Leaders of Haiti, is there any? This question would have been irrelevant have I asked it during the thirty years before February 7, 1986. The notion of Haitian leaders was very much a delusion during the era of the Duvaliers. Under the leadership of the Duvaliers, anyone who attempted to raise concerns or talk against the regime would most likely be disappeared in the middle of the night, killed or tortured; and if they were lucky enough, they would have been forced into exile. Today, February 7, 2007, 21 years after the deposed of President Jean Claude Duvalier, what have we accomplished?

With President Duvalier out of the country, a wave of “leaders” emerged in Haiti; they are what I refer to as “Passive Leaders”. Many critics argue that the deposed of President Duvalier was not, in any ways, a result of leadership among Haitians. Others even argue that it wasn’t the Haitians who deposed the president but the United States government. In the midst of all that, where does the truth lay? Let it be reminded that the movement against President Duvalier, which has come to be known as Dechoukay, began in early 1985. The movement was not a result of any leader or leaders but the will of a tired, over abused people against a do nothing president. It was an ad hoc movement. The Haitians became their own leaders for they led the movement through their music, arts, paintings, churches and even pirated radio shows.

As a clever people, the heirs of Vertieres knew how powerful the regime was but, they equally knew that the will of a well determined nation for freedom cannot wait. The strategy was to have all cities, suburbs, villages and communities throughout the country to rise against the regime. Proven historically, Haitians have one powerful weapon which they rarely use; and when they do, they become unstoppable. This weapon is their togetherness. It took three deaths to witness this powerful weapon in action. It was not until November 28, 1985, following the deaths of Jean Robert Sius, Daniel Isaac and Marc-Enson Michelle, all students killed by the tonton macoutes in Gonaives that the Haitian people totally united against the president and his associates. Together, the Haitians did put an end to the Duvaliers’ empire in Haiti.

Shortly after the deposed of the president emerged the so-called “Passive Leaders”. They came from all over the world; some of them were the ones forced into exile and others were simply ordinary Haitians living abroad. These were groups of individuals with their own ideologies aiming at the National Palace. The whole purpose of their returning to Haiti was to succeed President Duvalier. Such people cannot be called “Leaders”. Notice that for anyone to become a leader, the following statement must be justified: Someone becomes a leader, if (and only if) he/she becomes the will of the people to be led. Is there such a character in the Haitian political arena? Some would aptly argue that President Jean Bertrand Aristide could be described as such. Is he still the hero of the 1990’s?

Furthermore, the “Passive Leaders” were put to a test; a test where they had a chance to prove themselves and they frankly flunk the test. This test was the deposed of President Jean Bertrand Aristide by the Haitian Army in 1991. Which one of these “leaders” condemned the military coup? Has anyone of them stood up to defend the will of the people? They were instead quiet, hoping that Mr. Cedras, the then Army Chief, would call upon one of them to succeed President Aristide. This proves the lack of leadership that existed and continues to exist in Haiti. The silence of the Haitian “Leaders” during the 1991 coup d’état against President Aristide was the biggest disappointment in Haitian politics of the 1990’s. After all, a leader has all the rights to oppose Aristide, however, how in the world could one call himself a leader when he opposes to the will of the people to be led?

The main goal of the “Passive Leaders” is to become president. They are not interested in being a senator, deputy, mayor, ambassador or even a judge. They want to hold the highest office of the land. As my late grand mother used to joke, “en chaque Haitien, il y a un president” (there is a president in each Haitian). We need to change this mentality and start working together for a better Haiti. It is an ego and a presidential sickness. Now that we are four years away to our next presidential election, none of the so-called “Leaders” is working toward helping the ordinary people or involving in programs that would benefit the Haitian people; they are rather busy preparing their speeches for the upcoming presidential election of 2010.

As a result of this lack of leadership and because the movement against President Duvalier was so spontaneous, I frankly believe that Haitians were not readily prepared for the eventual post Duvalier era. Because the uprooting of the president was not planned, Haitians failed to foresee the aftermath of Duvalier; and unfortunately, chaos was nicknamed democracy after the deposed of the president. Nowadays, a great number of Haitians argue that Haiti would have been better off had President Duvalier stayed. Such an argument is understandable because Haitians are truly becoming more and more desperate and helpless than ever. However, this is not an argument that I am ready to support. As we say in Haiti, “qui n’avance pas récule” (who does not advance moves back). This is my position when it comes to describing the post Duvalier era in Haiti. A vivid example is the State of Iraq. A recent survey reveals that more than 70% of Iraqis argue that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein. Due to the situation in Iraq, it is easy to understand why some people would argue as such. Does that turn Saddam Hussein into a hero? It is far from that, nonetheless, the day to day nightmare forces the people of Iraq to look back at the relative calm under Saddam Hussein; and that can also be said about Haiti.

Twenty one years after the deposed of President Duvalier, Haitian should now be focused on moving forward not looking backward. Instead, we have to rethink our way of behaving toward elected governments in Haiti. Rather than taking to streets and advocate the overthrowing of an elected government, we need to emphasize on taking to the polls and unseat a do nothing government. In a democracy, if taking to the streets and advocate the overthrowing of an elected, sometimes selected, president was allowed, a certain George W Bush would have joined the ex-presidents’ club. This is to say, hypothetically, if it occurs that President Preval is unable to fullfil his promises, we should voice our concerns but taking to the streets and advocate his overthrowing should not be an option.

The people’s choice is very narrow when it comes to choosing a leader. The faces are the same since 1986. We need to broaden the choices of the people by bringing in new faces and new ideas that would eventually bring relief to the people and positive results to the political crisis that we are all fed up with. We are evidently neither ready to claim that we have leaders in Haiti nor can we rightly argue that there isn’t any; however, we can definitely argue that there is a lack of leadership in Haiti. The question to ask follows: where do we go from here? Let me be the first to say that there isn’t anything that the Haitian people cannot accomplish. We simply have to find a common cause and pursue it. That’s what we did in November 1803 in Vertieres and most recently, February 7, 1986, April 20, 1990 (the crossing of the Brooklyn bridge, NYC, march against the stereotype of Haitians as the originators of the HIV virus) and frankly December 16, 1990 (the first democratic presidential elections held in Haiti).