I leave it to readers to determine what Dessalines means to Joegodson; however, he is often explicit. And, in those cases, the mythical and historical Dessalines are consistent. Dessalines fought bravely and, as general, inspired the ex-slave soldiers. As the first ruler of Haiti, Dessalines tabled a constitution that prohibited foreigners from owning Haitian land. He ordered the execution of the French colonists. He fought with great determination and secured the avowal of the revolutionary generals to fight to the death all attempts to recolonize Haiti. Like many Haitians, Joegodson believes that he was assassinated by mulatto generals whose ambitions as landowners he obstructed.
Do these references to Dessalines — whether mythical or historical — imply that Joegodson accepts the Great Man theory of history? Or that he worships Dessalines who, alone among the revolutionary figures, found a place among the pantheon of Vodou lwas? Precisely the opposite is true. For Joegodson, Dessalines represents a standard of behaviour in the face of imperialists to which all Haitians are subject. Joegodson is concerned with (and judges) his fellow Haitians. He is looking for neither leaders nor followers. Similarly, we can tell the story of the revolution from the perspective of the ex-slaves who fought throughout Haiti in small formations of which Dessalines was surely unaware. Historian Carolyn Fick argues that those ex-slaves understood liberation to mean the freedom to cultivate plots of land free from the slaveholders. They largely succeeded. However, the revolution could not make the world outside of Haiti go away. And it was there that the landowners and merchants could make their fortunes, from what they appropriated from the peasants. The ex-slaves became tenant farmers, giving rise to a semi-feudal system in which they grew their own food but also cultivated cash crops that they owed to their landowner. If they could grow a surplus of coffee, sisal, or cacao, they could sell it to a speculator, thus earning a small amount of money to buy items that they could not produce. The speculator, in turn, sold his cash crops to the merchants for export to the United States, Europe, and Canada. That culture still persisted until the period when Joegodson’s story begins. However, in Saut d’Eau, no landowners imposed obligations on the peasants who cultivated the land much as the ex-slaves intended.
In discussing Haitian symbols, we risk assuming that we — who are putting Haiti under a microscope — do not mythologize the past. Many scholars ask why Haiti was unable to integrate into the capitalist world system on more favourable terms. Some blame Haitians for their supposed failure; others blame the Western powers. In either case, the failure of Haitians to join the Western liberal democracies needs to be explained. In reality, neither the United States, France, nor Canada attains the ideal of democracy as rule by the people. The philosophers and founding fathers of modern nation-states rejected democracy in favour of representative government, whereby citizens choose professional politicians to govern them. Democracy means, literally, that the people govern themselves. In other words, our modern languages give the place of democracy to something that is not democracy and leave us no term to describe what they have taken away. That is a remarkable achievement of the ruling class.
Political scientist Bernard Manin shows how key figures among the founders of representative government in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were aware of the historical precedents of democratic government. In Athens, for example, citizens were chosen by lot to serve terms on key institutions. (Similarly, our jury system calls upon citizens at random. It is accepted that all qualified citizens have the capacity to judge once they are informed of the issues involved.) Consequently, the system nurtured a sense of accountability among the citizenry. Athenian democracy was inherently proportional of the society it served. (The exclusion of women and slaves from the demos was a self-imposed constraint on Athenian democracy. The demos can be as inclusive as we choose.) In contrast, representative governments have resulted in cultures of powerlessness and frustration throughout the world. The founding fathers assumed that citizens would elect an elite, which they called the “natural aristocracy.” The subsequent changes to the system — the rise of political parties, the struggles for universal suffrage, the current cult of celebrity leadership — have consolidated the power of the “natural aristocracy” over the people, all the while laying the responsibility on the electors. If you do not like the state of the world, it is your own fault for voting wrong.1
In what follows, we will break from the custom of confusing democracy with representative government. When “democracy” is used to mean representative government, it will appear in quotation marks, as in this sentence. Athenian democracy describes only one system in which people govern themselves. Anthropologists have documented countless traditional cultures that achieve that end without a state or elections. While the United States claimed to be spreading “democracy” during the Cold War, it was doing precisely the opposite: destroying all traditional systems in which people governed themselves. Article twenty-one, section three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights imposes representative government on the entire world: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”
Citizens in “democracies” are responsible for electing politicians to represent them in the international system. However, production proceeds on a transnational basis. Each nation assumes a part of the process that culminates in a product for sale in the global marketplace, from which the poor are excluded. The system has been constructed, and is maintained, by a transnational capitalist class. Politicians become a part of that class when they sign trade agreements and pass domestic legislation. The nations that constitute the transnational system are unequal in the economic, diplomatic, and military pressure they can bring to the negotiating table. Since World War Two, the United States has pursued a strategy of ensuring that no other nation can challenge its role as the centre of the capitalist world system. What, then, are citizens outside of the core capitalist countries authorizing with their votes?2 Why would Haitians ever vote their approval of the system that relegates them to the economic role described in Joegodson’s story? It is unsurprising that Haitian elections are at the centre of the history reviewed in the following pages.
