Board of Directors Special Delegation

POST-ELECTION STATEMENT

July 11, 1995

* Washington Office on Haiti Special Delegation joins UN, OAS, Presidential Commission and European election observers in reporting overall integrity of Haiti's parliamentary elections.

* Essentially similar logistical / administrative problems and some irregularities were observed in both the December 1990 elections and the June 1995 elections.

* Concerns are raised about International Republican Institute conclusions, accountability for U.S. tax dollars supporting the elections, and economic democracy.

The appropriate standard for assessing Haiti's June 25 elections is not elections in Africa, the U.S. or elsewhere, but the December 1990 elections in Haiti, which were the first free, fair and democratic elections in the country's history. Certified missions from Washington Office on Haiti (WOH) observed both elections. While the 1990 elections were plagued by administrative and logistical problems and marred by certain irregularities, they were universally certified as free and democratic. Overall, our preliminary assessment of the June 1995 parliamentary elections is the same.

WOH is an ecumencial, nonprofit, public education, information and analysis organization founded in 1984 to support democracy, human rights and self-determined development in Haiti. WOH is an independent organization, not affliated or financially supported by any government, political party or corporation. WOH election observers travel at their own expense, an important factor in the independence of their observations.

WOH MISSIONS

The 1990 mission consisted of 39 observers in 8 of Haiti's 9 geographic departments; the 1995 Special Delegation consisted of 24 observers in 3 geographic areas. WOH coordinated its observer mission with other independent delegations, including Voices for Haiti, the Philadelphia Bar Association and a European non-governmental organization delegation.

After two days of orientation in Port-au-Prince, WOH observers began working in their assigned areas the day before the elections, visiting registration and polling places (BIVs) and area headquarters (BECs) to assess preparations. On election day, the mission worked from before 6 AM until almost midnight. Teams observed the entire process, moving around during the day and often returning to the same BIVs several times. In addition to teams in Port-au-Prince, Petit Goave and Gonaives, a WOH observer was present at Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) headquarters throughout the weekend.

The WOH Special Delegation included a number of attorneys, physicians, university professors, religion organization leadership, and other professionals with in-depth experience in Haiti and/or other Third World countries. Several delegates monitored both the 1990 and 1995 elections.

CONTEXT OF ELECTIONS

Several aspects of the 1995 parliamentary elections were more complex than the 1990 elections:

* Offices Elected

December 1990: 676 positions: president, senators, deputies, communal councils, mayors

June 1995: Over 2,000 positions: senators, deputies, communal councils, mayors

* Polling Places

December 1990: 14,000 BIVs, up to 250 voters each June 1995: 10,000 BIVs, up to 400 voters each

* Political Parties

December 1990: Total 11, plus independents

June 1995: Total 29, plus independents

In addition, the June 1995 elections were held in the wake of a 3-year military coup which left Haiti's economy and infrastructure devastated, which almost certainly contributed to logistical and other difficulties.

PROBLEMS AND IRREGULARITIES

Logistical and administrative problems and some irregularities observed in the June 1995 elections were largely the same as those observed in the 1990 elections.

* Registration Lists: In both 1990 and 1995, registration lists were missing, incomplete or not properly posted at many BIVs; some BIVs had relocated without registrants' (and occasionally BIV workers') knowledge; some BIVs split lists following the registration period, creating significant confusion and sometimes preventing registered voters from being able to vote at all.

* Voting Materials: In both 1990 and 1995, lack of transportation for voting materials was manifested by supplies missing from many BIVs, resulting in delayed openings and related problems.

* Ballots: To permit voting by people who cannot read, ballots contain party affiliation, candidate name and photograph, and a unique symbol for each candidate. In 1990, no problems were noted with the ballots themselves beyond inadequate supplies in some BIVs due to the transportation problems noted above; ballots were printed in Port-au-Prince, without errors and in adequate numbers. In 1995, however, several significant errors were noted, including replacement of independent candidates' symbols, incorrect photographs of candidates, and errors in names. In addition, the 1995 ballots, printed by a California firm, arrived late and at least 200,000 short of the total needed.

