Connect with us

Op-Eds

Ethiopia: What PM Abiy’s Glasnost Means for the Region

8 min read.

A political miracle is currently underway in Ethiopia. Political prisoners have been freed; parties, once deemed ‘terrorist’ have been unbanned; opposition media, gagged for 25 years, can now freely operate. But it was last weekend’s historic embrace in Addis Ababa, between Eritrea’s Isias Afwerki and PM Abiy Ahmed, marking the end of a bitter 20-year war, that demonstrates the breathtaking speed and extent of Ethiopia’s perestroika – even as East Africa rushes headlong in the opposite direction. By MIRIAM ABRAHAM

Published

on

Ethiopia: What PM Abiy’s Glasnost Means for the Region
Download PDFPrint Article

“I never thought I would witness this in my lifetime”, remarked an Ethiopian friend. He was referring to the warm embrace between Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia and Eritrea’s President Isaias Afwerki in Addis Ababa a few days ago. In the past few weeks, I have heard these words from many colleagues who, like me, shuttled for many years between Asmara and Addis Ababa in our elusive efforts to normalize relations between the two “cousins” The sight of an Ethiopian Airlines flight landing in Asmara reminded us of how during the shuttle diplomacy days, we could not fly directly between the two capitals, even with chartered flights, lest we violated the airspace of sworn enemies.

Since his appointment in April, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has been shaking things up in a way that no leader in East Africa has done in decades. It has been exciting to witness the courage of this youthful leader who has formally ended the 1998-2000 border war with Eritrea which killed at least 80,000; rescinded an unpopular state of emergency; announced plans to partially open up the economy; released thousands of political prisoners and taken nascent steps to deal with human rights violations in prisons; and de-listed the Oromo Liberation Front, the Ogaden National Liberation Front, and the ‘Ginbot 7’ from the infamous “terrorist” groups list, among others.

Early this week, a group of us who pride ourselves on our self-proclaimed Pan-Africanism, were recounting the new optimism that Prime Minister Aby has brought to our region especially when one considers the gloomy picture elsewhere. In Kenya, the sham fight against corruption has dominated headlines, only competing with Uganda’s absurd implementation of a social media tax. South Sudan just marked its seventh Independence Day with little reason to celebrate as, among other things, the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on the country. In Tanzania, President John Pombe Magufuli has joined his neighbours Rwanda and Burundi, in choosing to rule with an iron fist, curtailing basic freedoms and declaring that the ruling party will reign forever.

While it is too early to uncork the champagne, the men and women of Ethiopia and Eritrea deserve credit for the changes taking place. The grenade attack at the first major rally organized by Prime Minister Abiy in Addis Ababa on the 23rd of June confirms that spoilers will attempt to destabilize the situation. There are still many unanswered questions on the political machinations within the EPRDF, especially with regard to the TPLF. Prime Minister Abiy is moving with lightning speed and we hope that there is a reasonable buy-in from the EPRDF regarding the decisions he is making. On the regional front, while there is much to celebrate at the warming of relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea, access of the Assab port by Ethiopia potentially bears an economic backlash to some of the neighbours.

Early this week, a group of us who pride ourselves on our self-proclaimed Pan-Africanism, were recounting the new optimism that Prime Minister Aby has brought to our region especially when one considers the gloomy picture elsewhere. In Kenya, the sham fight against corruption has dominated headlines, only competing with Uganda’s absurd implementation of a social media tax. South Sudan just marked its seventh Independence Day with little reason to celebrate… In Tanzania, President John Pombe Magufuli has joined his neighbours Rwanda and Burundi, in choosing to rule with an iron fist, curtailing basic freedoms and declaring that the ruling party will reign forever.

Let me be clear. The changes underway could not have been possible without the sacrifices of many Ethiopians and Eritreans who fought for many years for inclusivity, equality, democracy and justice. In Ethiopia, despite threats to their lives, they fought Mengistu Haile Mariam’s Derg regime as well as the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)’s system of ethnic-based federalism in place since 1995. According to Human Rights Watch, more than 1,000 people have been killed and tens of thousands arrested for participating in political protests that began in November 2015.

