|
(The first of two parts)
Whether you are a staunch
ally or an outspoken adversary of Laurent Lamothe, it will be
very difficult for you to dismiss the serious charges of
corruption made by some deputies who, in full session, claim to
have witnessed some of their colleagues in meetings where two
million gourdes (USD $50,000) was offered to each of them for
their vote in favor of ratifying the designated Prime Minister.
A senator has also publicly declared that, to encourage them to
vote favorably, several of his peers were handsomely paid off by
Laurent Lamothe. This strategy, apparently, worked for the Prime
Minister-designate during his passage through the upper house.
So why not use it for the deputies also?
Haiti certainly has no monopoly
on corruption. It is a global phenomenon. But there are
different scales, different degrees, of corruption. A country
where corruption is rife at all levels of government, where
justice is riddled with corruption, where parliamentarians are
perceived as corrupt, where a Prime Minister is,
internationally, associated with practices tainted with
corruption and fraud, where the Head of State is mired in
corruption scandals that transcend national boundaries, where
government contracts signed with private companies are tainted
by corruption: such a country loses all credibility, all
respectability. Its economic development is compromised.
Because, just as for democratic development, widespread
corruption and economic development are mutually exclusive.
Whether it’s university
productions, reports of international political organizations or
financial institutions, non-governmental organizations or
government agencies, independent researchers, the findings are
damning: econometric studies show that when we cross index
perceived corruption (as established by Transparency
International) with the human development index established by
the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), it appears that
countries with low levels of corruption are the countries with
the highest levels of human development, with democratic
structures that are solid and functional. Meanwhile, countries
with high levels of corruption have the lowest human development
levels and democratic institutions that are unstable and
failing.
Corruption is indeed a scourge.
It exerts a negative influence on democratic development,
economic development, and human development. It undermines
institutions, does a disservice to private investment, increases
budget deficits, hinders economic growth, and leads to the
decline of public aid for development. Corruption eliminates
transparency in government procurement, and without this, we
cannot speak of good economic governance. The chairman of
Transparency International described the phenomenon in these
terms: "Corruption is a major cause of poverty and is an
obstacle to combat...” He added that “these two scourges feed
off each other, trapping populations in a cycle of poverty." The
result: unending crises and political and social convulsions.
Back to the Ratification
Between the radical rejection and
unconditional acceptance of Mr. Lamothe as Prime Minister, there
is a third option: that of the ethic which refuses to subscribe
to the idea of selling such a high office for hard cash, or
shipments of rice, cartons of milk, and boxes of spaghetti.
Simply disgusting! There are some things that have no market
value, which one should not be able to buy or sell.
One thing immediately raised
strong suspicions even before the ratification session in the
Chamber of Deputies: the members of the commission tasked with
reviewing the record of the Prime Minister-designate had only 48
hours to analyze the 58 documents Lamothe presented, and to
prepare and submit their report to the secretariat’s office of
the Lower House. President Levaillant Louis-Jeune, sensing foul
play in the report’s preparation, tried to denounce the
wrongdoing. He warned that this stunt would "not help the
Parliament in it quest for a better image before public
opinion.” But according to a deputy who was a member of the
ratification commission, it "had been helped by a group of
experts."
Although it is not forbidden
for a parliamentary committee to hire experts, here, wouldn’t it
be worthwhile to know the identity of these experts: Who were
they? Were they volunteers? Were they independent experts or
front men in the pay of ...? What about the source of funds used
to pay the bill? Who was involved? Who set their fees? If it
turns out that this was a report prepared by experts close to
Mr. Laurent Lamothe, then this document is fundamentally flawed.
Basically, the ratification
commission of the Chamber of Deputies has, it seems, just
regurgitated the legal gibberish of the Senate Committee which
was repeated throughout the debates by pro-Lamothe deputies.
These quibbles go as follows: "The commission certainly found
irregularities in the case of the Prime Minister-designate.
However it is not able to attribute the errors found to the
concerned person himself [Lamothe] or to rule on the validity of
the documents placed in the file.” Never mind that their
authenticity was confirmed by the authorities that issued them
according to the audit of sub-committees formed for this
purpose. As a result, in strictly legal terms, the Committee can
only consider them as valid since they were issued either by
competent administrative authorities or by sworn ministerial
officers whose seals on the documents are taken in good faith
until there is an allegation of forgery. But whenever an
opponent tried to raise the question of forgery, that deputy ran
into a brick wall of committee members who did not want to
consider in any way any contradictory facts presented, arguing
that their mission was only to verify the authenticity of the
documents filed. As for the publicly made charges of corruption,
they were simply ignored. And the report's findings in favor of
ratification of Mr. Lamothe were eventually adopted by an
overwhelming majority of deputies present.
So the complacent blindness of
the Senate will be added to the deafness of the Chamber of
Deputies, some of whom were waiting, without much hope
admittedly, for a small victory for dignity.
If the accusations of
corruption are found to be true, to attain the post of prime
minister Mr. Lamothe has used a weapon which has already served
him well in his business dealings in Africa: corruption. Indeed,
on the African continent, journalists, trade unionists,
politicians and lawyers portray him as "the perfect con man,"
others as a master corrupter. "He bribed authorities with money,
trips to South Africa paid for by him... Many people, including
a minister, a presidential adviser, a woman senator, a CEO
earned $29 million on the back of the Senegalese taxpayers."
Even the Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade himself admitted to
taking bribes for a 2 billion CFA francs. (The GRIOT of November
11, 2010, Steven Addamah).
It will have taken much less to
buy the ratification vote of Haitian senators and deputies. Two
million gourdes [$50,000], that was the price of the vote,
negotiated in private meetings and denounced during in the
middle of the ratification session. A trifle, some might tell
us, compared with the millions that his company is making from a
surcharge on incoming calls into Haiti thanks to a contract with
[the Haitian telecommunications agency] Conatel which was signed
in complete secrecy. Yes and this seems to give credence to the
reports of some newspapers, including Haiti Observateur, which
announced weeks before the vote that to achieve the prime
ministerial ratification Mr. Lamothe had a small envelope of $10
million at his disposal.
(To be continued)
(Translated from the original French
by Kim Ives) |
