elections

ETHIOPIA: ‘The June 2021 election is between democratic life and death’
CIVICUS speaks to Mesud Gebeyehu about the political conflict in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia and the highly contested upcoming Ethiopian national election, scheduled to take place in June 2021 amidst an ongoing pandemic and a continuing state of emergency. Mesud is Executive Director of the Consortium of Ethiopian Human Rights Organisations (CEHRO) and vice-chair of the Executive Committee of CIVICUS’s Affinity Group of National Associations. Mesud is also Executive Committee member of the Ethiopian CSOs Council, a statutory body established to coordinate the self-regulation of civil society organisations (CSOs) in Ethiopia.
ÉTHIOPIE : « Les élections de juin 2021 sont une question de vie ou de mort pour la démocratie »
CIVICUS s’entretient avec Mesud Gebeyehu sur le conflit politique dans la région du Tigré en Ethiopie et les controversées élections nationales éthiopiennes qui auront lieu en juin 2021, dans un contexte de pandémie et d’état d’urgence prolongé. Mesud est directeur exécutif du Consortium of Ethiopian Human Rights Organizations (CEHRO) et vice-président du comité exécutif du groupe d’affinité des associations nationales de CIVICUS. Mesud est également membre du comité exécutif du Conseil éthiopien des OSC, un organe statutaire établi pour coordonner l’autorégulation des organisations de la société civile (OSC) en Éthiopie.
ETIOPÍA: “Las elecciones de junio de 2021 son una cuestión de vida o muerte para la democracia”
CIVICUS conversa con Mesud Gebeyehu acerca del conflicto político en la región de Tigray, en Etiopía, y sobre las próximas y muy disputadas elecciones nacionales etíopes, que tendrán lugar en junio de 2021 en medio de la pandemia y de un prolongado estado de emergencia. Mesud es Director Ejecutivo del Consorcio de Organizaciones Etíopes de Derechos Humanos (CEHRO) y vicepresidente del Comité Ejecutivo del Grupo de Afinidad de Asociaciones Nacionales de CIVICUS. Mesud también es miembro del Comité Ejecutivo del Consejo de OSC de Etiopía, un órgano estatutario creado para coordinar la autorregulación de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC) de Etiopía.
FINLAND: ‘We’ll have the most right-wing government since the 1930s’
CIVICUS speaks about Finland’s new government with Silla Ristimäki, development policy specialist at Fingo.

Founded in 2018, Fingo is an umbrella organisation comprising about 270 Finnish civil society organisations (CSOs). Fingo monitors and defends civic space in Finland and around the world with the aim of building a strong, diverse, open, active and free civil society with solid operating capacities.

What was the relationship between government and civil society like under the government of former Prime Minister Sanna Marin?

Sanna Marin’s government took measures to promote transparency and the rule of law and improve conditions for civil society. Under the previous government’s programme, Finland took an active role in promoting open government internationally. Several initiatives were undertaken to improve the participation of and dialogue with Finnish civil society to increase transparency, which was seen as an integral part of all national governance objectives. For example, a transparency register was developed in 2023 to keep track of lobbying with parliament.

The previous government’s programme also aimed to harmonise procedures for tracking civil society funding while respecting CSOs’ autonomy and guaranteeing equal treatment of organisations. The objective was to reduce bureaucracy and increase the predictability of funding. Changes were made in accounting and fundraising regulations that particularly favoured small CSOs. Overall, official development assistance grew quite consistently. Fundamentally, the nature of relationships was about building a partnership between state and civil society to reduce inequality.

What were the key issues that influenced the outcome of the 2023 parliamentary elections?