The wind of change in Ethiopia and Eritrea ought to leave many of the current leaders in East Africa anxious, for many reasons.

First, it is a reminder that efforts to clamp down on democracy, stifle fundamental freedoms and rights, promote divisive policies and participate in electoral thuggery inevitably have an end. Elections held since 1994 in Ethiopia have been referred to by observers as “multi-party theatre staged by a single party state”. Despite hundreds of people killed and tens of thousands detained, the people of Ethiopia did not stop organising anti-government protests. Mostly led by the youth, their leaders were detained or killed but they continued to protest against what they perceived as domination of the political and economic levers of power by the minority Tigray community who make up 6.1 percent of the population.

They were not deterred by the fact that they are a country of more than 80 ethnic groups, with the constitution formally providing for ethnic-based political organisations. They organised across the different ethnicities with this unity sending a strong message to the EPRDF that the security crackdown against the Oromia (making up 34.4 percent of the population) was not sustainable as the Amhara (making up 27 percent of the population) and other ethnic groups joined the protests. They mobilised around their grievances, defying ethnic labels and further jolting the EPRDF into making a weak attempt at political reform as a way to placate the protesters. However, the minimalistic changes and violent crackdown did not assuage those pushing for change including within the ruling EPRDF itself, leading to Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn’s resignation in February.

Elections held since 1994 in Ethiopia have been referred to by observers as “multi-party theatre staged by a single party state”. Despite hundreds of people killed and tens of thousands detained, the people of Ethiopia did not stop organizing anti-government protests. Mostly led by the youth, their leaders were detained or killed but they continued to protest against what they perceived as domination of the political and economic levers of power by the minority Tigray community who make up 6.1 percent of the population.

Those in power in East Africa should draw an important lesson from this – when a country is ready for change, there is nothing that any one leader can do to stop it. The aspirations of the people can be suppressed for a period, but not forever. It is also a confirmation that fomenting political divisions along ethnic lines is ultimately counterproductive. Attempts by one ethnic group, the Tigray, to dominate the political and economic levers of power may have appeared successful in the past 25 years but this is no longer tenable. Those leaders in East Africa who are relying on ethnic loyalties or domination to sustain themselves in power should learn from the Ethiopians that populations can organize beyond those ethnic groups when the wind of change blows. And to those struggling to organize for change in the rest of the region, it is important to build a broader coalition beyond ethnic or socio-political groups. Organizing in this generation requires an approach of direct engagement with communities, distributive leadership beyond a core group of leaders and dialogue that allows people to build an ecosystem for change.

When a country is ready for change, there is nothing that any one leader can do to stop it. The aspirations of the people can be suppressed for a period, but not forever. Fomenting political divisions along ethnic lines is ultimately counterproductive. Attempts by one ethnic group to dominate the political and economic levers of power may have appeared successful in the past 25 years but this is no longer tenable. Those leaders in East Africa who are relying on ethnic loyalties or domination to sustain themselves in power should learn from the Ethiopians that populations can organize beyond those ethnic groups when the wind of change blows.

Second, high economic growth does not a cushion against a people’s desire for change. The trajectory of Ethiopia’s economy debunks arguments posited by some political economists that rising per capita income leads to poverty reduction, helping to create stable and peaceful societies. Ethiopia’s economic growth has been one of the highest in the East African region with projections of 10 percent growth in 2017. Yet, as David Ndii argues in his article, the country faces an economic crisis, which partly explains the recent political changes in the country. The economic policies adopted by the regime that have focused on infrastructure-led growth have left the country in a dire political and economic situation.