Undoing the Revolution
The first American invasion of Haiti occurred in the context of American expansionism at the turn of the twentieth century. An American named James P. McDonald initially secured the concession from the Haitian government to build a railroad from Port-au-Prince to Cap-Haïtien under the charter of the National Railways of Haiti. City Bank of New York (which would become Citibank) issued bonds in France, guaranteed by the Haitian government at 6 percent. Roger L. Farnham, vice-president of the City Bank, became the president of the National Railways of Haiti, which proceeded to construct only those sections that passed across flat ground, ignoring the difficult mountainous passages.3 Even the work completed was shoddy. Nevertheless, Farnham demanded that the Haitian government pay in full for the contract. When it refused, he sought to force the Haitian government into receivership and to take over the customs revenue, citing the debts allegedly owed to the National Railways. By 1914, Farnham was the adviser on Haiti to the American Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan.
When the Haitians refused to give up their economic sovereignty to the American bank, in 1914 President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State Bryan sent the Marines to steal $500,000 in gold from the Banque Nationale in Port-au-Prince and transfer it to the vault of City Bank in New York.4 The Americans invaded Haiti in 1915 and imposed their laws and a constitution, all illegal and against the will of Haitians of all classes. A key provision of the new constitution was the right of foreigners to own Haitian land, undoing the central achievement of the revolution. This would ultimately weaken the Haitian landowning class that depended on the peasant surpluses; that power would be transferred not to the
peasants, but rather to American corporations. In 1922, Louis Borno, Washington’s choice, was inaugurated as president of Haiti and days later the National City Bank of New York was awarded the contract to refinance the Haitian debt. It sold thirty-year Haitian government bonds on the American market. The bonds were backed by Haitian government revenue, ensuring that very little capital would be available for domestic development, but that whatever surplus Haitian peasants might produce should go to profit the National City Bank and its bondholders. Consequently, Americans playing the market had a reason to demand that Washington protect “American interests” in Haiti. The proceeds of the peasants’ work had been appropriated twice: once by the Haitian bourgeoisie and then by the Americans for Citibank. The occupation collected all revenues and decided how to disperse them.5 Not only did the Americans order all Haitian newspapers to refrain from criticizing the occupation and the government but they were prohibited from printing the fact that they were prohibited from criticizing. Many Haitians joined an armed resistance movement under the leadership of Charlemagne Péralte who was betrayed, captured, tortured, and killed to dissuade potential resistors. American Marines killed thousands of Haitian peasants who fought with the resistance.6 This occupation lasted until 1934.7
“Democracy” as a Strategy of Control
Wall Street conspired to control Haiti through debt. It then used Washington and the Marines when force was required to take over the state and subdue the population. Forcing Haiti into debt was especially offensive. Haiti was coming to the end of paying the odious debt imposed by France in 1825, compensation for the loss of its plantations and slaves as a result of the Haitian revolution.
To protect their investment in Haiti, the Americans established and trained the Gendarmerie d’Haïti. Replacing American Marines with Haitian soldiers allowed Washington to conceal its role in Haiti’s affairs. As long as Washington had the allegiance of key officers, it could manipulate Haitian politics when necessary. Moreover, it could leave the impression that military violence and political instability were endemic to Latin America. Stability appeared to belong to the rich liberal “democracies” of the North. However, the racism and chauvinism inherent to the occupation spawned a movement of pride in Haiti’s African heritage aligned with the international movement called Négritude. A key contributor to the movement was François Duvalier, who established his credentials as a defender of black peasants, the Creole language, and the Vodou religion.8
In the 1957 elections, Washington supported François Duvalier (later known as Papa Doc) for president, not because of his strengths, but rather his apparent weakness. It appeared he would be easily manipulated. However, to outfox the Americans, Papa Doc created a new security force that operated at a local level. All over the country, he authorized otherwise uneducated and unqualified men and women to act on his behalf locally. The tontons macoutes owed their power and loyalty to Papa Doc.9 Often tyrants in their dealings with the local inhabitants of both rural and urban parts of Haiti, they sidelined the Army as the main instrument of coercion. They were drawn from the very parts of Haitian culture that had been oppressed historically and that the ethnographic movement had tried to validate: black, Vodouist, and Creole-speaking. Through them, Papa Doc had consolidated his power by 1963.10
Papa Doc legitimated his hold on power by staging celebrations in his own honour. From the early 1960s, local authorities were responsible for rounding up some peasants in their sections and busing them into Port-au-Prince every year on 22 May. There, they were the backdrop for a public display of their supposed devotion to Papa Doc. After they had served their purpose as a mass of devoted subjects, Papa Doc lost interest in them. Many remained stranded in the capital that was foreign to them. Papa Doc’s wife, Simone Duvalier, convinced François to clear the peasants out of sight. They were displaced to the north of the city on swampy, mosquito-infested land. The neighbourhood was christened Cité Simone. The state took no interest, but the Salesian Brothers attempted to bring rudimentary services to the displaced peasants. The tontons macoutes called it Cité Interdite, meaning the Forbidden City. After the fall of Duvalier, the macoutes were replaced by petty criminals and their gangs. But there was also a religious authority that grew in importance. Evidence of this transition can be seen in the renaming of Cité Simone as Cité Soleil, after the Catholic radio station that broadcast there.11
By the late 1960s, resistance to Papa Doc’s repressive regime was growing. He agreed to the terms offered by the Nixon administration for America’s support in protecting his regime. He would have to accept American investment, against the interests of his main allies, Haiti’s big landowners. American investment in agribusiness and assembly plants would mean the end of the semi-feudal system. Before his death in 1971, Papa Doc arranged for his son, nineteen-year-old Jean-Claude, or Baby Doc, to succeed him as president-for-life.
