be much more complex. It is likely that leaders and their associated accords will progress back and forth through each gate several times and through several iterations before it succeeds through all of the gates and in fact becomes the road to elections for Haiti. But make no mistake, this is an effort worth making.
I believe the above stage is where the December 21st Accord is as of this writing (2/10/23).
January 5th Brian Nichols of the U.S. State Department tweeted the following:
Note that Assistant Secretary Nichols wisely does not endorse the accord but rather he expresses encouragement that the process is moving forward. Nichols also clearly identifies a standard for eventual endorsement of the accord.
This is the correct sequence. If international actors will continue to communicate where they stand clearly and in the proper sequence, Haiti can move forward independently and with leadership that wield the right amount of autonomy.