And yet several countries in East Africa are increasing their economic vulnerabilities by increasing their debt to GDP ratio, investing in moribund infrastructure projects and increasing taxes without incentives for entrepreneurship. There is no doubt that the political changes in Ethiopia have been triggered by the economic conditions in the country. Prime Minister Abiy’s long-term political survival depends on how he manages the economy in the next few months. As an Ethiopian friend of mine recently told me, it was short-sighted of the EPRDF not to have known that increasing opportunities for education, rising levels of corruption without expanding opportunities for employment would accelerate the pressure for change especially in a context where the youth perceived the ruling party as the main beneficiary of economic opportunities. This is a scenario that could repeat itself in any East African country today.

Third, relying on being propped in power by the international community is unsustainable. Legitimacy is not granted by outsiders, it is earned by delivering on the people’s expectations and aspirations. Despite the horrendous human rights violations by the EPRDF over the past twenty-five years, the international community maintained an eerie silence. The geopolitics of the region meant that the United States and other powers propped up the regime rather than calling it to account for its excesses. It was perceived as an ally in the fight against terrorism especially in neighbouring Somalia; playing a balancing act in Sudan and South Sudan; and managing the sensitive Nile water politics with Egypt as well as the broader Gulf politics. The African Union, with its headquarters in Addis Ababa, issued no condemnation of even the gagging of internet that imperilled its own day-to-day operations. All these actions by the international community were not enough to keep Prime Minister Hailemariam in power.

The same could be said of those that hope that external actors will usher change in their respective countries in alone. The demanding work of mobilizing, organizing and building internal coalitions can only be successful if they are homegrown. For many years, Eritrea was reported to have supported the Oromo Liberation Front and other groups from the Somali region of Ethiopia with the goal of changing the regime. Ethiopia is reported to have been supporting opposition groups against Asmara. Many of these groups also had support from other countries involved in proxy wars for several reasons including the Nile Basin politics. Somalia became a proxy theatre for the Eritrea-Ethiopia rivalry. The rapprochement between Eritrea and Ethiopia should potentially improve the situation in the region. The key lesson here is that external interventions either in support of a regime or against it, have their limits.

Those relying on the global North to speak out against human rights violations in Africa need to recognize that these countries have entrenched strategic political and economic interests that override all other considerations. Moreover, the global North is being reconfigured every day by the actions of the current occupant of the White House in Washington DC whose words and actions are not any different from those of Africa’s strongmen. Norm setting institutions such as the African Union and the United Nations have vacated the moral pulpit leaving behind a leadership vacuum.

Those relying on the global North to speak out against human rights violations in Africa need to recognize that these countries have entrenched strategic political and economic interests that override all other considerations. Moreover, the global North is being reconfigured every day by the actions of the current occupant of the White House in Washington DC whose words and actions are not any different from those of Africa’s strongmen.

Yet, despite all the gloom around, I am still cautiously optimistic about the nascent changes in Ethiopia and Eritrea. The ethnic-based federalist system in Ethiopia is being challenged reminding us all that those that seek leadership based on ethnic lines have a short lease in their governance. The future lies in disrupting the current systems of political and economic governance and seeking to build direct and distributive forms of leadership. We will keep holding our breath for the rest of East Africa, including Kenya.

Support The Elephant.

The Elephant is helping to build a truly public platform, while producing consistent, quality investigations, opinions and analysis. The Elephant cannot survive and grow without your participation. Now, more than ever, it is vital for The Elephant to reach as many people as possible.

Your support helps protect The Elephant's independence and it means we can continue keeping the democratic space free, open and robust. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our collective future.

By

Ms. Abraham is a governance and institutional development expert.

Op-Eds

Twitter: Let It Burn!

Whether or not Twitter survives should be irrelevant to those committed to building a democratic public sphere.

Published

on

Twitter: Let It Burn!
Download PDFPrint Article

Elon Musk finally bought Twitter. Although everyone expected the move to quickly prove foolhardy, the speed of the implosion has been impressive. The latest gaffe is a failed attempt to monetize verification by requiring paid subscriptions for them, which has led to all manner of comical impersonations (one macabre highlight was a “verified” George W. Bush account tweeting “I miss killing Iraqis. “Tony Blair” responded with “Same tbh”). Some are watching with shock and horror and wondering if Twitter can be saved. But, when sulfur and fire rains, it is best not to look back.

