02-1-06,9:19am

Should people vote for the Lespwa coalition's presidential candidate René Préval or should they boycott the de facto regime's elections now scheduled for Feb. 7, 2006?

This question is now confounding the Haitian people and dividing the forces struggling against the Feb. 29, 2004 coup d'état which toppled Haiti's constitutional government.

The confusion has become even greater in recent days as a rift has occurred in the putschist coalition which backed President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's overthrow. On the one hand, Washington and the U.N. occupation forces at its service want elections to be held on Feb. 7, no matter what, so that they can 'finalize' the coup d'état and replace the hugely unpopular, repressive and corrupt regime of de facto Prime Minister Gérard Latortue. They may even be ready to accept a victory by former president and prime minister René Préval, who represents Haiti's 'enlightened' bourgeoisie, despite the reservations some arch-reactionary sectors in Washington may have about Préval's coziness with Cuba.

A Jan. 24 front-page article in the New York Times presents the Préval candidacy in a very favorable light. It quotes a U.N. official chastising Haiti's elite for thinking that 'they could get rid of one government and have the country to themselves and their friends.' The official adds bitingly that 'Préval has come and ruined the party.'

Indeed, representatives of Haiti's two ruling groups, the traditional bourgeoisie and the big-landowners (represented by the neo-Duvalierist or 'Macoute' sector), are alarmed by Préval's manifest popularity, which far surpasses that of any one of the other 34 candidates. This popularity issues from Préval's perceived closeness to Aristide, a rapport which even Préval admits is overstated. Bourgeois and neo-Duvalierist politicians along with 'civil society' spokespersons have started to denounce and oppose the elections, seeing the possibility that their candidates will not walk away with the presidency.

Now some Haitian ruling groups have begun calling for an election boycott and even alluding to disruption. De facto town officials and hooligans in St. Marc brutally dispersed a Préval campaign rally on Jan. 18, burning two vehicles and destroying the campaign's rostrum. This type of intimidation tactic has only encouraged more of the Haitian masses to rally to Préval's candidacy. These masses hope that they can reenact the election victory of Dec. 16, 1990, when the last-minute dark-horse candidate, Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide, easily won Washington-sponsored elections.

But the circumstances of Haiti's 1990 election and that of 2006 are completely different, and the dangers and illusions of the Préval candidacy must be made clear.

To begin with, in 2006, the elections are being held under a coup and a foreign military occupation, with the de facto and occupation authorities completely controlling and financing the polling. This was not the case in 1990.

Under today's scenario, the Feb. 7 elections offer only three possible outcomes, and they are all bad. .

1) A Massacre: It is very possible that, no matter what Washington's warnings, the bourgeoisie and the Macoutes could send out gunmen to massacre voters on Feb. 7 if they sense that Préval may win. This is what happened on Nov. 29, 1987 when the Macoutes feared a victory by the bourgeoisie's candidate Gérard Gourgue. Macoutes and soldiers machine-gunned and macheted dozens of voters to death, wounding hundreds. .

2) A Selection: Despite Préval's obvious popularity among the masses, it is still possible that sectors controlling the election, through any number of means, manage to have another candidate 'selected.' The Bush Administration is not usually swayed by public opinion and is ready to carry out brazen election theft, by which it has hoisted even itself into power.

Also, de facto election authorities have already restricted the number of voting stations in popular quarters, which can be an excuse or a real way to restrict votes for Préval. Occupation and de facto authorities will also have full control over the touch-screen machines and vote counting. .

3) A Figurehead: Even if neither of these scenarios were to unfold, and René Préval were to win the presidency, he would not be able to implement a popular or progressive program, even if he wanted to. He would preside under the auspices of a foreign military occupation. Mass acceptance of his victory would mean legitimization of the 2004 coup.

Under much easier circumstances during his 1996-2000 administration, Préval has already revealed that he was ready to bow to key elements of the imperialist agenda, privatizing state industries like the flour mill and the cement factory, signing treaties to allow the US military to freely enter Haitian waters and airspace, and cracking down on anti-neoliberal protests.

Furthermore, election engineers might allow Préval to win the presidency, while making sure that the legislative races go to a less 'conflicted' party. The Haitian prime minister, in whom almost all executive power resides, is drawn from the parliament's majority party.

For all these reasons, it is clear that a Préval candidacy is a lose/lose/lose proposition. Whether he loses or win, the people lose. It is a mirage, a trap, which can only lead the people to legitimate a coup and occupation. Repression and neoliberal reform will continue. Préval can be no more than either a hostage or a collaborator in Washington's occupation regime.

Although Préval's candidacy is sponsored by the Louvri Baryè party and the KOREGA (which make up the Lespwa, or Hope, coalition), many from Aristide's Lavalas Family party are opportunistically defecting to the Préval campaign in the hopes of getting a state job.

Meanwhile, the leadership of the Lavalas Family party continues to say that no free elections can be held until all the hundreds of Lavalas political prisoners have been released, the Lavalas political exiles, including President Aristide, are allowed to return, and a national dialogue begun. In addition to these conditions, the National Popular Party (PPN) says that no elections can be held under the auspices of a foreign military occupation, which is against both Haitian and international law.

For all these reasons, Haitian voters should boycott the Feb. 7 elections and not be lured by the illusion that the candidacy of René Préval can resolve any of their problems. If Washington's strategists chooses not to block Préval's candidacy, they will only use it to legitimize their brazen and never internationally or popularly accepted 2004 coup through a classic bait-and-switch maneuver. .