The Jamaica Summit: Seeking a Solution through Negotiation and Concessions

CARICOM's Eminent Persons Group hosted a recent summit in Jamaica. The summit brought together the opposing parties in Haiti's political crisis. The details of the closed-door talks remain undisclosed. However, the Prime Minister’s press conference, the opposition’s joint statement, and respective interviews have shed light on two main issues. On one hand, the government, along with the co-signatories of the Dec. 21 Accord aims to integrate the opposition into the existing accord. Meanwhile, the opposition demands the resignation of Prime Minister Henry. They want the formation of a new government headed by a President and Prime Minister and an oversight body. 

I believe that any talks between opposing parties are a positive step.

While some people criticized the recent summit in Jamaica between the Haitian government and the opposition, I believe that any talks between opposing parties are a positive step. The talks may have faced challenges, but the fact that the parties were willing to meet shows that they are open to finding a solution. A closer look at the joint declaration from the opposition parties and the Prime Minister's statement suggests that the two sides may be closer to an agreement than they realize.

The Challenges and Stakes

The situation in Haiti reflects a "scorpion's death spiral," where both parties claim to seek constitutional order and stability but find themselves trapped in a mutually destructive conflict. The government, despite its illegitimacy, holds power, while the opposition lacks the political capacity to dislodge it.

Negotiation in such circumstances is challenging. The parties have become entrenched in their positions, and seem to have lost sight of the disastrous situation, which is only worsening.

The antagonists appear to be trapped in the sunk cost fallacy.

The opposition has spent the last two years advocating for a transformative "koupe fache"  transition. So, their position was that Haiti could not have elections until the system was purged. They wanted a new and different class of politicians to manage the transition leading to elections.  While this message resonated with many in the middle class and abroad, it was insufficient to mobilize the masses effectively.

In sum, the antagonists appear to be trapped in the sunk cost fallacy. This is a common cognitive bias that causes people to continue investing in a failing course of action because they have already invested so much time, effort, or money into it.

The Progress Made at the Summit

The opening speeches during the Jamaica discussions were initially contentious. However, there was a notable shift in the parties’ respective declarations afterward. Firstly, the demands in the declaration signaled a concession that the Henry regime would continue to hold power.  Secondly, they have acknowledged that the current government will be responsible to guide the country towards elections.

On the other hand, in his opening speech, the Prime Minister stated that renegotiating the existing accord and offering ministerial positions were not on the table. However, he has conveyed his intention to carry out a ministerial reshuffle as outlined in the December 21 Accord.

Although both parties may be engaging in posturing, the rigid positions expressed in the opening speeches only serve to deepen the trust deficits. This posturing perpetuates a cycle of instability and heightens the potential for conflicts to arise. But one can see the outline of agreements between the antagonists.

The Obstacles to Overcome

Breaking this cycle requires concessions from both sides. A potential middle-ground solution involves establishing an entity to oversee the government's actions in preparation for elections. While one party advocates for a dual-headed government with both a president and prime minister, the government maintains its support for the current structure with the prime minister in charge of everything. Regardless of the terminology that is used, the objective is to ensure government accountability in the absence of a functioning parliament. The High Transitional Council (HTC) could potentially assume this role, although its mandate would require modification to suit the new circumstances.

The government's tenure has been disastrous for Haiti, displaying neither the capacity to govern nor the political will to make concessions in preparation for elections. Its focus has been on maintaining full control over all institutions. This includes the upcoming electoral council, further deepening distrust between the government and the political actors.

The opposition faces its own challenges. Notably, it lacks public legitimacy, as evidenced by its struggle to effectively mobilize the citizens. Additionally, their emphasis on holding perpetrators accountable for crimes, while essential for justice, instills apprehension within the current government. It is important to acknowledge that pursuing justice, particularly through restorative means, is an important objective for Haiti.

However, the current government is unlikely to willingly relinquish power when it anticipates being prosecuted by its adversaries. This observation does not imply a value judgment but underscores a reality that must be considered in a negotiation strategy. The opposition does not have the capacity to take power. Given its weaknesses, it cannot reasonably demand that any government would relinquish power to facilitate its prosecution.

The opposition must carefully balance the power dynamics with their ultimate goals.

Instead, the focus for the political actors should be security, freedom of movement, and preparing for elections. They need to strike a balance between accountability and addressing the immediate needs of the people. It is essential to recognize that most people are primarily concerned about their safety, rather than whether the government is structured as a "bicephale" or "monocephale." In the end, most people just want to be safe and will reward whoever can make that a reality.

Moreover, the opposition appears to have acknowledged the significant influence of the international community (IC), considering both its positive and negative aspects. Some members of the opposition have even engaged in discussions with officials during their visits to the US.

While the IC's standard view of democracy emphasizes election, we all recognize that this alone will not solve Haiti’s underlying fundamental problems. Nevertheless, the current situation cannot persist indefinitely, and elections will inevitably be held to facilitate progress. The diaspora must also adapt to this shift, moving away from a rigid ultra-nationalistic stance and embracing a pragmatic solution to the crisis where Haitians can lead with the support of external actors. 

The Path to a Resolution

Currently, neither the government nor the opposition has legitimate authority to speak for the people.

The government lacks legitimacy because it is not following the constitution or the will of the people. The opposition lacks legitimacy because it is trying to gain power through undemocratic means. This is the reality of the current constitutional crisis. Additionally, organized civil society, such as the church and the business community, is not united in its positions or actions, which makes it difficult for it to influence the parties involved.

Both sides will need to make difficult compromises to break the deadlock. Here are some specific proposals that could be included in a negotiated settlement:

• Expand the High Transitional Council (HTC): The HTC, responsible for overseeing the transition to a new government, has faced criticism for its lack of legitimacy, transparency, and oversight authority. To address these concerns, the HTC could be expanded by including additional members from the opposition parties and/or respected members from civil society. This would ensure a more inclusive representation of the key actors and enhance its accountability to the public.
• Grant oversight power to the HTC: Empowering the HTC with oversight authority would ensure greater accountability and transparency in the government's actions. Although investigating corruption and human rights abuses should be an eventual goal, it may not be feasible during the transitional period.
• Establish a clear plan for security and elections. The government and the opposition must reach an agreement on a comprehensive plan to address insecurity. This plan should include measures to strengthen law enforcement, dismantle criminal gangs, and ensure the safety of all stakeholders during the electoral process. Specifically, the plan should outline measures to secure polling stations and transportation routes for ballot distribution and create a safe environment for political campaigning.

Conclusion

The CARICOM summit in Jamaica was a significant step towards resolving Haiti's political crisis, despite facing some criticism.

The proposals above are a summary of the key points outlined in the various declarations and press conferences. The post-summit declarations also suggest that the parties are now closer than ever to finding common ground. I believe that engaging in dialogue and negotiation is always a positive endeavor, even if immediate progress may not be evident. The summit was a successful attempt as it brought together the opposing parties and provided them with a constructive platform for discussing their differences.

Rather than diminishing the effort, we must capitalize on this momentum and encourage the parties to continue building upon it. The diaspora community in the U.S. and Canada can play a vital role. By focusing on the points of agreement, we can advocate for international support in the negotiations as we urge the parties to find a solution. By rallying behind these efforts, we can contribute to a peaceful resolution of the political crisis in Haiti.