The lies and the truths regarding the Dominican Republic

I have read several articles in the recent days about the issue regarding the deportation of thousands of individuals of Haitian descent. I would like to share my thoughts on the matter since I have strong ties in both countries and have gained considerable knowledge on the workings of both societies.  I will  try to dissipate some falsehoods that are being circulated by both sides on this argument.

There is not one problem but two. The first problem lies with the ruling of the constitutional court of the Dominican Republic. This ruling which took place on September 23, 2013 reinterpreted what it meant to be “in transit” in the Dominican Republic.  Why is that a problem? The Dominican Republic grants “jus Soli” (the right of soil) to any baby who is born of residing parents in the DR.  This form of “restricted Jus Soli” means that any baby born on the territory while their parents are “in transit” would not be considered for citizenship.  The ruling of 2013 formalized the definition of “in transit” to include any baby born in DR to illegally residing parents. Personally, I do not believe that part of the ruling to be a problem; the Dominican Republic has a right to take measures regarding its future.

However, when a ruling in 2013 is applied retroactively to all individuals born after 1929, I begin to think that some ulterior motives are at play.  Why? Because this law means this : if I was born in 1930 of illegal migrant parents in the DR, I would be  85 years old today; my language is Spanish, my culture is Dominican, my manners are Dominican. But, this law would cast me as something else. I have no other nationality, where do you deport me to?

To understand who this law was created against, you need to ask who it is going to impact the most. The simple answer is individuals of Haitian descent. Tens of thousands of them have migrated to the DR mostly to work on the sugarcane fields. This law is clearly aimed at their sons and daughters. The problem is that those people are less Haitian than they are Dominican because they don’t identify with Haiti. And who is to say that their parents were Haitian if they have no papers proving so? I am guessing it is the color of their skin. What the Dominican Republic is doing is simply rejecting a whole group of individuals, born in the DR, of darker skins which gives a very racist connotation to this law.  These people share a Dominican identity and casting them as Haitians is a major falsehood.

Because of this law, some defenders of Haiti have tried to make the points that Dominicans are racist and just hate Haitians. I am sorry but this is false.

Many think that the Dominican Republic is a rich country compared to Haiti like the U.S is to Mexico. This is also false. The Dominican Republic is a poor country, it is just a little less poor than Haiti. The DR also benefits from relative political stability and direct foreign investment as a result. But one only needs to walk the Dominican country side or the less glamourous parts of its cities to see widespread poverty and hardship.  The Dominican growth has not impacted the Dominican masses in a meaningful way yet.

This brings us to the second part of the problem; the perception of Haitian migration in the Dominican Republic.  Many Dominicans live side by side with Haitians. We have thousands of Haitian students and professionals living in the DR who have no problem at all. They are legally in the country and their kids are born Dominican with the full backing of the “Jus Soli”. They have Dominican friends and wives and husbands who would defend them at all cost. 

So how can such a law pass if Dominicans do not hate Haitians?  Part of the answer resides with the poorer and often less educated Dominican. This individual is often frustrated that the Dominican progress has not impacted his life; he spends most his time in a low paying job making almost nothing.  Some Dominican politicians, who have no immediate answers for these poor voting individuals, have pandered to an old Dominican idea that the Haitian is the problem.  Which Haitian? The poor black individual born in DR or Haiti, who is willing to do the dirty jobs that our frustrated Dominican does not even want.  This is not a particularly Dominican trait, most political parties in the world who have no solutions to domestic problems will cast foreigners as the culprits; The Front National is doing it in France, Hitler did it in 1939 and right wings parties are doing it all over Europe.  In other words, I consider such laws to be a diversion that only solves a political purpose. The Dominican Republic needs poor Haitians to do its dirty jobs as it moves towards greater modernity.

Another side of the same problem resides with Haiti itself. Haiti is a failed state that is held alive by the international community.  Political instability is the elite’s favorite sport. It is a country of men who have failed their country and all aspire to govern and embezzle the meager resources of the state. The main victims are the poor Haitians who do not see the light; they tend to buy a visa (or not) and cross the border with the hope of no return.  Looking from this point of view, all deportations are not bad.

Haitians need to remember that the Dominican Republic cannot be turned into a place that absorbs the failures of Haiti’s elites. The Dominican Republic needs that cheap unskilled labor if they are to continue to grow but they have a right to stem the flow also. Haitians need to take a look at themselves too rather than placing the blame of the entire migration situation on the Dominican Republic.

