Photo: NYT article

In the nation of Haiti, protests have been going on for months calling for the country’s President Jovenel Moise to resign. These protests are happening for many reasons. The problems Haiti is facing is essentially being blamed entirely on President Moise, who has been in power since 2017. These reasons include corruption, a lack of care of citizens by the government, and a horrendous economy. The protests have been going on for a few months, but recently on September 27 and 28, 2019 they have escalated and several more events have taken place out on the streets. A police station was raided by protestors opposed to President Moise. Houses and buildings have been burned down, along with protestors attacking police forces and the police reacting to them with forces such as tear gas.

Protestors have claimed that the president is corrupt and “is not doing anything for us, just killing us,” as stated by the protestor Francois Pericat (NYT). The protestors are also pushing for the Haitian government to investigate how the funds under Moise are being spent, as his administration and allies have been accused of wasting money and resources. The New York Times referenced to the statements of Youri Latortue, a senator who is part of the opposition against Moise, who stated that “Moise will be held accountable for everything that happens in the country today.” (NYT). Moise himself made a statement earlier in 2019 that he refuses to resign, stating that if he does Haiti will be under the “hands of armed gangs and drug traffickers” (BBC). Moise’s speeches have not done anything for decreasing violence, and even cancelled a speech he was supposed to give at the U.N. due to the unrest.

I thought it was interesting in the contrast of how the New York Times (NYT) and how the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) represented the protests in Haiti. Both articles highlighted the demands of the protestors. But the NYT presented a statement from an opposition leader and nothing from President Moise, whereas the BBC article presented a statement from President Moise and nothing from opposition leaders. Both articles mentioned Moise’s corruption, but I thought it was surprising how the NYT did not go into any detail about the opposition leader whom they quoted, Youri Latortue. They merely stated that he was in opposition against President Moise, and that he has a specific stance against Moise. After doing some research, Youri Latortue is quoted in several recent articles in opposition to President Moise, yet in the past has been reported to have been one of the most corrupt politicians in the Haitian government. Without this context, people like Latortue and the opposition in general can be viewed as the solution to Haiti’s political crisis. Yet, he is as corrupt if not more corrupt than the president he is opposed to. This to me is a false representation of the intentions of the opposition on the NYT’s part, and instead the quote that they used of his should be seen as the government officials recognizing Moise’s corruption and not as an answer to Moise’s corruption.

While reading both the NYT and BBC article, I could not stop thinking about DeFronzo’s factors for revolutions. Currently in Haiti, there is a mass frustration (as seen by the protests and violence), elite divisions (institutional opposition to President Moise), and a political crisis (immense amounts of corruption and a failing economy). The only two factors missing are unifying motivations, and the world context. This is very relevant in our class discussions, since we have covered leaders in similar situations to President Moise. Moise’s corruption and failure to care for his citizens harks back to corrupt leaders such as Diaz in Mexico or Batista in Cuba. It is very possible that soon a revolution or extensive reform could take place in Haiti as a result of this violence and mass hatred for President Jovenel Moise.

Sources:

NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/world/americas/haiti-protests-moise.html

BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49861759

Articles quoting Youri Latortue in opposition to President Moise: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article235555997.html

https://wsvn.com/news/us-world/protesters-in-haiti-burn-businesses-in-push-to-oust-leader/

Articles highlighting Latortue’s corrupt past: https://haitiliberte.com/mafia-boss-drug-dealer-poster-boy-for-political-corruption-wikileaked-u-s-embassy-cables-portray-senator-youri-latortue/

https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/us-haiti-arms-trafficking-case-raises-questions-answers/

DeFronzo: https://larev2019.voices.wooster.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/227/2019/06/DeFronzo-Social-Movements-and-Revolutions.pdf

This article focused on the border wall in Lima, Peru. The concrete wall divides the cities rich and poor. The building of the wall began in 1985 carving through the rugged terrain. This wall was built to segregate the plywood and metal sheet shacks from the Casuarinas. The Casuarinas were the luxury mansions the cities wealthy. This wall has expanded to keep separating the wealthy neighborhoods from “the other”  This article addresses the reasons that this wall was put up as well as personal stories that tell the effect the wall has.

This wall was put in place so that the rich didn’t have to see or experience the life of the slums. The economic disparity is very visible in Lima and all of Peru. This creates “…this idea of security behind the wall that creates homogeneous social groups,”. Further dividing the economic worlds and classes in Peru. about 6.9 million Peruvians live below Peru’s poverty line, that means they earn less than 338 soles ($102) per month. The wall was mainly in response to migration from rural areas in Peru in the 80’s. Because of this migration it caused these pop up houses that weren’t sturdy but they were safe. The wealthy residents of Casuarinas and other areas expanded the wall (this was approved by local government) for safety and to stop the crime spilling into their areas.

This article explained the effect that it had on the people who worked in these wealthy neighborhoods but lived in the slums. one woman Lily Mamani Reyes, a house cleaner has to wake up at 5a.m to begin a two-and-a-half-hour walk to get to work. She puts extra time into this job as a result of the extended commute and yet she says that-her pay has decreased.

Patricia Novoa has lived in the Casuarinas for half her life and said the wall was a security. She explains that the people living theres are criminals and thieves because they have no other choice. That the environment has no education and no way “to live”. This wall has very negative effects on one side and barely registers to the other.

I thought it was interesting that this article mentioned other countries multiple times. It mentioned the US and the current administration. This source is from the Atlantic an American magazine. This was clearly written from an outside perspective. It was very analytical and expressed the position of Peru instead of ways that this issue could be fixed or if theres any though to fixing this. This wall has been up for more than three there should be some sort of action around it. And if there isn’t then why is this being addressed now? and not 30 years ago? We can see a significant segregation of wealth and a visible separation of class in Peru.  Connecting this to the topics we have learned in class about Defronzos formula to a revolution this is a clear sign of class/ elite divisions. This also could be connected to mass frustration. Wether Peru will experience a revolution or reform is still unlikely but it is clear that this problem of economic inequality needs to be addressed. Putting a wall between one and their problem will not solve it.

Article: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/09/peru-lima-wall/597085/