Sanna Marin’s government was a coalition of left-wing parties that pushed, for example, for stricter climate policies and reduced inequalities, including gender-based one. During its term, the Finnish government’s debt grew significantly. At the same time, Russia’s attack on Ukraine resulted in an unprecedented change in Finnish popular opinion regarding NATO membership. So the elections were greatly influenced by two major issues: the severity of government debt and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The economic and security conditions increased the popularity of right-wing parties. The National Coalition Party that won the election has been the longest and loudest advocate of Finland’s NATO membership. It also pushed an agenda to urgently reduce Finnish public debt. The far-right Finns Party, which came second, ran an anti-immigration campaign and proposed balancing the budget by reducing climate measures and cutting development funding. On 18 June it was confirmed that Ville Tavio from the Finns Party will be the new minister for Trade and Development.

The Social Democratic Party headed by Sanna Marin came third. This is politically noteworthy, since the ruling party generally tends to do much worse in parliamentary elections. There was a significant fall in support for The Greens and the Left Alliance, and some experts say that people voted strategically for the Social Democratic Party to try to prevent the emergence of a conservative right-wing government. However, the new government coalition formed with the Finns Party, Swedish People’s Party of Finland and the Christian Democrats will be the most right-wing government Finland has had since the 1930s. Their overall interpretation of the elections results is that Finland ‘needs a change in direction’, and that people particularly want new fiscal policies.

How much public debate was there around Finland’s accession to NATO?

There has never been a lot of public political debate over Finland’s accession to NATO. Politicians used to maintain a position that it was never the right time for it, and if Finland were to change its position of neutrality and consider accession to NATO, a referendum would be organised before a final decision was made.

But the situation changed when Russia attacked Ukraine. Polls showed a significant increase in support for accession, rising to above 60 per cent. Almost no members of parliament publicly raised concerns or expressed an opinion against Finland’s accession. In the end, Finland applied for NATO membership without a referendum being held. It was considered that the polls were a strong enough indication of citizen support.

What is the new government programme’s stance on civil society and human rights?

All three parties that received the most votes in the election are largely committed to supporting civil society and recognise the value of safeguarding civic space. The new government’s programme, published on 16 June, confirms that a vibrant civil society is a prerequisite for social development and states that in all its activities Finland will promote the principles of democracy, civil society and the rule of law.

However, it also states that Finland will reduce the number of refugees it welcomes, control immigration and limit the rights of migrants. It doesn’t mention the issues of loss and damage and climate finance. While it claims that Finland will stick to its national Climate Change Act, which commits it to become climate-neutral by 2035, it also states that this must not be done at the expense of increasing daily living costs or negatively impacting on the market competitiveness of Finnish industries.

How is civil society working to safeguard human rights and democracy in Finland?

Civil society works at the local and national levels to promote human rights and safeguard democracy in Finland.

In regard to democracy, Finnish civil society has a role in providing training for democracy skills (such as decision-making in communities and communication skills); advocating towards policy-makers on a variety of societal issues; as well as working with decision-makers and officials for the implementation of democratic decisions. For example, with regards to social and health care services as well as development cooperation, this last role in implementation is quite crucial. Generally, the basis for the work of Finnish civil society is human rights: concretely this means for example working for the economic rights of vulnerable people in Finland or promoting the ‘leave no one behind’ -principle in development cooperation.

Fingo has three main areas of work: advocacy, learning and communications. Advocacy is targeted towards political leaders. Fingo undertakes efforts to improve the operational environment and institutional support for CSOs and to protect civic space. The learning component is particularly targeted at building capacity among member CSOs, offering training on, for example, how to improve advocacy, communication and analytical skills and fundraising proposals, or how to mainstream gender. A significant portion of this component is to advance global citizenship education. Communications efforts are targeted at the broader public to uphold and generate further support for human rights and democracy through media engagement and campaigns.

Following the publication of the new government’s programme, our next step is to re-evaluate the priorities of our advocacy efforts. For example, the new government has left reproductive rights out of development assistance priorities, so this may be an area that needs particular attention. All efforts to jointly protect civic space globally are valuable and support one another.

