Dictatorial money matters: the sad case of Haiti

Right in the middle of the misery and deprivation visited upon the people of Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake comes a wholly amazing ruling by a Swiss court. The ruling relates to a sizeable sum of money, $4.6m to be precise. And the question before the Schweizer Bundesgericht (Swiss Federal Court) was whether the money belonged to Mr Jean-Claude Duvalier, or to the government and people of Haiti. And although the judgement is slightly opaque, the Swiss court appears to have decided that it does not belong to the Haiti government, and therefore by default it does belong to Mr Duvalier.

So who then is our Mr Duvalier? None other than the infamous ‘Baby Doc‘, former dictator of Haiti. Jean-Claude is the son of the late (and wholly unlamented) François Duvalier, who ruled Haiti from 1956 to 1971. Having before this time run a disease eradication programme in Haiti, François had been nicknamed ‘Papa Doc’, a name that stuck. He was elected President, but soon grabbed absolute power and initiated a reign of terror, which was underpinned by his secret police, the notorious Tonton Macoutes. He also actively used voodoo cults to subjugate the population. He died in 1971 and was succeeded by Jean-Claude.

Our Jean-Claude was nicknamed ‘Bébé Doc‘, or ‘Baby Doc’. At first he attempted some half-hearted reforms, but in reality his heart was only in his dedicated life as a playboy, and his rule was given over to facilitating that life. In this way he took over the country’s tobacco industry and other businesses and siphoned off very considerable sums of money for his own personal enjoyment. In 1986 his rule came to an end after a papal visit in which Pope John Paul II criticised his régime, which was followed by pressure from the US Reagan administration for his departure. He left Haiti and has, according to most accounts, lived a relative life of luxury in France ever since.

When he left office his assets in Switzerland were frozen, and over the past year or two the Haiti government has been trying to have it returned to the country, on the no doubt reasonable assumption that it had been stolen from Haiti anyway. The Swiss government was giving this plan some support until it was stopped by the Federal Court. There is now some speculation that the government will introduce legislation to allow the funds to be transferred to Haiti, and for now the money remains frozen.

There are too many countries in the world – particularly the developing world – that have been ruled as a kleptocracy, where rulers rule until such time as they have stripped all the country’s assets, and they then retire to somewhere congenial where they live on the wealth they have stolen. Zaire (now Congo) and the Cenbtral African Republic are examples, as was Haiti under the Duvaliers. Such conduct needs to be discouraged, and one way of doing that is to ensure that these ill-gotten gains are never accepted as the property of these dictators.

Goodness knows, Haiti needs a break. It should get this money without any further questions.

Advertisement

Referendumitis

As everyone knows, Ireland will be voting in a referendum this Friday on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community. That will be the only issue to be placed before the Irish people in a referendum this year. And notwithstanding the excitements that such a referendum can entail it’s a relatively rare occurrence in Ireland.

It would be very different if we were living in Switzerland. Since 1848 Swiss citizens (until recently, men only) have been asked to vote on all sorts of propositions. So far this year they have had five referendums, and seven more are planned. So for example this past weekend they voted in favour of raising value added tax in order to deal with an underfunding of disability insurance. In November, controversially, they will be asked to vote on a proposed prohibition of the construction of minarets on mosques. Last year, to pick another example, a majority voted against a proposal to liberalise laws on the possession or use of cannabis. All in all, the Swiss vote on matters of general policy and principles (there have been several on neutrality and military policy), as well as matters that are less exalted (my favourite being the referendum on a proposal to use less concrete in Switzerland, appropriately held on April 1st, 1990). I’ve seen a list of all referendums that have been held in Switzerland since 1848, and to be honest I couldn’t be bothered to count them, but I’d say there were well over 500, and 30 since 2006 alone.

In constitutional terms, Switzerland behaves like a kind of super-large village: 50,000 people, or eight cantons, can force a referendum on any issue. And as we have seen, it happens a lot. Most other countries either do not use referendums at all, or else only for very limited purposes, often to do with constitutional amendments as is the case in Ireland. However, even for constitutional amendments most countries do not have referendums, allowing such amendments to be adopted by parliament, sometimes with special majorities.

The use (or otherwise) of the device of a popular vote to determine specific policy or operational issues is the key characteristic of what is described as ‘direct democracy’, where voters are given the opportunity to choose or to reject the policies that will be applied by government. ‘Indirect’ democracy, on the other hand, is a system in which voters elect a government, or a parliamentary majority from which the government will be chosen, which will then implement policies. It is sometimes argued that the distinction between these has been blurred, as even in an indirect democracy the electorate votes for (or against) the policy package which parties place before the people.

The main arguments against direct democracy in a modern state (as distinct from the ancient Greek city-state from which it emerged) are that countries have to thrive in complex economic, social and political environments in which they must demonstrate rational predictability and an overall sense of purpose, which is undermined if the people can cherry pick things they like and reject things they don’t – for example perhaps voting for high public expenditure and low taxes; and that issues may be brought to a referendum which are simply too technical and incomprehensible to allow an intelligent vote to be taken on them. On the other hand the main argument for direct democracy is that it has the capacity to engage the people and make them take more direct responsibility for national affairs.

It may be argued that direct democracy has worked in Switzerland; though any such conclusion may have to be tempered with reference to various illiberal measures that have over the decades been adopted in votes. But it must also be said that the nature of Swiss society is fundamentally different from that of almost any other country.

Here in Ireland the device of the referendum, which is the only way in which the Constitution can be amended, does not necessarily have a proud history. In the 1980s the device was used in a divisive manner to enforce what might now be regarded by some as sectarian social values. And more recently, we have voted on European treaties that were far too technical for such votes, resulting in referendums that had a more general plebiscite nature unrelated to the specific issues to be determined. Right now the overwhelming majority of posters on Irish streets arguing the case for or against the Lisbon treaty actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty, but rather try to chill the blood of the voters by setting out horrible scenarios that are in fact completely irrelevant.

When the current Lisbon vote is over, it may be time to think again, in the context of Irish constitutional law, whether this use of the referendum is necessarily a good idea. Though of course, if we decide to change it, we’ll need to vote on it.