It all started with a two-sentence letter, "I feel obliged to render my resignation as prime minister of the government of the republic of Haiti. Please receive my respectful and patriotic wishes to you, M. le président." It was signed Garry Conille.
With that, the third person nominated to be prime minister of Haiti by Michel Joseph Martelly -- and the only to be ratified by Parliament -- left his post as the head of government after only four months on the job.
If Mr. Conille was chosen by parliamentary vote to form a government capable of ascertaining the socio-economic needs of a devastated nation, of managing and reorganizing the structures of power of a corrupt and broken executive, and especially of being held accountable for the massive amounts of aid and resultant spending that the international community has offered to help Haiti recover from the effects of the 2010 earthquake, it was because Mr. Martelly was chosen by popular vote to head the nation.
Mr. Martelly was asked to lead a confused and -- with all due respect -- broken country. He offered an uplifting message of reform, strength, and mostly joie de vivre that not only eschewed responsibility for creating a functioning government, but also did not ultimately need one to be in place.
And therein lies the root of the current state of affairs.
The volatile relationship between Mr. Martelly and the legislature resulted in an internal power struggle within the executive as Mr. Conille sought to mediate. The result was a systematic erosion of governmental control by the Prime Minister, instigated by the president.
Mr. Conille was constitutionally compelled to resign, as an act of civil responsibility, not protest or humiliation. Article 155 of the 1987 constitution states that "The prime minister is the head of government." Article 156 declares further that "government conducts the policy of the nation [and] is responsible before Parliament," not the president.
Mr. Conille was drawing a line in the historical sand, essentially saying that under his watch the 1987 Haitian constitution would not be made irrelevant. He was in essence committing political suicide in order to re-establish the fundamental role of the legislature in the balance of power.
At the same time, he was challenging Mr. Martelly to uphold his constitutional responsibilities under Article 137 by selecting a new prime minister in consultation with the presidents of the Senate and the House of Deputies. This seemingly logical procedure is fundamental to creating a democratic government. As it turns out, rather than confer with Parliament, Mr. Martelly submitted three names for prime minister stating that any of them would be acceptable to him. The contempt of such an action was evident, and the legislature refused to accept it. Eventually, the president proposed one name only. Ratification is pending.
Lastly, by resigning Mr. Conille reminded Mr. Martelly that there should be no ambiguity in his stance toward the autonomous military groups currently forming throughout the country. The armed forces of Haiti were disbanded in 1995, and this troubling autonomous re-banding of military personnel is a serious threat to democracy. The 1987 constitution, in Articles 263-1 and 268-1, clearly says that there shall be no militia outside the national police or the armed forces of Haiti. As of this writing, the militias refuse to accept Mr. Martelly's perfunctory order to disband. Given the president's long history of support for the military, they claim -- rightfully so, I believe -- that he is merely giving lip service to international benefactors.
In accepting Mr. Conille's resignation, the president set in motion a series of events that are, ironically, resulting in a more accountable, transparent and ultimately law-abiding government. Far from being a scapegoat, Mr. Conille chose to be the sacrificial lamb that would both activate and perturb the cycle of power that Haiti has suffered throughout its history.
Mr. Conille is now both a political non-being and a constitutional zesprit capable, by his very absence and substance, of bringing about the government his parliamentary mandate required.
To whit, Mr. Martelly is now collaborating with the legislature. He is solely responsible in front of both the international community and the Haitian people for the rule of law and for democratic rule. Ultimately, he has been made aware of the limits of executive power.
Though Mr. Conille can be accused of political naïveté, he did contribute a great deal to creating a transparent, stable and accountable government. He did not realize that there were individuals in Haiti who had many things -- indeed, everything -- to gain if he failed. But neither did they understand that for his part, Mr. Conille had nothing to lose.