Civic space in Finland is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Fingo through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@FingoFi onTwitter.
Five reasons why the elections in Nicaragua do not guarantee human rights
On 7 November 2021, general elections will be held in Nicaragua in the context of a deterioration of the human rights crisis that began with the repression of protests in April 2018. The undersigned organizations are deeply concerned about the continuing grave human rights violations and their recent escalation. The following sets out five reasons which explain why the coming general election will take place in a context of severe restrictions on civil and political liberties.

As President Daniel Ortega seeks a fourth consecutive term, government repression of critics and the political opposition has intensified. This increasingly alarming deterioration includes violations of personal freedom and safety, freedom of expression and association, freedom of the press, as well as other restrictions on the exercise of civil and political rights. These human rights violations have affected various groups in situations of vulnerability, including women, who, as reports have stated, experience differentiated impacts.

Since the end of May, the Nicaraguan government has detained 39 people it views as government opponents, including seven presidential candidates. Some of these detainees were victims of enforced disappearance for weeks or months. These abuses mark the beginning of a new stage in the campaign of repression and criminalization of dissident voices, journalists and human rights defenders, facilitated by a lack of judicial independence and the executive’s control of the National Assembly, which has enacted laws that violate fundamental rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association, and the right to vote and run for public office in free and fair elections.

It is clear that, at this time, the conditions do not exist in Nicaragua for holding elections that guarantee the exercise of rights and, therefore, we call on the international community, multilateral organizations and international human rights organizations to strengthen their efforts to put an end to the human rights crisis.

1. ARBITRARY DETENTION AND ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE

Since 28 May 2021, the government of Daniel Ortega has detained 39 people perceived as government opponents, including presidential candidates, public political figures, student leaders, activists, campesino representatives, defence lawyers and journalists. Some were subjected to enforced disappearance for weeks or months before the authorities provided information on their whereabouts. Many have been subjected to continuous interrogation in abusive conditions of detention, including prolonged isolation and insufficient food, which may constitute torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under international law. The recent arrests are in addition to the more than 100 people perceived as critics who have remained arbitrarily detained for a prolonged period in the context of the human rights crisis in the country.

The Nicaraguan state mustend the practice of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance and immediately and unconditionally release all those unjustly detained for exercising their rights. This is essential in order to restore the full enjoyment of all their rights, including the rights to vote and to run for and hold public office in general conditions of equality.

2. LACK OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE

The authorities continue to use the criminal justice system, taking advantage of the lack of judicial independence, to subject people perceived as opponents to arbitrary proceedings and imprisonment. Frequently, violations of due process and fair trial guarantees include violations of the presumption of innocence, the requirement to present a court order at the time of arrest, the right to be tried before an independent and impartial judge, the right to access detailed information about the charges against them, the right to legal defence and to free and confidential communication with a lawyer of their choice. The Nicaraguan judiciary’s lack of independence also means that those who are the targets of threats do not have access to any impartial authority to which they can turn to make a complaint or request protection.

The authorities have also failed to comply with the recommendations of international human rights mechanisms, thereby obstructing the exercise of fundamental rights.

The Nicaraguan state mustensure that people have access to justice, truth and reparation for crimes under international law and other serious human rights violations (such as enforced disappearance, torture and arbitrary detention) committed before and during the election context.

3. VIOLATIONS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND OF THE PRESS

The authorities persecute human rights defenders, independent journalists and dissidents or perceived opponents solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression. As part of this repressive strategy, in October 2020 the National Assembly adopted theLaw to Regulate Foreign Agents and theSpecial Law on Cybercrime, which severely restrict freedom of expression and association.

Between July and August 2021, the authorities ordered the closure of 45 non-governmental organizations, including women’s associations, international humanitarian organizations and several medical associations. Another 10 organizations have been closed down since 2018.

