A general feeling of repugnance for a dictator and his regime does not necessarily equate with universal distaste. After all, apart from ideological convictions in some instances, there are always those who benefit from association with tyranny, no matter how cynical, sanguinary or despicable the means employed to seize power and/or stay in office.
In recent Latin American and Caribbean history, the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile (1973-1990) is a case in point. Many still credit the dictator with having launched Chile’s economic boom and many of the country’s elites profited from it, so much so that, up to a year before his death in December 2006, 20-30 percent of the population still thought highly of him and his military regime.
General Pinochet’s cynical statement shortly before his death that he took “full political responsibility” for the actions carried out during his rule – a foreshadowing of Radovan Karadzic’s acceptance of “moral responsibility”, as a political leader, for crimes committed by Bosnian Serbs during the Bosnian war of the 1990s – even seemed to feed his supporters’ admiration for the man they regarded as a ‘benevolent’ strongman. But the evidence of more than 3,000 killed and countless others tortured and disappeared by his goons belies this ‘benevolence’. The end – in Chile’s case, economic progress and acting as a bulwark against a perceived communist threat – can never justify the means.
Mr Pinochet’s death, whilst terminating attempts to hold him accountable for the human rights violations committed by his regime, did not, however, bring closure to Chile’s collective efforts to come to terms with the legacy of his brutal reign. In this respect, even as reconciliation and healing are still considered important in Chile, no less so than by current President Michelle Bachelet, herself a victim of the general’s torturers, cases continue to be pursued against the dictator’s henchmen. Justice must be served.
Now, questions surrounding the quest for justice and the fight against immunity and impunity have once again arisen, this time in Haiti, with the death on September 27 of Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier. As we noted in last Friday’s editorial, human rights groups do not regard death as representing immunity or impunity from prosecution and they are demanding justice for the estimated 30,000 people killed and other gross human rights violations committed between 1957 and 1971, under the dynastic dictatorship of Baby Doc and his father, Papa Doc. In Haiti too, justice must be served.
As with Mr Pinochet, there was no state funeral for Mr Duvalier; his family, friends and followers held a private funeral last Saturday. Although President Michel Martelly himself had controversially floated the possibility of a state funeral, he wisely recognised in the resulting outcry that this would have been insulting to the memory of those who suffered during the Duvaliers’ reign of terror and rampant corruption. There were also concerns that a state funeral would have been inflammatory, with political tensions already high due to the protracted delay in holding legislative and municipal elections.
It is no secret though that Mr Martelly’s government includes known sympathisers of duvalierisme, some of whom attended the late dictator’s funeral along with other high-ranking officials of the dictatorship. At least, President Martelly and Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe did not attend. And whilst it might appear as if Mr Duvalier’s death and funeral have marked the end of a chapter in Haiti’s history, the call for his son, Nicolas, to assume the leadership of the duvalieriste Party of National Unity, which aspires to reclaim political power, must be a major source of preoccupation for all concerned with justice and stability in Haiti.
Unfortunately, there are some in Haiti who still harbour nostalgia for duvalierisme, reawakened by the ex-dictator’s return and exhibited anew at his funeral. There are also many who believe that, with the country having suffered so many cruel blows, it would be better to forget this sordid period in Haiti’s history and move on.
Baby Doc’s death does indeed provide an opportunity to move towards the national reconciliation desired by President Martelly. The past should not, however, be buried with Mr Duvalier; too many painful memories endure. And even though he has escaped the courts, his death has not closed the door on the prosecution of his collaborators. This process must be seen through to its logical conclusion. It will take time for the ghosts of duvalierisme to be exorcised. But some sort of closure can be reached once justice is served.