Africa Is a Country managing editor, Boima Tucker, put it best some years ago: “Contrary to the utopian dreams of the early internet, the idea of a more democratic communications space has given way to a system of capitalist exploitation.” The thing to reckon with is the extent to which we have exaggerated the emancipatory potential of networked communication and social media, partly owing to our own psychic overinvestments in it. Which is not to deny that it has never shown democratic and egalitarian potential, but that’s never been what Twitter is forThere can be no right platform in the wrong world.

What was Twitter for then? In the New York Review of Books, Ben Tarnoff describes it as a “network of influence.” In a world characterized by the economization of everything, social media is the place to commodify the self, to transform one’s unique traits and personality into a product for public display. The main imperative online is to “stay on brand,” to cultivate an appealing enough persona in the endless “production of new genres of being human.”

The key contradiction of social media use, of course, is that even though these platforms appear to us as complete products that we participate in and consume, we are the ones responsible for ensuring their possibility in the first place. As the media scholar Christian Fuchs notes, “Digital work is the organization of human experiences with the help of the human brain, digital media and speech in such a way that new products are created. These products can be online information, meanings, social relations, artifacts or social systems.” Thus, it is us who create the value of these platforms.

In a better world, these digital communications platforms would be democratically owned and operated. But one also wonders if in a better world they would be as necessary. Perhaps, when we are less socially disaffected, living in societies with social provision, an abundance of recreational public goods and less exploitative, dignifying work, then we would all have less reason to be online. For now, the question is: in a time when this ideal is nowhere close to being within view, how best can we use platforms like Twitter as tools to get us to that world?

The possible answers here are murky. Twitter seems like a critical piece of infrastructure for modern political life. Musk is not alone in thinking of it as a marketplace of ideas, as something like a digital town square. Yet, and especially in Africa, Twitter is not as popular a platform, and even on it, a minority of Twiteratti exert an outsized influence in terms of setting the discursive agenda. But setting aside the question of who is excluded from the digitalized public sphere of which Twitter is a cornerstone, the important question is whether the quality of political debate that takes place is healthy or desirable at all. Granted, it can be fun and cathartic, but at the best of times, amounts to hyper-politics. In Anton Jager’s explanation, this:

can only occur at a discursive level or within the prism of mediatic politics: every major event is scrutinized for its ideological character, this produces controversies which play out among increasingly clearly delineated camps on social media platforms and are then rebounded through each side’s preferred media outlets. Through this process much is politicized, but little is achieved.

We would lack critical self-awareness if we did not admit that Africa Is A Country is a venue whose existence greatly benefits from an online presence—so it goes for every media outlet. Tarnoff points out that “… if Twitter is not all that populous in absolute terms, it does exert considerable power over popular and elite discourses.” To lack an online presence is to reconcile oneself to irrelevance. Although, the news cycle itself is a disorienting vortex of one topic du jour to the next. It makes difficult the kind of long, slow, and sustained discourse-over-time that is the lifeblood of politics, and instead reduces everything into fleeting soundbites.

Nowhere is the modern phenomenon of what Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman called “pointillist time” more apparent than on Twitter. For Bauman, pointillist time is the experience of temporality as a series of eternal instants, and the present moment’s connection to the past and future “turns into gaps—with no bridges, and hopefully unbridgeable.” The consequence of this, is that “there is no room for the idea of ‘progress.’” Living through a mode where everything seems to be happening all at once, is both to experience time as what Walter Benjamin called “a “time of possibilities, a random time, open at any moment to the unforeseeable irruption of the new,” but curiously, at the same time, for everything to feel inert, and for nothing to seem genuinely possible.