In addition, the government continues to support a series of attacks and undue restrictions on the independent media and communications workers, as well as organizations that defend press freedom; these include administrative and criminal investigations, the detention of journalists and raids on media offices and the seizure of their assets. In this worrying context, not only are the rights of the professionals and the media under attack violated, but the public’s access to information, key for the proper exercise of political rights, is restricted.

The Nicaraguan state must protect and respect the right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, which is essential for access to information and pluralistic debate in the context of an election. In addition, it must stop the harassment, stigmatization and criminalization of human rights defenders, journalists and dissidents or perceived opponents, solely for expressing their criticism of state policies.

4. VIOLATIONS OF POLITICAL RIGHTS

The government has tried to eliminate and discourage electoral competition through the arbitrary detention and prosecution of opponents and presidential candidates, resulting in the withdrawal of their political rights. In turn, it has revoked the legal status of the main opposition parties, preventing them from participating in the elections.

In December 2020, the National Assembly approved theLaw for the Defence of the Rights of the People to Independence, Sovereignty and Self-determination for Peace, which has been used to open criminal investigations against many of those detained since late May. This law includes broad and vaguely worded provisions that restrict the right to run for public office.

Local organizations have already indicated that, in these conditions, the electoral process does not guarantee the full exercise of political rights.

The Nicaraguan people have a right to exercise their right to vote freely, without intimidation, and the right to run for and hold public office in general conditions of equality. For thefull and effective exercise of these rights, it is essential that freedom of expression, assembly and association be guaranteed.

The Nicaraguan state must guarantee the conditions necessary for the population to satisfactorily exercise its right to participate in the conduct of public affairs.

5. LACK OF GUARANTEES FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY

In response to the 2018 protests, state officials used excessive, disproportionate and often unnecessary force against demonstrators demanding their rights. According to a group of independent experts appointed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the police and pro-government armed groups, with the support of the Nicaraguan government, committed widespread abuses, including extrajudicial executions, against protesters who, in the vast majority of cases, were unarmed. Impunity has been the norm for serious abuses during the 2018 protests.

Despite international scrutiny, the response to those demonstrating and promoting respect for human rights has continued to be one of repression.

The recent upsurge in the repression and harassment of dissident voices allows the conclusion that the state will not guarantee the right to peaceful assembly if new demonstrations are held in the context of the elections.

The Nicaraguan state must guarantee freedom of peaceful assembly before, during and after the election process.

Amnesty International

Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL)

CIVICUS

Human Rights Watch

International Institute on Race, Equality and Human Rights

Washington Office on Latin America

World Organisation Against Torture

People in Need

International Network of Human Rights

Women’s Link Worldwide
GABON : « L’espace civique et les conditions des droits humains étaient difficiles sous l’ancien régime »
CIVICUS échange sur le coup d’État militaire au Gabon avec Georges Mpaga, président exécutif national du Réseau des organisations libres de la société civile du Gabon (ROLBG).

Au cours des dix dernières années, le ROLBG s’est concentré sur les disparitions forcées, les exécutions extrajudiciaires, la torture et les détentions arbitraires. Il plaide en faveur de l’espace civique au Gabon e l’Afrique centrale et mène des campagnes sur les conditions de détention inhumaines.

Que pensez-vous des récentes élections au Gabon et du coup d’État militaire qui s’en est suivi ?

Les élections du 26 août ont été indubitablement frauduleuses, comme l’étaient les précédentes. Le régime du dictateur prédateur Ali Bongo avait interdit les missions d’observation internationales et domestiques ainsi que la présence de la presse internationale. Le ROLBG a été la seule organisation à mettre en œuvre une observation citoyenne à travers le système de tabulation parallèle des votes. Par la volonté despotique de Bongo, l’élection s’est tenue dans des conditions totalement irrégulières, en violation flagrante des normes et standards internationaux en la matière. Les scrutins s’étaient déroulés à huis clos, dans une opacité qui a généré une fraude électorale à grande échelle et des résultats tronqués.