The State in the Transnational Economy
By moving production offshore, American industrial capitalists reduced their labour costs substantially. That required changes in both the core and the peripheral countries. Capitalists assured consumers in the core countries that their objective was to lower the price of goods. Instead, they eliminated jobs and increased profits. By 1980, multinational corporations had opened 200 assembly plants next to Cité Soleil to take advantage of the poorest people in Haiti.12
Until the 1980s, Haiti was almost entirely self-sufficient in rice production. The domestic industry employed 20 percent of the population. After the fall of Baby Doc in 1986, the Haitian military government under General Namphy lowered the tariffs on imported American rice from 35 to 3 percent. Meanwhile, Washington subsidized American rice production throughout the 1980s and 1990s at a rate between 35 and 100 percent. The World Food Program calculated that Haiti’s food self-sufficiency ratio deteriorated from 85 percent in 1980 to 50 percent by 1995. By 1996, an American monopoly named The Rice Corporation of Haiti controlled the importation of 2,100 metric tons of American rice into Haiti every week. Haitian cultivators lost $23 million a year, at precisely the moment that they needed money to buy imported rice. The policy was justified on the grounds that Haitian farmers could not feed the nation. Augustin Antoine Agustin, a Haitian-born professor at Tulane University with business interests in Haiti, helpfully penned a report to justify the policy, arguing that, without imported American rice, Haiti faced increasing malnutrition. In fact, his report was fabricated out of whole cloth. At that time, no one had monitored food production in the remote areas of Haiti. In 1994, USAID would establish the Interim Food Security Information System precisely to “collect, analyze and monitor food security indicators.” They spoke of the need to “begin to address this critical area of agricultural data collection.” Years later, they were still talking about beginning the research. The goal of USAID was to make Haitians dependent on American rice. First, they had to present Haitians as victims of their own incompetence as cultivators. In reality, by destroying Haitian agriculture and manipulating Haitians into dependence, USAID created the situation they claimed to be resolving.13
The Resilience of Class Structures
Duvalier had been forced out of the country as a result of the growing pressure from the popular classes. The world revolution that crested in 1968 also left its mark on Haiti. Slowly, inspired by liberation theology imported by local priests into every corner of the country, peasants reconsidered their place in society. In the urban slums and in the countryside, they became increasingly conscious of the oppressions they lived daily. They called the process of learning about the economy and politics lave je — cleaning the eyes. By the 1980s, such local consciousness-raising groups had evolved into the Ti Legliz (Little Church) movement. All over Haiti, small local churches and peristyles, or Vodou temples, were the centres of communities. Local people spoke of their place in heaven and earth in a new way. Many leaders arose in the face of the backlash from the Duvalier regime. Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide spoke eloquently about the inher
ent equality of all human beings. That proposition was radical and powerful in the context of Haiti’s class relations. At the same time, Aristide fiercely condemned the capitalist world order under which poor Haitians suffered. His interpretation of Christ’s message inspired the poor, but disturbed and insulted the oligarchy. The notion that the poor had dignity, let alone rights, was offensive to the rich. They armed groups to violently put down all attempts to alter existing power relations.
The military maintained control of government for five years after the flight of Duvalier, protecting corporate America and the Haitian oligarchy against the interests of poor Haitians. In 1990, former President Jimmy Carter summarized their approach to “democracy” in these words: “As recently as Nov. 29, 1987, an election was called to fulfill promises made in their post-Duvalier constitution. Citizens who lined up to vote were mowed down by fusillades of terrorists’ bullets. Military leaders, who had either orchestrated or condoned the murders, moved in to cancel the election and retain control of the Government.”14 In 1987, Father Aristide was preaching fiery sermons at Saint Jean Bosco Church in one of the slums of Port-au-Prince. On 11 September 1988, his parishioners filled the church despite the threat of violence. When the macoutes attacked, many were massacred. Aristide survived.15
Rocks in the Water, Rocks in the Sun: A Memoir from the Heart of Haiti Page 37