28458: Hermantin( Review)Review of Haiti: Rising Flames from Burning Ashes (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: leonie hermantin <lhermantin@hotmail.com>

Review of Haiti: Rising Flames from Burning Ashes
June 12, 2006
By G. A. Rosso, Professor of English, Southern Connecticut State University

I enjoyed reading this book from a former student. It is a great personal 
accomplishment and its argument timely and necessary. Pierre argues in clear 
and unequivocal terms that the Haitian government should be reformed into a 
rational, law-based system of checks and balances that both insures a level of 
independence for the judiciary and legislative branches from the executive 
branch and enables them to work together for the good of all citizens. He 
brings impressive historical knowledge to the task and deftly uses the context 
of Haitian independence, both its triumphs and failures, as a theoretical model 
for what is right and wrong in Haitian politics today. And he supplies a 
fascinating account of the post-colonial power structure dominated by 
traditional elites, whose French-identified class bias and racism continue to 
divide Haiti.

The author also shows admirable courage in taking on the orthodox Left by 
refusing the argument for revolution. Although I think he idealizes and 
portrays U.S. democracy uncritically in many places, Pierre’s strategy of 
grounding his argument in the unfulfilled revolution of 1804 is insightful and 
wise. He stretches the historical analogy perhaps too far into the 20th 
century, but it works rhetorically and politically. His grasp of Haiti’s long 
history also is strong and assuring, lending resonance and credibility to his 
account of the political failures of revolution in each generation. Being 
equally critical of traditional elites helps provide analytical balance and 
turns the argument into a model of rational and moderate negotiation between 
political extremes. The treatment of Aristide is exemplary in this regard and, 
while I think it would strengthen the argument to explain more fully and 
clearly how Aristide brought the masses into the political arena, I believe 
Pierre’s insistence on building a stable civil society through rational, 
predictable, and enduring structures of governance is a mature and valuable 
addition to Haitian politics.

I found part I to be the most successful, especially chapters 2-5, which are 
very solid and launch the book nicely, setting the tone and establishing the 
credibility of the author’s argument. His treatment of the post-independence 
power consolidation is sharp and makes a significant contribution to the 
period. Although the book could benefit from engaging, however critically, the 
classic arguments of C.L.R. James’s Black Jacobins (l938), Pierre’s account of 
the dynamic struggle between Christophe and Pétion and of Boyer’s ultimately 
disastrous policies is worth consideration by scholars writing in the field of 
both Haitian and post-colonial studies.

Part II on the U.S. occupation is also good. It tells the truth about U.S. 
aggression and does not gloss over the responsibility of Haiti’s elite and the 
people in general in provoking such action. But this part raises a key 
intellectual and political problem that the book does not adequately deal with: 
and that is the question of agency (in terms of the means of exerting power or 
influence). The issue is not easily explained or resolved. Even in the United 
States, Pierre’s model democracy, it is questionable whether common citizens 
actually have power or the means to influence government. Although this 
question also emerges forcefully in part III on how to reform Haitian 
institutions, it appears starkly in relation to the occupation by the U.S., 
which may with France exert more economic and military power over Haitian 
politics than Pierre allows. But that is open to debate. What he does say in 
chapter 7 (particularly pp. 88-9) is that the U.S. stabilized the country while 
“failing to install a systemic backbone to ensure that Haiti would not again 
fall into the trap of its history” (89). How can an occupier install a system 
and that system be the historical exertion of the Haitian people? The question 
is doubly difficult to understand when the author does not state what were the 
strategic goals of the U.S. at the time. Pierre’s treatment of Estimé and Papa 
Doc are very good and make the chapter strong, with excellent work on Lavalas 
and Aristide as they relate to Pierre’s “all-or-nothing” thesis about Haiti’s 
political culture. But the material on Baby Doc needs more analysis (110ff) in 
relation to the economics of U.S. intervention: since he suggests that the U.S. 
really was in control of the Haitian economy in the 1970s, which in turn 
structured the political behavior of Haiti’s rulers, then he needs to lay out 
more clearly the nature and goal of U.S. overlordship in this period (and 
others) as well. Further, while this question of agency in relation to the 
United States would force Pierre to deepen and complicate his analysis of the 
U.S. as a model democratic society, the concluding paragraph to part II raises 
the issue purely within the Haitian context: who is in charge of the “carrot 
and stick” policy? Pierre says that “Reason” must be at the center of all 
political decisions, but how do you manifest such an abstraction, particularly 
since revolutionary change must be subordinated to a U.S model of pragmatism? 
This question makes part III of the book very important.

That Pierre understands the importance of a broad-based and comprehensive 
reformation of Haiti’s institutions of governance is a credit to his foresight 
and courage in tackling the hard questions. It also shows a deep-seated and 
genuine love of his country. Having recognized its value, though, I think this 
is the least successful part of the book.

The ideas in Part III are encouraging but lack the requisite concreteness to be 
of pragmatic use. Who is to carry out these suggestions? More crucially, what 
obstacles must be faced? In terms of the military (whose reform would be 
instrumental in changing Haiti), what entrenched resistance might arise from 
traditional elites, rival factions, or U.S. and French interests? These 
considerations involve agency and who will inaugurate and guide the reforms, 
especially in terms of distributing power more widely than the three branches 
of government. The basic idea is good, to open up more political space for the 
media, interest groups, professional associations, and the like. But these 
chapters speak of organizing different interest groups under an “umbrella” and 
of establishing a “set of accepted legal structures” without saying who would 
carry out this activity (190). How do you institutionalize the two national 
parties? What would the CEP need to do to become more powerful? The author 
mentions “incentives” (223) without saying what they are or how the CEP would 
become more organized, powerful, and relevant. At this stage, he simply asserts 
that they should be so. The CEP’s autonomy is important but how to engineer 
such independence, particularly in light of the majority party getting 4 
members on the CEP (239)? What “smart, pointed, and relevant legislative 
decisions” does the author have in mind (256)? Perhaps the point is simply to 
get the idea out there, especially in view of the dominance of “egos” in the 
present system, but without some sense of the specifics of the proposed changes 
Pierre’s argument remains abstract.

These are gist of my concerns. The executive branch chapter (21) is refreshing 
because the historical analogy returns to bolster the argument; but the next 
chapter on empowering the people needs to consider more fully, as I suggest 
above, what role Aristide’s brand of populism would play in the reform of 
Haiti’s institutions. Again, the question of agency is central to this concern 
and no single writer has all the answers to these questions. It is valuable 
that Pierre raises them. And he does so as a patriot in exile, which makes the 
chapter on the Diaspora (24) one of the best in the book: it benefits from the 
author’s personal experience and knowledge and provides more grounded 
discussion than the chapters on state institutions. Finally, I think it would 
help the structure of the book to separate chapters 22-25 into a part IV, 
especially since part III is over-crowded.

My criticisms may appear to overshadow my praise for the book, but that is not 
my intent. Hyppolite Pierre has written an important and provocative book, one 
that should enhance his reputation as a voice to be reckoned with in Haitian 
political circles. While I believe the press was negligent in not ensuring a 
better scholarly presentation, and in producing typographic and allowing 
grammatical miscues, I was inspired by the book and look forward to his 
continuing contributions to the science of politics and to the improvement of 
his beloved Haiti.

—Professor G.A. Rosso Department of English Southern Connecticut State 
University eMail Dr. Rosso

Dr. Anthony Rosso is a Professor of English at Southern Connecticut State 
University in New Haven. He has written several books and articles about 18th 
century British literary and social history, focusing on the work of the poet 
William Blake.