Le 30 août 2023, l’intervention salutaire des forces de défense et de sécurité a mis un terme à cette forfaiture. Pour moi en tant qu’acteur de la société civile, ce qui vient de se passer au Gabon n’est nullement un coup d’Etat, c’est tout simplement une intervention militaire menée par des patriotes au sein de l’armée, sous le leadership du Général Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema, qui a mis fin à une imposture de 56 ans, un système prédateur et un cycle infernal d’élections truquées souvent jalonnées de violations massives des droits humains. C’est notre lecture de la situation et c’est l’avis général de la population gabonaise qui vient d’être libérée d’une dictature et d’une oligarchie criminelle.

Pour quoi l’intervention militaire s’est-elle produite maintenant, après tant d’années de règne de la famille Bongo ?

L’intervention militaire du 30 août se justifie comme une réponse à la volonté du clan Bongo et son Parti démocratique gabonais de se maintenir au pouvoir de gré ou de force à travers des élections frauduleuses et la répression policière orchestrée par des forces de défense et de sécurité instrumentalisées et aux ordres de l’ancien président.

Les forces armées gabonaises sont intervenu pour éviter un bain de sang et remplacer le régime incarné par Bongo : un régime inamovible qui s’est montré impitoyable envers le peuple gabonais, entaché de relations clientélistes, d’affaires louches, de corruption prédatrice et de violations généralisées des droits humains et des libertés fondamentales, le tout sanctionné par des élections frauduleuses.

En résumé, le coup au Gabon ne s’inscrit pas dans une tendance régionale, mais est le résultat d’un processus purement interne résultant des 56 ans de dictature et son corollaire de violations des droits humains et de destruction du tissu économique et social du pays. Les évènements en cours au Gabon ont évidemment des répercussions dans la région d’Afrique centrale, foyer des plus grandes dictatures d’Afrique.

Quel est votre point de vue sur les critiques internationales concernant le coup d’État ?

La société civile a favorablement accueilli l’intervention militaire qui a sonné le glas de plus d’un demi-siècle de forfaiture et de prédation au sommet de l’Etat. Sans cette intervention, nous aurons assisté à une tragédie sans précédent.

L’armée gabonaise, sous la houlette du Comité pour la transition et la restauration des institutions (CTRI), la junte militaire au pouvoir, a permis au pays d’échapper à un drame aux conséquences incalculables. Vu sous cet angle, les militaires sont des héros à célébrer. Dès sa prise de pouvoir, le Général Oligui s’est employé à fédérer un pays qui était profondément divisé et traumatisé par si longtemps de gestion calamiteuse par la famille Bongo et les intérêts mafieux qui les entouraient.

L’attitude de la communauté internationale est inacceptable pour la société civile, les défenseurs des droits humains et la population gabonaise, qui ont longtemps payé un lourd tribut. Quand en 2016 Bongo a planifié et exécuté un coup d’état électoral suivi d’atrocités contre les populations civiles qui s’étaient opposées à la mascarade électorale, la communauté internationale s’était tue laissant les populations civiles gabonaises face à leur bourreau. Au regard de ce qui précède, nous rejetons catégoriquement les déclarations de la communauté internationale, singulièrement la Communauté Économique des États de l’Afrique centrale et l’Union Africaine, deux institutions qui encouragent les tripatouillages de constitutions et les présidences à vie en Afrique centrale.

Quelles étaient les conditions de la société civile sous le régime de la famille Bongo ? Pensez-vous qu’il y ait une chance que la situation s’améliore ?

L’espace civique et les conditions d’exercice des libertés démocratiques et les droits humains étaient difficiles sous l’ancien régime. Les droits de d’association, de réunion pacifique d’expression étaient bafoués. De nombreux militants de la société civile et défenseurs des droits humains dont moi-même, ont séjourné en prison ou furent privés de leurs droits fondamentaux.