For a while, notions of historical progress have been passé on the left, associated with Eurocentric theories of modernity. Now, more than ever, the idea is worth reclaiming. The Right today is no longer straightforwardly conservative, but nihilistic and anti-social, thriving on sowing deeper communal mistrust and paranoia. These are pathologies that flourish on Twitter. The alternative to media-fuelled hyper-politics and anti-politics is not real politics per some ideal type. Politics, in the first instance, is not defined by content, but by form. The reason our politics are empty and shallow is not because today’s political subject lacks virtues possessed by the subjects of yore. It’s because today’s political subject is barely one in the first place, lacking rootedness in those institutions that would have ordinarily shaped an individual’s clear sense of values and commitments. The alternative to digitized human association, as noted by many, is mass politics: only when the majority of citizens are meaningfully mobilized through civic and political organizations can we create a vibrant and substantive public sphere.

AIAC editor Sean Jacobs observed in his book, Media In Post-apartheid South Africa: “the larger context for the growing role of media in political processes is the decline of mass political parties and social movements.” Whether Twitter dies or not, and if it does, whether we should mourn it or not, should be beside the point for those committed to building a world of three-dimensional solidarity and justice.

This post is from a partnership between Africa Is a Country and The Elephant. We will be publishing a series of posts from their site once a week.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

COP 27: Climate Negotiations Repeatedly Flounder

The distribution of global pandemic deaths ignored existing country vulnerability assessments and dealt some of the heaviest blows to the best prepared countries in the world

Published

on

COP 27: Climate Negotiations Repeatedly Flounder
Download PDFPrint Article

As COP 27 in Egypt nears its end, I find it difficult, almost impossible, to talk to my children about climate change. The shame of our monumental failings as a global community to address the greatest crisis our planet has consciously faced weighs too heavy. The stakes have never been higher, the moral quivering of political leaders has never been more distressing.

“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others,” goes the famous commandment from George Orwell’s political allegory Animal Farm. It applies with particular acuity to international negotiations, where each country has a seat, but seats hold very different weights. The outcome of the Sharm-El-Sheik conference will in large part depend on what Western governments are willing to commit to and follow up on. Rich European and other Western countries are historically responsible for the bulk of carbon emissions. The moral case for them being the first-movers and the biggest movers on cutting emissions is crystal clear, and genuine commitments on their part may hold the key to opening up the floodgate of policy innovation towards decarbonization in other countries.

In this context, viewed from the Global South, recent events in the country that still held the COP presidency until it was handed over to Egypt appear as signs of the madness that grips societies before a fall. In her short time as head of government in the UK, Liz Truss spoke as if she lived on another planet that did not show signs of collapsing under the battering of models of economic growth birthed under the British Empire, gleefully pronouncing that her three priorities for Britain were “growth, growth and growth.” Her successor, Rishi Sunak, announced that he would not attend the COP 27 climate summit because he had to focus on the UK economy. The silver lining is that Truss did not last long and Sunak was shamed into reversing his decision. In a scathing rebuke, the Spanish environment minister called the shenanigans of British political leaders “absurd” and pointed out that elections in Brazil and Australia show that voters are starting to punish leaders who ignore climate change.

I see another silver lining. Last week, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced that Europe was warming twice as fast as other parts of the world. A similar report was not issued for North America, but other studies indicate faster than average temperature increases across the continent’s northeastern coast, and its west coast was home to one of the most striking heat waves last year, with a memorable summer temperature peak of 49.6°C recorded in British Columbia, Canada.

Professor Petteri Taalas, the WMO secretary-general, emphasized that the findings highlighted that “even well-prepared societies are not safe from impacts of extreme weather events.” In other words, the report should make Europeans think it could happen to us, with “it” being devastating floods on the scale of what Pakistan and Bangladesh recently experienced, or the hunger-inducing droughts afflicting Madagascar and the Horn of Africa. While some may find it dismal that human beings remain relatively unmoved by the plight of other human beings considered too distant or too different, this is a part of human nature to reckon with. And reckoning with it can turn a sentiment of shared vulnerability into an opportunity for the planet.