Finally, we should not forget that the Dominican Republic has more often than not been a good friend of Haiti; their economy requires it, their geographical position demands it. This new law is only creating an unnecessary problem on the island; an army of stateless individuals. Haiti (nor DR) cannot prove those deported individuals are of Haitian descent but our main certainty is that they were born in DR. The Dominicans should move ahead with their law, retroactively apply it from January 2005 (our most affected individual would be 10 years old) and grant citizenship to those born before. This would send a clear message that the Dominicans are serious about their immigration policies without rendering stateless an army of individuals whose heart only beat for the Dominican Republic.

( I am a Haitian citizen by the way)

Pourquoi l’écart de Lamothe n’est pas le vrai problème.

J’ai suivi, avec un air de déjà vu, le feuilleton Lamothe qui se développe depuis quelques semaines. A chaque élection, des candidats sont écartés pour divers raisons ; parfois, l’une plus louable que l’autre. Très souvent, les écartés proclament qu’un certain parti pris serait la source de leur mise à l’écart.  Pour les échéances électorales présentes, il est malheureusement difficile de voir la main du pouvoir en place dans le processus. Il est à souligner que la femme du président elle-même a été écartée de la course électorale pour des raisons légales donc  que Lamothe (l’ex premier ministre qui proclamait il y a peu sa grande amitié avec le chef de l’exécutif) soit écarté sur des bases similaires ne devrait pas surprendre.

Le motif pour l’écart de Lamothe est clair ; l’ancien premier ministre et ministre de la planification n’a pas eu décharge de sa gestion. Les lois de la république sont limpides ; si vous n’avez pas de décharge, vous ne pouvez pas participer aux élections. Il n’y a là aucune injustice à l’encontre de Lamothe.

Le vrai problème réside dans le quasi impossibilité d’obtenir décharge quand le parlement (qui est une institution incontournable dans ce processus) ne contient plus que 10 élus. La faute réside en partie (je dis bien en partie) sur les épaules du régime Lamothe-Martelly qui n’a pas su renouveler cette institution.  Nos hommes d’état oublient souvent, quand ils sont à l’apogée de leur pouvoir, que les institutions de la république demeurent incontournables dans le fonctionnement de la démocratie. Aujourd’hui, Lamothe en paie le prix.

La grande question reste : «  que faire alors ? ». Lamothe avec une arrogance  a pointé que le président pourrait résoudre le problème de décharge (pour tout le monde) par un décret sur la question. Martelly qui semble vouloir couler ses derniers jours présidentiels a bien entendu refuser de s’immiscer dans les décisions électorales ; une décision sage quand toute intervention sur la question serait perçu comme un parti pris (pour ses anciens ministres).

Je dois pointer qu’il existe bel et bien une injustice dans le processus électoral. Lamothe a posé la bonne question : pourquoi m’écarter pour défaut de décharge et accepter d’autres postulants coupables de la même accusation ? Il y a une injustice condamnable mais pas envers Lamothe. La grande victime est « les lois de la république » car comme je l’ai mentionné plus haut, autoriser un individu à participer aux joutes électorales sans decharge est une violation de la loi. Donc tous ceux qui n’ont pas de décharge devraient être écartés au nom de la loi.  

 Il faut ici nuancer que le BCED n’a pas donné feu vert aux autres coupables mais laissé le soin au BCEN de statuer sur leurs cas ; il y a une partialité car on aurait pu faire de même pour Lamothe. Et là encore, n’oublions pas que la cour supérieure des comptes a statué défavorablement sur la gestion de Lamothe. Ce dernier l’a reconnu sous réserve que le montant avancé est supérieur à la réalité. Il n’en demeure pas moins qu’il revient aux institutions du pays de statuer sur le cas et non à l’ex premier ministre de se constituer en juge et partie.

Les écartés pour défaut de décharge ont le choix .Aujourd’hui, ils doivent mener la lutte qu’ils ont oublié  pendant leur 15 minutes au pouvoir ;  en attendant 2020, je leur conseille humblement de mener la lutte POUR LE RESPECT ET LE RENFORCEMENT DES INSTITUTIONS DE NOTRE DEMOCRATIE. Car sans le bon fonctionnement de ces institutions, nous sommes tous appellés à payer le prix car les lois doivent être respectées à la lettre.