Maintenant, avec l’arrivée du régime de transition, nous notons un changement fondamental, une approche globalement favorable à la société civile. Les nouvelles autorités travaillent désormais de concert avec toutes les forces vives de la nation y compris la société civile qui a été reçue le 1er septembre par le Général Oligui et ses pairs du CTRI, et votre humble serviteur était le facilitateur de cette rencontre. Le président de transition, qui a prêté serment le 4 septembre, s’est engagé à travailler pour restaurer les institutions de l’Etat et les droits humains et démocratiques et respecter les engagements nationaux et internationaux du Gabon. Le signal fort a été donné le 5 septembre par la libération progressive des prisonniers d’opinion dont le leader de la plus grande confédération syndicale de la fonction publique gabonaise, Jean Remi Yama, après 18 mois de détention arbitraire.

L’espace civique au Gabon est classé « réprimé » par leCIVICUS Monitor.

Contactez Georgessur sa pageFacebook et suivez@gmpaga sur Twitter.

Les opinions exprimées dans cette interview sont celles de la personne interviewée et ne reflètent pas nécessairement celles de CIVICUS.
GABON : « Sous l’ancien régime la société civile n’était pas prise en compte »
CIVICUS échange sur le coup d’État militaire au Gabon avec Pepecy Ogouliguende, experte en droits humains, gouvernance, genre et médiation de paix et fondatrice et présidente de Malachie.

Malachie est une organisation de la société civile gabonaise qui lutte contre la pauvreté et promeut le développement durable et l’égalité des sexes. Elle est active dans plusieurs domaines, notamment la protection de la biodiversité, l’aide en cas de catastrophes naturelles, le soutien médical, notamment auprès des personnes vivantes avec le VIH/SIDA, et l’éducation aux droits humains, particulièrement auprès des couches sociales les plus vulnérables.

Que pensez-vous des récentes élections au Gabon et du coup d’État militaire qui s’en est suivi ?

Le 30 août 2023 aux environs de 3h du matin la Commission Gabonaise Électorale a annoncé les résultats de l’élection présidentielle qui donnaient le président, Ali Bongo, gagnant. Quelques minutes plus tard, les militaires annonçaient avoir pris le pouvoir. Il est important de souligner qu’il ne s’agit pas d’un coup d’État, mais d’une prise de pouvoir par les militaires. Cela trouve sa justification dans le fait que cela s’est déroulé sans effusion de sang.

Cette élection était entachée d’irrégularités et l’annonce de ses résultats allaient conduire à des contestations bien que légitimes mais qui se seraient soldées par des violences. Je tiens donc ici à saluer l’acte de bravoure des forces de défense et de sécurité.

Les militaires ont ensuite dissous l’ensemble des institutions du gouvernement et ont mis en place un Comité de Transition pour la Restauration des Institutions (CTRI).

Votre organisation a-t-elle pu observer les élections ?

Non, mon organisation n’a pas pu observer les élections pour la simple raison qu’aucun observateurs internationaux et nationaux n’étaient admis. Cette élection s’est déroulée dans une opacité totale. Comme tous les Gabonais, j’ai effectivement constaté que les déclarations ne correspondaient pas aux résultats des urnes.

La prise du pouvoir par les forces de défense et de sécurité dans cette circonstance particulière de défiance des populations envers les autorités et de suspicion profonde quant à la vérité des urnes s’apparente plutôt à un sursaut patriotique.

Pour quoi l’intervention militaire s’est-elle produite maintenant, après tant d’années de règne de la famille Bongo ?

Nos forces de défense et de sécurité ont au même titre que la population, constaté de nombreuses irrégularités et plusieurs dysfonctionnements de l’appareil étatique ces dernières années. Ils ont donc décidé de mettre fin à ce régime qui ne correspondait plus aux aspirations des Gabonais.

Les militaires ont profité des élections du 26 août dernier pour mettre fin au système en place en prenant leurs responsabilités pour sauver la nation et l’État de droit. Aussi, le but de cette prise de pouvoir est de « redonner aux gabonais leur dignité ». Comme l’a dit le porte-parole du CTRI, « c’est enfin notre essor vers la félicité ».

