Crises et mouvements populaires en Haïti

Crises et mouvements populaires en Haïti by Michel Hector is one of those works which took us several years to read. Despite reading the chapter on Joseph Jolibois Fils several years ago, the rest of the book was something that we only finished today. Perhaps this is due to the nature of the text, mixing essays and articles written at different times by Hector. Some of the early chapters focus heavily on the contemporary crisis in Haiti from 1986-1994, yet another reason we found this one difficult to read. Hector's historical analysis of the Piquets in the Sud and the essay on Jolibois Fils are far more effective and interesting than the theoretical essays on the continuity of crises from the 19th century and first half of the 20th century with the post-Duvalier era. That said, if Hector had included additional chapters analyzing in greater detail the conjunctures of the crises of 1867-1870, 1911-1915, 1929-1930, 1946 and 1956, perhaps the book would have had greater coherence. 

Despite our issues with the structure of this work, a compilation of various articles and essays, Hector did raise a number of pertinent questions on the ephemeral nature of inter-class alliances for democratisation in Haiti. He also pointed out, using the example of Daniel Fignolé, how charismatic leaders preaching political and social change did not often support the creation of proper political parties or the types of administrative reforms that would be necessary to develop functional democratic institutions in places like Haiti. The example of Fignolé was perhaps most relevant to the crisis of the post-Duvalier years as Aristide and the Lavalas party represented an analogous situation for the 1990s. The aforementioned short-lived broader alliances or coalitions also frequently collapsed before Haiti could truly develop meaningful reforms or democratic governance. The past examples of crises in Haitian political history also showed how the dominant classes and the military were often able to end the crises through token reforms and dividing the popular movement, done so well with regard to the Piquets and Acaau in the 1840s. 

But the real "meat and potatoes" of Hector's work here is in regard to the 19th century peasant uprisings represented by Goman and the Piquets of the 1840s. Drawing on Moise, Madiou, French and British consular reports, the Haitian press, and subsequent Haitian historians like Manigat and Magloire, Hector proposes a model for understanding the Piquet movement as the first great popular uprising for a more egalitarian and democratic Haiti. However, this movement did not emerge out of nothing. Instead, the uprising led by Goman in the Sud from 1807-1820 represented a revival of the traditions of marronage against the Haitian Republic. After its neutralization, urban subaltern discontent and political conspiracies to overthrow Boyer in 1827 and 1838 reveal another dimension of popular organizing. Although the 1838 assassination attempt on Inginac failed and no peasant uprising materialized in Leogane, the humble class origins of the leaders of this plot (many were artisans and some were farmers or cultivateurs) and the promise of a future uprising to avenge them by one of the executed leaders, illustrate how the lower-classes were eager to end Boyer's unpopular, colorist regime. The inclusion of peasant rebels in the countryside near Port-au-Prince demonstrates another dimension of this, as urban and rural subalterns both expressed their disapproval of Boyer as the cost of living soared in that disastrous economic period (1830s and 1840s). But the South, where plantations were least developed in colonial Saint-Domingue and where those emancipated in the 1790s faced severe forms of exclusion in southern towns and attempts to minimize peasant freeholder agriculture, unsurprisingly witnessed the strongest manifestations of peasant rebellion. 

By the time of the Piquets and Acaau, however, peasant resistance was more organized and expressed clear political and social goals. Not just demanding a reduction in the prices for imported goods used by the popular classes and an increase in the value of exports, Acaau's movement wanted real democratic reforms, access to education for the lower classes, and acknowledged the class nature of the hegemonic group (both the "mulattoes" and noir elites). This, according to Hector, showed differences from Goman's movement through its expressed interest in public education and full inclusion within the state. To what extent that was true is perhaps debateable, but it is interesting to note Hector found an example of at least one former adherent of Goman's uprising who fully supported Acaau and the Piquets in the 1840s: César Novelet. Naturally, one must also consider the larger context of the elite liberal movement against Boyer in 1843 as well as the salomoniste opposition to the government which proceeded that of Boyer. The extended crisis of 1843-1848 included the secession of what became the Dominican Republic, fears of northern secession, and rivalries for power between the old boyerist oligarchy and proponents of Rivière-Hérard. But Hector is likely correct to emphasize the role of peasant agency in launching the movement and ensuring its autonomy from other political currents for a time.

Sadly, the Piquets suffered from the divide and conquer tactics of the Haitian political elite. Political promotions to some Piquet leaders and the isolating of Acaau from these men paved the way for them to eventually desert him and the cause they initially fought for. Moreover, the evidence suggesting Acaau limited expropriations of land and goods in the occupied territories and towns may have weakened his popular support over time. Gradually, more of the Piquet leadership was coopted, neutralized, executed or defeated, paving the way for Guerrier, Pierrot, Riché and Soulouque to defeat the popular movement. In its 3 waves, Acaau was even, for a time at least, imprisoned and removed from the Sud. Upon his return, to Nippes, he was still seen as intractable and too independent, causing the central government to eradicate him for good. But Acaau's charisma and popularity were still strong, leading to peasant unrest in the South until it was finally crushed by 1848. Lamentably, some of the leaders of the repression of the Piquets were former Piquet chefs like  Dugué Zamor. Ultimately, the movement was crushed and the rise of Soulouque to the position of emperor represented an end to the crisis, with his regime's consolidation and inclusion of a number of former Piquets. 

Although the conditions of the 1843-1848 crisis were rather distinct, one can see clearly how class, color, questions of land, and political reforms to seriously include the majority in the system were obfuscated, divided, and neutralized by the elite. The inter-class alliance evaporated rather quickly despite some liberal reformers once hosting popular gatherings on their estates with farmers. The insidious color question also shaped matters as some accepted the replacement of Boyer and Rivière-Hérard by black presidents. The divide and conquer tactics of the elite paid off very successfully, too. With the loss of his supporters and other leaders, Acaau was forced to flee for his life and later committed suicide to evade capture. While it ultimately failed, the conditions in which it emerged and the threat it posed to the Haitian authoritarian habitus presented a specter that haunted future generations of elites. One only wishes Hector had explored the religious dimension to understand the appeal of Frère Joseph in articulating the appeal of the  movement. Indeed, Hector reported that serviteurs left offerings at the site where Acaau was believed to have died, as if he became a lwa. Furthermore, exploring how the peasant and urban masses shaped the crisis of the Salnave years may have presented another opportunity to consider the urban-rural divide as a factor in the failure of the popular movements in these moments of national crisis. To be fair, a hint of that is detected in the chapter on Jolibois Fils, particularly with regard to his greater interest in supporting labor in Haiti after 1930. But considering the urban-rural dichotomy in the 19th century crises is worthy of scrutiny, too.