President Martelly Opts for Dialogue and Rejects Violence to Solve Political Contentions

Martelly and Preval

Yitzhak Rabin, the fifth Prime Minister of Israel and Nobel Peace Prize winner, said once: “You don’t make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies.”

He was assassinated in office in 1995 because of the Oslo Accords, the blueprint of peace in the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, which he signed with his Palestinian neighbors –he wanted to make peace with the Palestinians.

Today, each time I think of the political conjuncture in my homeland Haiti, this great quote of Prime Minister Rabin cannot stop roaming through my mind. He was, like many other world leaders, a champion for peace. That is why he was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 –a year before his assassination.

For quite some time now, President Martelly, in his attempt to find a concerted and agreeable solution to the situation of standstill the country is in today, has initiated a series of meetings or consultations with political leaders, respectable and nationally renowned personalities in the civil society, professionals, members of the clergy, members of the press, etc. Unfortunately, not all seem to fall in line with his action as evidenced by this Nouvelliste article entitled Quand Moise Jean-Charles douche Rene Preval.

Reading the article, I could not stop shaking my head in disbelief. It is very sad and depressing to read what the Lavalas senator thinks of former President Preval’s meeting with President Martelly. To downplay its importance, he sees it as going to the National Palace to participate in the Carnival.

The Lavalas senator is going ballistic and enraged at former President Preval for the simple fact that he went to meet with President Martelly in the National Palace to brainstorm on the country’s sociopolitical conjuncture. Being that he is an experienced former head of state, someone who had dealt with all kinds of challenges during his tenure as president, he went to consult with President Martelly on the road to take to get through the staleness the country is going through right now.

The senator of the Lavalas opposition, Moise Jean-Charles, needs to understand this basic concept: there is no better way to solve contentions and disagreements other than through sincere and honest dialogue. If he knows a better way, he needs to bring it forth. Obviously, he does not; his only way is to see President Martelly, the country’s democratically elected president, ousted.

It is quite obvious that these folks in the Lavalas opposition [for the record, when I say Lavalas opposition, I want to refer to Fanmi Lavalas, Inite, Fusion, MOPOD, RDNP, Ansanm Nou Fo, Ayisyen Pou Ayiti] do not want to see the standstill resolved; they want a chaotic state of affairs.

The Lavalas opposition’s only objective is to see Martelly dragged out of power by any means necessary. And anyone who, like former President Preval, dares meeting with President Martelly –in an attempt to unfreeze or untangle the political stillness –will fall prey in their radar of attack. They don’t see country… they only see their selfish and short-lived personal or party interests.

The more they hold on their intransigence or grudges, the clearer the people will see what they are really after and about.

President Martelly needs to stay resolute and focused; he is doing the right thing. He must not let these Lavalas folks sway him. In fact, they hold no real power to topple his administration. If they had the means to do it, they would have done it by now. They are a bunch of good-for-nothings who can only make empty noises on the streets.

On this day marking the 208th anniversary of the death of Emperor Dessalines, what is a better way to respect and honor the legacy of this great and illustrious figure than to reflect on his philosophy, to penetrate his psyche beyond his death? No, instead, the Lavalas opposition calls for another street protest to demand the ousting of President Martelly. And we all know what this protest will bring behind it. They will put their violent mobs on the streets to physically and psychologically terrorize the population, burn tires, break people’s car windows and steal their belongings, loot private businesses, etc…

Contentions and disagreements can only be resolved through dialogue, not violence. With violence, all of us will lose; there can never be winners. So let us all renounce violence and embrace peace and the philosophy of nonviolence.

Those among us promoting conflict resolutions through violence only show their weakness and incapacity to promote peace, concord, amity and harmony. They are the nation’s true enemies. We need to annihilate them not by means of violence, but by means or rejection. So it is time to reject and refute the Lavalas ideology of violence and racial division to embrace the true Dessalinian philosophy of unity and peace through dialogue, unity and social justice. President Martelly needs to continue with these series of consultations with all the people willing to meet with and talk to him. That is the most productive, progressive and commonsense approach, and I strongly support him in such endeavor.


Mirlande H. Manigat, Haitian presidential candidate

I wonder what Mirlande Manigat had said to her husband, Leslie F. Manigat, when he shared with her his intention to run for president in Haiti in the election of January 17, 1988, which was rejected by 96% of the electorate.

Your inquiry minds may be asking why is it that only 4% of the electorate participated in that election. Well, I am going to tell you why, and I hope you are taking notes.

There was to be a presidential election on November 29, 1987 -the very first democratic election to be taken place in the country after the collapse of the Duvalier regime in 1986. The population was extremely motivated and enthusiastic to participate in that election; the turnout was to be unprecedentedly huge.