Quel est votre point de vue sur les critiques internationales concernant le coup d’État ?

La communauté internationale a simplement appliqué les textes sans au préalable analyser le contexte. Le contexte du Gabon est bien particulier.

La célébration dans les rues des principales villes du pays montre à quel point le régime en place n’était plus désiré, mais seulement toléré. Ces scènes de liesse populaire observées qui contrastent avec la condamnation de la communauté internationale devraient interpeller celle-ci, l’inviter à revoir son approche davantage tournée vers la sauvegarde à tout prix de la stabilité souvent au détriment d’un réel progrès social, du développement ou encore de la croissance économique... bref, du bien-être du plus grand nombre.

Tous les membres de la communauté internationale qui se sont exprimés ont condamné le « coup d’État » et assuré qu’ils suivaient avec intérêt l’évolution de la situation au Gabon tout en rappelant leur attachement au respect des institutions. Les réactions des organisations internationales ont été très fortes : les Nations unies ont condamné et l’Union Africaine (UA) et la Communauté économique des États de l’Afrique centrale (CEEAC) ont suspendu le Gabon car ce « coup d’État » a été directement assimilé à ceux qui ont précédemment eu lieu dans la région. Les États-Unis se sont quelques peu démarqués en affirmant qu’ils travailleraient avec leurs partenaires et les populations pour soutenir le processus démocratique en cours. C’est en cela que nous attendons le reste de la communauté internationale pour nous aider à œuvrer à la construction d’institutions fortes.

Nous saluons les États qui ont bien compris la nécessité de ce changement. Nous condamnons les sanctions de l’UA et celles de la CEEAC. La communauté internationale devrait accompagner les États dans le respect des lois et constitutions et veiller au respect de la démocratie et des droits humains.

Pensez-vous que ce coup d’État s’inscrit dans une tendance régionale ?

Il faut avant tout rappeler que pour le cas du Gabon, il s’agit d’une prise de pouvoir des militaires et non d’un coup d’État au sens strict du terme. Il est effectivement le résultat d’une mauvaise gouvernance, de la non prise en compte des besoins des populations notamment les besoins sociaux mais aussi d’une soif de changement. Elle peut avoir une connotation régionale en ce sens que la plupart des populations africaines vivent les mêmes difficultés - chômage des jeunes, pauvreté, manque d’accès aux soins de santé - et aspirent à de grands changements. Lorsque la population ne se sent pas prise en compte dans les politiques mises en place elle est frustrée.

Nous n’excluons pas la possibilité que cela ait un impact chez nos voisins. Il n’est pas trop tard pour que les régimes en place en Afrique centrale saisissent cette occasion pour repenser la manière de servir le peuple.

Quelles étaient les conditions de la société civile sous le régime de la famille Bongo ? Pensez-vous qu’il y ait une chance que la situation s’améliore ?

Au Gabon, le fonctionnement des organisations et associations est régie par la loi 35/62 qui garantit la liberté d’association. Cela dit, sous l’ancien régime la société civile n’était pas prise en compte. Elle ne participait que partiellement à gestion de la chose publique.

Certains leaders notamment syndicaux pouvaient être victimes d’arrestations ou d’intimidations si le régime estimait qu’ils faisaient trop de zèle. Plusieurs leaders dans la société civile gabonaise se levaient pour dénoncer des arrestations arbitraires liées aux opinions et positionnements.

Au même titre que les Gabonais, la société civile s’est réjouie du changement. La société civile dans son ensemble s’est engagée à prendre activement part aux actions et reformes menées par les autorités au cours de la transition qui iront dans le sens du respect des droits humains, l’équité et la justice sociale, la préservation de la paix ainsi que la promotion de la bonne gouvernance.