* Secrecy of Voting: In both 1990 and 1995, voters' ability to cast ballots in privacy appeared adequate overall, although problems were observed in some areas due to space limitations, intrusive party poll watchers, and varying interpretations of providing assistance to voters who could not read.

* Ballot Counting: In both 1990 and 1995, lack of electricity, complicated paperwork, and instances of confusion on the part of some workers were observed at the BIV level, and the general atmosphere observed at the BEC level was sometimes described as chaotic. Problems with incorrect sealing of ballot boxes were noted in both elections.

CONCLUSIONS

In both 1990 and 1995 elections, a significant proportion of BIVs monitored by WOH suffered from logistical, administrative and technical problems which, while serious by North American standards, did not violate the integrity of the electoral process per se. Both WOH missions concluded that the commitment of the CEP, BIV workers and voters to the democratic process was clear, and that overall, the elections were free and fair in spite of many problems and some irregularities.

CONCERNS

WOH is troubled by the conclusions reached by the International Republican Institute delegation — which differ markedly from virtually all other delegations — and the disproportionate media coverage these have received. The IRI has limited experience in Haiti and its small [27-member] delegation reported observing at approximately 500 BIVs.

WOH questions the capacity of a delegation of such size and limited experience in Haiti to assess adequately and objectively the electoral process at so many sites. In 1990, 39 WOH delegates, many with significant experience in Haiti, observed 176 BIVs between 6 AM and midnight. Based on our experience, we think that coverage of 500 BIVs by fewer people would involve such brief presence in each BIV as to compromise the validity of conclusions drawn.

(One of our delegates used the term "drive-by observation" to describe the IRI process. Another noted that conclusions based on such brief presence would be rather like a two-minute drop-in at a busy subway station at rush hour, followed immediately by a press conference on the street above to proclaim chaos and disorder… when in fact, such observers would have so little capacity for genuine monitoring that they would be unaware that a train came two minutes after they left, followed by another four minutes later, then another, and so on.) WOH also notes how closely IRI's post-election conclusions echo the criticisms detailed in its 300-page pre-election report.

WOH is concerned about the lack of constructive evidence of the millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayers' money, and the relative benefit of that money to U.S. agencies, organizations and companies versus to the Haitians struggling to hold a free, fair and democratic election. One WOH delegate noted, "It could be that a lot of our tax money was spent in ways that didn't really support the people's efforts to make democracy work in Haiti. I question the use of tax money to fund an observer delegation like the IRI which seemed to have spent a lot of money on lengthy reports before the elections, air conditioned vehicles and multiple press conferences, while some Haitian BIV workers had to go without food or water on election day and had no transportation for the ballots. It's especially troubling to read the IRI pre-election project proposal and learn that they wished to spend $500,000 to support only political parties opposing the majority Lavalas party endorsed by President Aristide." We believe that te U.S. public would be outraged — and rightly so — if a foreign government were to fund this sort of interference in one of our elections.

WOH shares the concerns expressed by Development GAP economist Lisa McGowan regarding the relationship between political democracy and economic democracy. McGowan notes that "…political democracy in a country as economically polarized as Haiti will go nowhere fast if it is not accompanied by economic democracy, where citizens are fully involved in shaping the economic policies that determine who gets what and how much of it they get…. The international community has moved mountains to support democracy and provide development assistance to Haiti. However, rather than supporting the development of an economic system that addresses the long-term development needs and priorities of Haiti's poor majority, what it appears to be creating is a juggernaut of development assistance that preferentially serves international and elite Haitian interests."

Concerns of this nature have been raised even in the limited context of U.S. taxpayer-funded elections assistance. While definitive information on the disposition of these funds is not yet available, it seems counterintuitive that a California company was awarded the contract to print ballots for these elections when the U.S. has pledged itself to Haiti's economic reconstruction and one of the largest printing facilities in the Caribbean is located in Port-au-Prince.