The baffling enigma of low turnout in Haiti

U.S. ambassador to Haiti Janet Sanderson ponders the low turnout in Haiti's recent senatorial elections (less than 10%, according to initial reports):

U.S. Ambassador Janet Sanderson, who toured the tabulation center Monday, remarked that "Historically, off-year elections in the United States as well as in other countries tend not to be as well-attended as presidential elections. We'll have to see."

Yes, what a conundrum.  And I'm sure the boycott organized by Haiti's largest party in response to its exclusion from the election couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it, which is why Sanderson didn't even bother to mention it.  The organizers, however, foolishly believe otherwise:

A spokesperson for grassroots organizations aligned with Haiti's Fanmi Lavalas party demanded the Obama administration remove current US Ambassador Janet Sanderson. Reached by telephone in the capital of Port-au-Prince a leader of a group calling itself the Popular Initiative stated, "She is lying about last Sunday's elections by not acknowledging it was our boycott that kept voters away." He continued, "She claims it was because this was not a regular election year and that people may be tired of the political process. The only voter fatigue we have in Haiti is with undemocratic elections. Allow Fanmi Lavalas to participate and we'll show you the voters have a lot of energy and enthusiasm for an authentic democratic process. She is out of touch with reality in Haiti."

"Out of touch with reality in Haiti"?  Clearly this person has failed to understand that "reality" in situations like this is entirely determined by U.S. interests—not by piffling trifles like the facts on the ground.  We'll know if Haiti's senatorial elections were free and fair if 1) the results turn out as the Obama administration wants them to, and 2) they can be shoved down the throats of the Haitian people through the usual combination of suppression,  violence, and diplomatic subterfuge.

Comments

[Rosemary Molloy]

Oh, this is beyond belief! Is there noplace safe from this country's dirty litle paws? Must we run everybody's show regardless of the suffering of the majority of its people? It's shameful and I hate, hate, the ruling class and its blind, stupid, "liberal" enablers.

[Save the Oocytes]

I was going to commit to this page some rambling, faux-naïf extrusion about how yes, it was a terrible mystery, and god knows why it happened, but then I thought "is it art?" and I lost the drive; and the moment passed— just didn't have it in me. I bet if people always took a second to reflect before they posted anything, the data content of the Internet would be about half what is. So I guess what I'm saying is that I read this and I lack the words to express my contempt.

[John Caruso]

StO: I bet if people always took a second to reflect before they posted anything, the data content of the Internet would be about half what is.

You said a mouthful. Sometimes I don't have the heart to do the ironic routine—I'd rather just scream at the top of my lungs (well, fingers). But bitter pills go down better with a bit of sugar.

Rosemary: Good question(s). I've always felt Haiti was the signal example of the rot at the heart of this country because of the extreme misery we've foisted on the people there, for no more substantive reason than to punish them for the crime of trying to live independently of our influence.