The Prophet and Propaganda

[bcholmes]

I'm reading this interesting book -- The Prophet and Power: Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the International Community and Haiti by Alex Dupuy. It's interesting, in the sense that it's articulating a position somewhat different than most of the Haiti books I read, but I still find myself sceptical of its thesis.

Most of the stuff I've read on Haiti falls neatly into three camps. In one camp are the books that assert that Aristide was forced out of power in 2004 by Canada, the US and France because he resisted efforts to implement neo-liberal policies in Haiti.

The second camp suggests that Aristide was forced out of the country by a group of plucky Haitian revolutionaries who went from town to town, taking over the country slowly, and eventually when it was clear that they were going to defeat all of Haiti, Aristide fled (and the US gave him a ride out of the country). In any event, this camp tells us, the people were glad to see Aristide go.

The third camp suggests that Aristide was a terrible human being, engaged in human rights abuses and anti-democratic policies, and the US justly took steps to push him out of the country. This third camp seldom discusses the details about what those steps were. As above, this third camp tells us that the people were relieved that Aristide left.

Dupuy's book is interesting in that it clearly understands how globalization and neo-liberalism operate in a place like Haiti. He suggests that the US bristles at countries that go beyond what he calls "minimalist democracies" -- which he defines as a pro-capitalist, vaguely libertarian state that does little else other than ensure that the country supports business interests. And he seems clear that Aristide supported a form of democracy that believed, for instance, that in order to ensure that everyone's rights -- including their economic rights -- were supported, that you kinda had to have things like limited forms of wealth re-distribution.

But he still goes on to suggest that Aristide, by his second term, had given up on liberation theology, had stopped promoting the interests of the poor majority, and was taking steps to entrench Lavalas' leadership of the country.

I'm finding the book interesting reading, even though I'm disagreeing with its arguments. I'm tempted to blog the individual assertions and why I think that they're wrong.

I'm also pleased to see Peter Hallward has reviewed the book in his Peter-Hallward-y way (fangrrl squee!).