On Ruelle Vaillant, in Port-au-Prince, on the day of the election, there was a voting precinct; early in the morning, there was already a long line of people standing and waiting to cast their votes. As the line was getting increasingly long and thick in numbers, a truck loaded with armed military personnel, under the command of Colonel Jean Claude Paul, drove by and massacred between 30 and 300 unarmed innocent civilians, which has suscitated the annulment of the election.

The entire country fell in a state of consternation and trepidation; we were mourning for months the death of these innocent and honorable human beings.

There was an outcry from the population calling for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. But as it is customary in Haiti, an endless investigation was said to be on the way, and, until today, no one has ever been arrested and tried.

These innocent civilians did not do anything to deserve such horrible fate; they were only standing in line to vote and thereby fulfill a civic duty.

After the carnage, slaughter or bloodbath (however you want to call it), the National Council of Government (French: Conseil National de Gouvernement), presided by General Henri Namphy, decided to call for another election to be taken place on January 17, 1988. This time, the electorate was not in tune.

A call to boycott the election was issued by most of the grassroots organizations and political parties at the time. Only a very few political parties, including the RDNP of Leslie Manigat, participated in that election.

It was a simulacrum, for which only 4% of the electorate turned out. That election was a farce only to hand the presidency to Leslie Manigat, who was going to be toppled in a coup by the military five months later, precisely on June 20, 1988.

Now, throughout this contentious presidential campaign, Mirlande Manigat has put his rival, Michel J. Martelly, to trial. She has managed to make this election a referendum on Martelly’s morality.

In my humble opinion, I think she has been given a free pass as though she is a purist. No one, not even the press, has taken the time to find out things about her; they are too busy digging into Martelly’s personal life. It is a conspiracy against Martelly.

I think it is time to have a serious conversation on morality in this country. What is considered moral and what is not? Are the rules of morality only address the behavior of an artist who, in his stage performance, happens to be pulling his pants down, wearing a mini skirt, and/or bombarding the ears of his fans with profanity? I refuse to believe so.

Leslie Manigat, by his participation in the shameful January 17, 1987 election, has proven to be a man of no character -one who would accede to power at any cost, even if that means putting in jeopardy the sovereignty of the nation. He must have told his wife, Mirlande Manigat, of his intention to run for president in that election, and she must have approved of it.

When it comes to morality, Mirlande Manigat is in no position to put anybody to trial in a morality court. She has no moral authority to preside over such body. She is just as immoral as the person she is accusing of being immoral, because in the eye of the just, being a person of no character is in itself immoral. So she needs to retire her morality argument.

Suggested sites:,_1988,_1987


Mirlande Manigat -leader of RDNP

All RDNPists and supporters of Mirlande Manigat, do not say I am not being fair for having given tips to Martelly on how to beat your leader in the next election and not given you anything. This time is yours to be served. This piece is going to give you tips on what to do next going forward.

Let me begin by saying this: if after more than 25 years in the existence of RDNP Mirlande Manigat is the best you guys have to offer, something is not going right inside the party. After this election, the party itself needs to do a soul-searching exercise to fix what needs to be fixed and change the entire Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

I think Patrice Dumont, had he represented the party in the election, assuming he has a clean record, could have made a better showing than Manigat. Generation wise, he and Martelly fit in the same bracket. He’s a media personality, Martelly is a stage personality. He seems to have a strong education background, which, in my opinion, could have been a major mismatch for Martelly.

With him in the race, the battle could have probably not been waged on the leadership front as it is now with Manigat; but, rather, on who has the best vision for the country.

To be fair, though, Manigat’s plan does sound great ON PAPER. It is so great that I think Martelly is going to have to steal some parts of it. But, if elected, does she have the leadership spine and the iron fist to implement it? The answer is a fat and loud NOOOOOO. She is weak and symbolizes failure. That’s why she is going to lose this race which should have been hers to lose.

After this election, the RDNP party must take some time to redefine and reintroduce itself. You must fire Mirlande Manigat and entrust the leadership of the party with a new generation of leaders with a clear agenda to win control of the presidency and have a strong congressional presence in Congress and mayoral presence all around the country in the next five years. You never know what may happen; I may become a registered RDNPist -with a complete reshuffling and a new leadership, of course.

I bet you are not going to do that; she is going to be kept in her place until she dies or decides to retire. Why should she be asked to relinquish her position? After all, the party is her private property; it will disappear or cease to exist with her death. That’s basically the life expectancy of most political parties in Haiti. They disappear with the death of the founder.

Well, you don’t need to listen to my advice. What do I know? I am a nobody.