Aristide and the Endless Revolution: What Value Democracy?

This review was published originally in cinekklesia on August 21, 2006.

Years ago, a Christian acquaintance of mine argued that the American Revolution was completely unjustified. From a Biblical standpoint, of course, he was correct. Nothing in Scripture says that an individual or group has a right or obligation to rise up against oppression, whether real or perceived; in fact, one could argue that the opposite is true, that the Bible calls us to lives of suffering and to loving those who would harm us.

My acquaintance was pretty right-wing politically, but his sentiment ironically went against the ideological grain of the Religious Right. How could the United States have been established as a "Christian" country when its founders engaged in acts (i.e., revolution) that have no Biblical warrant? Moving beyond the United States, we must ask ourselves whether democracy of any sort, in any country, has intrinsic value and whether we should be spilling so much blood and treasure trying to promote it.

Such questions are inspired by my recent viewing of Nicolas Rossier's Aristide and the Endless Revolution (2005), a documentary about the shady circumstances that led to the downfall and exile of one of the most intriguing (and polarizing) political figures in the Western Hemisphere. Rossier first provides a little background on Jean-Bertrand Aristide, showing his transformation from liberation-theology-inspired priest to democratically elected president, the coup d'etat that led to his ouster in 1991, and his reinstatement to power by U.S. forces in 1994.

The majority of the film, however, focuses on Aristide's second presidential victory (2000) and his subsequent ouster from power (what some would call the second coup d'etat) in February 2004. According to conventional wisdom, several members of Aristide's Lavalas political party had won some legislative seats in, shall we say, a controversial manner. As such, the international community froze transfers of aid to Haiti's government, which is one of the poorest in the world. Haiti's political instability, coupled with the economic crisis, led to a highly dangerous situation in which the country found itself on the verge of all-out civil war. Thus, Aristide had no choice but to resign in 2004 and flee the country on U.S. transport. (He is currently in exile in South Africa.)

Rossier's main purpose in the film is to challenge the conventional wisdom and to argue that Aristide's departure was anything but voluntary. He first lays out the argument that the United States and other powers were never fans of Aristide, fearful of his populist rhetoric and policies and protective of the interests of the upper classes. Secondly, by preventing any foreign aid from entering the country, the international community effectively strangled Haiti, virtually ensuring the violent social unrest. Finally, rather than serve as an honest broker in mediation between the government and rebel forces, the United States effectively forced Aristide to abdicate his presidency by refusing to provide him security in the face of marauding bandits. In other words, the only meaningful choice that the U.S. gave him was to resign and flee.

Aristide's opponents, on the other hand, argue that the former president has no one to blame but himself. Upon achieving the presidency, he became autocratic and developed his own network of thugs and gangs loyal to his rule. Plus, he exercised no meaningful statesmanship while his country was falling apart at the seams: the international community had no choice but to step in and prevent Haiti from devolving into complete chaos.

While Rossier does interview figures on "both sides" of this issue, it is clear that he sympathizes with pro-Aristide forces and questions the United States' commitment to democracy. If one didn't suspect this already, then Rossier leaves no doubt that U.S. support for democratically elected governments is highly conditional. Countries electing left-wing, populist governments that eschew the so-called Washington Consensus receive either tepid support or outright opposition (see the examples of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales). (In the Middle Eastern context, Washington's contradictory stance is most evident in its opposition to the democratically elected Hamas government in the Palestinian Territories.)

Regardless of how one feels about populist leaders like Aristide (I'm not a fan), it is hard to deny the hypocrisy of Western governments that push for democracy as a matter of unthinking, knee-jerk policy on the one hand, while also harboring suspicion and even contempt for elected officials who happen to see the world differently. While Aristide may have offered poor policy prescriptions, he nevertheless was extremely popular among the Haitian electorate, who theoretically should have the right to vote for whom they please — without foreign interference.

On the flip side, we also should note that while populist leaders may support representative government as a matter of rhetoric and tactic, democracy ultimately just serves as a tool for material gain. During the documentary, Aristide himself praises his partisans who continue to support him during his exile; he notes that they are risking their lives because they want to see democracy flourish in their country. However, while that may be true for some of his supporters, I would venture to say that the vast majority voted for him because he promised them material improvement. For many, if not most, citizens in representative states, democracy is not an end in itself, but rather, a means towards some other end — one which may or may not be democratic.

So, if democracy is empty rhetoric spouted by the Western world or a tool by which wealth can be redistributed, does it have any intrinsic value? The answer is simply no. My acquaintance was right about the inherent illegitimacy of the American Revolution, and he could expand his analysis to democracy in general: the Bible simply offers no warrant for representative government as the "correct" method of political organization. Rather, democracy has practical benefits, especially in terms of diluting power and in offering an alternative to less savory forms of government (I'd rather live in a democracy than, say, a fascist regime). Aristide and the Endless Revolution just reminds us that it would be more seemly if Western governments (a) supported democracy consistently, regardless of who got elected, or (b) just didn't support it at all.