Climate negotiations have repeatedly floundered on the unwillingness of rich countries to pay developing countries loss and damages to fund their transitions to greener energies and build crucially needed climate adaptability to limit deaths. Underlying such a position is a centuries-old smug belief that Europe and North America will never need to depend on solidarity from other parts of the world. The WMO report calls into question such hubris, as did the Covid 19 pandemic before that.

The distribution of global pandemic deaths ignored existing country vulnerability assessments and dealt some of the heaviest blows to the best prepared countries in the world. Europe and North America, where barely 15% of the world population resides, accounted for more than half of COVID deaths. Turning the normal direction of disaster statistics upside down, high- and upper-middle-income countries accounted for four out of five Covid deaths globally. While some scientists still pose questions over the real death toll in low-income countries, I was grateful to not live in the West during the pandemic. In Burkina Faso, Kenya and Senegal where I spent most of my pandemic months, I often encountered “COVID refugees,” young Europeans who had temporarily relocated to work remotely from Africa to escape pandemic despair at home.

We are at a point in our failures to fight climate change where fiction writers and other experts of human nature are often more useful than scientists in indicating what our priorities should be. Many fiction writers have turned their focus on what will be necessary for humans to remain humane as societies crumble. Before we get to that stage, let us hope that political leaders and delegates keep remembering that climate disaster could very concretely befall them personally at any time. Let us hope that the sense of equal—or more cynically, unpredictable—vulnerability instills a sense of global solidarity and a platform to negotiate in true good faith. Let us hope that we can start talking to our children again about what we adults are doing to avert the disaster that looms over their futures.

This post is from a partnership between Africa Is a Country and The Elephant. We will be publishing a series of posts from their site once a week.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

The Specter of Foreign Forces in Haiti

The so-called ‘Haitian crisis’ is primarily about outsiders’ attempts force Haitians to live under an imposed order and the latter’s resistance to that order.

Published

on

The Specter of Foreign Forces in Haiti
Download PDFPrint Article

What actually happened on the nights of October 6th and 7th, 2022, remains unclear. What reverberated was the rather loud rumor of the resignation of Haiti’s acting prime minister  Ariel Henry. He was a member of President Jovenel Moïse’s pro-US Pati Ayisien Tèt Kale (PHTK) party. (Moïse was assassinated in July 2021.) Had Henry truly resigned? Or was it just a well-propagated rumor? Could it have perhaps been both at the same time: that Henry might have indeed resigned but had been coerced to stay, thus making the news of his resignation spread like gossip that the governmental communication machine had fabricated for public consumption?

Nevertheless, we witnessed the following the next day: in Henry’s address to the nation, he first requested the intervention of foreign military forces in Haiti. He then made a formal request to the United Nations. This call was picked up by international organizations, particularly the Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres. In the media coverage of the events, no relationship was established between the (rumored) resignation of the de facto Prime Minister and his request for military intervention. Was it a way to keep our minds occupied while waiting on a response from the international community? Or was the military intervention a promise made by the international community to Henry for the withdrawal of his letter of resignation?

Media coverage has seemingly obscured what happened on October 6th and 7th by choosing to focus solely on the request for military intervention, obscuring a chain of events in the process. Was the same request addressed to the UN and the US administration? Or were these two distinct approaches: one within a multilateral framework and the other within a bilateral framework? Supposing it was the latter, what does this tell us about the Haitian government’s domestic policy, about US foreign policy toward (or against) Haiti, or even about geopolitics (as part of a white-hot world order)—especially in light of US Assistant Secretary of State Brian Nichols’ visit to Haiti, his ensuing meetings, and the presence of US Coast Guard ships in Haitian waters?

At least one thing’s for sure. Since the request for formal intervention and the presence of the US in the form of its warships and its emissary, the question of military intervention has been swiftly framed as a discourse on the supposed “consensus between Haitians.” In reality, it refers to the convergence of interests between the representatives of the de facto Haitian government; the representatives of the Montana Accord (agreed on between civic and political groups in the wake of Moise’s assassination); and the president, Fritz Jean, and prime minister, Steven Benoit, agreed on as part of that accord. The message is clear: If you do not want a military intervention, side with Ariel Henry, who initiated the request himself. Any posture of self-determination must undergo review by Ariel Henry and his crew.

