THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THE IMBROGLIO CREATED BY THE PREVAL ADMINISTRATION ON NOVEMBER 28, 2010 IS TO ANNUL THE ELECTIONS
OAS ANALYSIS IS STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION
OAS WITH ITS ATTEMPT TO MAKE CREDIBLE PRESIDENT’S PREVAL FALSE ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 28, 2010
Let us start by saying clearly and unequivocally that any initiatives who’s main goal is the suppression of the popular voice, is subject to be countered by violent reactions by the masses, and is in fact doomed to failure.
Two questions arise about any hypothesized relationship between two variables:
1) What is the probability that the relationship exists;
2) If it does, how strong is the relationship?
There are two types of tools that are used to address these questions: the first is addressed by tests for statistical significance; and the second is addressed by Measures of Association.
Tests for statistical significance are used to address the question: what is the probability that what we think is a relationship between two variables is really just a chance occurrence?
The element of credibility in the Provisional Electoral Council was necessary in order to have credible sets of data to conduct such analysis and make a recommendation. Unfortunately, the CEP was decried by the majority of the candidates and the people in general.
The elements necessary in order to have a credible election were totally absent from the process carried out on November 28, 2010, i.e.
The general guidelines for the code of conduct which election administrators (CEP)
must conform to are:
• Election administration must demonstrate respect for the law.
• Election administration must be non-partisan and neutral.
• Election administration must be transparent.
• Election administration must be accurate, professional and competent.
•The other agents within the system must be seen to be also neutral, while the judicial system in its arbitration of electoral petitions should be impartial. (In this case, the Candidates do not even have any recourse in the judicial system. The CEP is judge and party)
• Election administration’s sole objective is to serve the voters.
In reality, the Provisional Electoral Council in Haiti is the opposite of the above stated conditions. They effectively manipulated the system by making last minute changes. 35,000 new CEP employees were injected into the apparatus.
- 20% of the people qualified to vote were not in possession of their electoral cards
- The electoral register was totally incomplete— leaving the majority of the people with their electoral cards to vote unable to do so
- Massive government interference: early in the morning police pickups served as public transportation to take voters to polling places, and pay them to vote on behalf of Jude Celestin
- The general electoral roll and electoral partial list should be ready between 60 days and 30 days respectively before the election, even on the day of the election, the list was totally in disarray.
- 12 of the 19 Presidential candidates have called for the annulment of the elections of November 28, 2010 and the call is growing
- The exclusion of Fanmi Lavalas
OAS has no respect for any Haitian officials or the Haitian people as a whole. The so-called report was leaked to the press prior to reaching President Préval. In any serious country, this mistake would be met with dire consequences for the members of the OAS.
As an observer, OAS, CARICOM, CNO etc. violated the rules as well.
The guiding principles or code of conduct for election observers must conform to are as follows:
• Election observation must be non-partisan and neutral.
• Election observation must recognize and respect the sovereignty of the host country.
• Election observation must be comprehensive in reviewing the election, considering all relevant circumstances.
• Election observation must be accurate, professional and comprehensive.
• Election observation must be transparent.
OAS agreed to participate in the verification process of a so-called election marred in impropriety and violations. This is indicative of the way that the human rights organizations—which aim to resolve conflict in the underdeveloped world—is doing nothing more than acting with blatant disregard for the will of the masses and in support of the failed status-quo.
There was no credible system prior and leading to November 28, 2010 in place to guarantee the accuracy of the (Procès Verbaux). Any attempt to validate documents in which there is no way to guarantee accurateness cannot and should not be validated. In simple terms—garbage in, garbage out—fraudulent ballot, fraudulent vote yields a fraudulent result.
No matter how many experts OAS had on the ground in Haiti, this organization cannot justify any particular findings or analysis to make a recommendation as to who should be first, second or third. The analysis is statistically insignificant and precludes them from being able to draw a conclusion or make a recommendation.
To illustrate the point: How can OAS verify or validate a process in which none of the premises that should be respected in order to conduct and hold a fair election were respected?
The basic rule established which OAS, UN and the International Community adhere to as a rule is: The Universal and equal suffrage.
The Universal and Equal Suffrage is a clear international standard which the elections of November 28, 2010 violated under the watchful eye of the UN—the promoter of the concept, followed by OAS, CARICOM, and the International Community. The Universal and Equal Suffrage calls for the guarantee that each adult citizen has. The right to be elected as a member of the legislature or other provincial or local body, as well as the right to be elected president, may require an age beyond the age of majority, but must be guaranteed to all citizens of that age without discrimination. The case of the exclusion of Fanmi Lavalas as well as many other qualified political parties are good enough reasons to support the request for the annulment the elections of November 28, 2010.
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21 states:
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or
through freely chosen representatives.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will
shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be held by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot or by equivalent free voting procedures.
The 1991 Commonwealth Harare Declaration
Its members also share a commitment to certain fundamental principles...
• We believe in the liberty of the individual under the law, in equal rights for all
citizens regardless of gender, race, color, creed or political belief, and in the
individual's inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic
political processes in framing the society in which he or she lives;
Under no circumstance could the elections of November 28, 2010 be considered an election when patent violations are demonstrated and the OAS is in complicity with the Préval/Bellerive government want to salvage and recommend a run-off for an election that was never occurred.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington concur with the position of the 12 candidates calling for an annulment of the elections since November 28, 2010 and their demand expresses the will of the people of Haiti. The Center went further by stating:
"This report can't salvage an election that was illegitimate, where nearly three-quarters of the electorate didn't vote, and where the vote count of the minority that did vote was severely compromised," said Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the center.
The center said it analyzed 11,181 tally sheets from the November 28 vote and found the election seriously flawed. It said the OAS report cannot help determine the outcome of the first round of Haiti’s election.
Haiti's Provisional Electoral Council released preliminary results on December 7, 2010 that gave Mirlande Manigat a win with 31.4% of the vote. Jude Celestin, second with 22.3% Michel Martelly was third with 21.8%.
The OAS review just reversed the percentage between Jude Celestin and Michel Martelly identically to what the provisional electoral council had previously released, Martelly had won 22.2% of the vote to Celestin's 21.9%, moving Martelly in the second spot for a possible runoff election with Manigat.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research said the OAS found 12% of the tally sheets were either not received by the electoral council or were quarantined -- a much larger number of lost votes than either OAS monitors or the council had previously acknowledged.
But the Center found the OAS review problematic because it tossed votes from a region that was favorable to Celestin and did not examine all of the 11,181 tally sheets.
Weisbrot said the margin of difference between Martelly and Celestin in the OAS's recount -- 0.3%-- was too small to statistically distinguish between the two.
"This appears to be a political, and not a professional, decision," he said.
Despite the "magnitude of problems" and "the irregularities," the election need not be invalidated, Granderson said. So wrong Mr. Granderson, Haiti wants a democracy where the concept of one man/woman, one vote is respected and will fight to the end to achieve that objective.
A runoff, originally scheduled for January 16, has now been postponed. Dictator Jean Claude Duvalier is returned to Haiti while Jean-Bertrand Aristide is still in exile—what a dichotomy ?
"A second round of voting between Michel Martelly and Mirlande Manigat will not reflect the will of the people.
The only legitimate decision is to annul the elections, apply the mandate of article 149 of the constitution as of February 7, 2011 by appointing a provisional government in Haiti for one year. The sole objective should be to organize credible elections in Haiti for the President, the house and the senate and return Haiti to constitutional rule on February 7, 2012.