1989, January – March 13: (Avril’s Electoral Forum, the Opposition Divided, Bazin and de Ronceray Accept While Sylvio Claude and Déjoie Demand Avril Step Dow…

1989, January – March 13: (Avril’s Electoral Forum, the Opposition Divided, Bazin and de Ronceray Accept While Sylvio Claude and Déjoie Demand Avril Step Down, Smuggling Curbs Provoke Demonstrations Believed Organized by Lafontant from Across the Border, Avril Verra-t-il Avril?, Acedius St. Louis Named Interior Minister, Former Duvalierists Slip Quietly Back, and Avril Reinstates the Constitution Minus 37 Articles — Adopting the Form While Dispensing with the Substance): At the beginning of 1989, continuing his attempts to please conservatives, foreigners, and democrats, Avril proposed the formation of an electoral forum that would lay the groundwork for a new CEP. Predictably the opposition was divided in its response — Bazin, de Ronceray, Latortue, and several others felt that the vehicle put forward was the most practical way to reach elections, while adamant in their opposition were Sylvio Claude and Louis Déjoie, who merely intensified their calls for Avril to step down. In attempting to placate the left, Avril inevitably brought on the wrath of the Duvalierists — ideology may not have been the only component in this campaign. At the beginning of February 1989, the government announced measures intended to curb the widespread smuggling that had drained the treasury of tax revenue. Demonstrations, believed organized by Roger Lafontant from across the border, swept the Cap, Gonaïves, the Goâves, and other ports that had profited from lax enforcement of the rules — the slogan of many of the marchers was Avril verra-t-il avril? — will Avril see April? Reshuffling his cabinet in mid-February, Avril brought in former Léopards commander Acedius St. Louis as interior minister, a move paralleling in public what had been happening in private over a number of months: as the left was increasingly muzzled, numbers of former Duvalierists were slipping quietly back into Haiti, there to enjoy the fortunes they had made in better times. On March 13, still seeking the legitimacy that eluded him, Avril reinstated part of the constitution that had been so thoroughly trashed by General Namphy — omitted, on the quite reasonable grounds from Avril’s point of view that they were incompatible with military government, were some thirty-seven articles. He had managed to adopt the form while dispensing with the substance. Expressing annoyance at the lack of positive response to his reinstitution of the charter, Avril complained on television that the first six months had been acceptable but all they did was resume wheat shipments. The partial reinstatement of the constitution — thirty-seven articles excised on the grounds that democratic provisions were incompatible with military rule, the remaining shell presented as evidence of democratic commitment — was the most transparent illustration of what every Haitian government since 1806 had practiced: the constitution as costume, worn to secure foreign approval and removed the moment its provisions threatened to constrain the exercise of power, the text of the law serving not as a framework for governance but as a diplomatic instrument whose value was measured exclusively by its capacity to unlock foreign aid.