In these circumstances, there can be no self-determination. It is as though those truly responsible for the military intervention (which was already underway) aren’t those who asked for it, but rather those who were unable to thwart it by finding an agreement with the former group. In this sense, the “nationalist” label (the current catchall term which, among other things, is being made to include any praxis refuting the colonial apparatus) refers to doing everything possible to avoid military intervention—and that means doing exactly what the representatives of the “Colonial Capitalist Internationale” want.

American presence in Haiti—in the form of warships and a high-ranking emissary—takes after historical colonial endeavors such as the Napoleonic expedition for the reestablishment of slavery (1802) and King Charles X’s fleet, sent to demand ransom for Haiti’s independence (1825). Yet, in this case, the point is not to put pressure on those who hold the keys to institutions, but rather to avoid losing control in a context where those in government are not only misguided, but also display the greatest shortcomings in managing the lives of the population for the better. The US’s current presence thus more closely echoes the language of the English warship HMS Bulldog, sent to shell the city of Cap Haitien to support President Geffrard against the anti-government insurrection of Salnave.

The Henry government uses the same grammar as its tutelar powers to discuss the current situation. Much has been made of “efforts deployed by the United States and Canada”: they have consisted in flying police equipment into Haiti on Canadian and US military cargo aircraft. Henry and the Haitian National Police offered warm, public thanks for material paid for with Haitian funds some time ago; indeed, these deliveries have come very late, and only thanks to pressure from Haitian civil society actors. More problematic still, the presence of foreign military planes at the Toussaint Louverture Airport in Port-au-Prince has served both as evidence of an ongoing military intervention and as a subterfuge to obtain such an intervention.

This request for intervention, while it seeks to obfuscate this fact, nevertheless exposes the political illegitimacy of the Henry government—made up of members of Henry’s PHTK and former members of the opposition. Its illegitimacy doesn’t rest on the usual discussion (or lack thereof) and confrontation between the governors and the governed, nor on the classic power play between the political opposition and the authorities in place; rather, it is the result of the absolute rejection on the part of Haitians of an order controlled and engineered by the PHTK machine in Haiti for over 10 years with one purpose in mind: defending the neoliberal interests and projects of the Colonial Capitalist Internationale. The request for intervention reveals the fact that the rejection of the PHTK machine is but one part of a broader rejection of the neoliberal colonial order as it has manifested itself in various anti-popular economic projects, which themselves were made possible by many attempts at reconfiguring Haiti socially and constitutionally: consider, to name but a few, the financial project of privatization of the island of Gonâve, the referendum to replace the 1987 Constitution, and others.

For the first time since the US military intervention of 1915 (the centenary of which was silenced by the PHTK machine), we are witnessing a direct confrontation between the Colonial Capitalist Internationale and the Haitian people, as local political go-betweens aren’t in a position to mediate and local armed forces (whether the military, the militias, or the armed gangs) aren’t able to fully and totally repress unrest. In this colonial scenario—drafted in the past five years, maintained and fueled by the geopolitics of “natural disasters,” epidemics, pandemics, and the presence of gangs (simultaneously functioning as the armed extensions of political parties and materializing “disorder”)—the only possible solution to chaos is military intervention by foreign forces.

Yet one cannot pretend that such an intervention will help the Haitian people, and no agreement crafted in the language of the colonial system can stifle popular demands and aspirations which, in the past twelve years, have built what Haitian academic and activist Camille Chalmers calls a real “anti-imperialist conscience.”

What of late has breathlessly been labeled the “Haitian crisis” must instead be identified as the highest point of the contradiction which has brewed throughout the PHTK regime: between the International Colonial Capitalists’ will to force us to live under an imposed order and our resistance to that order.

This post is from a partnership between Africa Is a Country and The Elephant. We will be publishing a series of posts from their site once a week.

Continue Reading

Trending