Le CTRI vient d’autoriser la libération de quelques figures de la lutte syndicale au Gabon et de prisonniers d’opinion. Aux vues des premières décisions prises par le CTRI, le meilleur est à venir. Je peux, sans risques de me tromper, dire que le Gabon de demain sera meilleur. Aujourd’hui on perçoit une lueur d’espoir.

L’espace civique au Gabon est classé « réprimé » par leCIVICUS Monitor.

Contactez Malachie via sonsite web ou sa pageFacebook.

Les opinions exprimées dans cette interview sont celles de la personne interviewée et ne reflètent pas nécessairement celles de CIVICUS.
GABON: ‘Civic space and the conditions for the exercise of human rights were difficult under the former regime’
CIVICUS discusses the military coup in Gabon with Georges Mpaga, National Executive President of the Network of Free Civil Society Organisations of Gabon (ROLBG).

Over the past decade, ROLBG has focused on enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture and arbitrary detention. It advocates to improve civic space in Gabon and Central Africa and campaigns on inhumane detention conditions.

What’s your opinion on Gabon’s recent elections and subsequent military coup?

The 26 August elections were undoubtedly fraudulent, as were the previous ones. The regime led by predatory dictator Ali Bongo had banned international and domestic observer missions and international media. ROLBG was the only organisation that carried out citizen observation through the parallel vote tabulation system. Because of Bongo’s despotic will, the election was held under totally irregular conditions, in flagrant violation of international norms and standards. The vote count was held behind closed doors, in an opaque context that allowed for large-scale electoral fraud and falsified results.

On 30 August 2023, the salutary intervention of the defence and security forces put an end to this aberration. For me, as someone from civil society, what has just happened in Gabon is by no means a military coup; it is quite simply a military intervention led by patriots within the army, under the leadership of General Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema, that put an end to a 56-year imposture, a predatory system and an infernal cycle of rigged elections often punctuated by massive human rights violations. This is our reading of the situation, and it is the general opinion of the Gabonese people, who have just been freed from a criminal dictatorship and oligarchy.

Why has military intervention taken place now, after so many years of Bongo family rule?

The military intervention on 30 August was justified as a response to the desire shown by the Bongo clan and its Gabonese Democratic Party to remain in power by will or by force, through fraudulent elections and police repression orchestrated by the defence and security forces, which were instrumentalised and took orders from the former president.

The Gabonese armed forces intervened to avert a bloodbath and replace the Bongo regime: an unrelenting regime that was ruthless towards the Gabonese people, tainted by clientelist relationships, shady business deals, predatory corruption and widespread violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, all sanctioned by fraudulent elections.

In this sense, the coup in Gabon is not part of a regional trend, but the result of a purely internal process resulting from 56 years of dictatorship and its corollary of human rights violations and the destruction of the country’s economic and social fabric. However, the events underway in Gabon obviously have repercussions in the Central African region, home to some of the worst of Africa’s dictatorships.

What’s your perspective on international criticism of the coup?

Civil society welcomed the military intervention because it sounded the death knell for more than half a century of deceit and predation at the top of the state. Without this intervention, we would have witnessed an unprecedented tragedy.

The Gabonese army, under the leadership of the Committee for the Transition and Restoration of Institutions (CTRI), the military junta in power, allowed the country to escape a tragedy with incalculable consequences. Seen in this light, the military should be celebrated as heroes. As soon as he took power, General Oligui set about uniting a country that had been deeply divided and traumatised by such a long time of calamitous management by the Bongo family and the mafia interests around them.

The attitude of the international community is unacceptable to civil society, human rights defenders and the people of Gabon, who have long paid a heavy price. In 2016, when Bongo planned and carried out an electoral coup followed by atrocities against civilians who opposed the electoral masquerade, the international community remained silent, leaving Gabon’s civilians to face their executioner. In view of this, we categorically reject the declarations of the international community, in particular the Economic Community of Central African States and the African Union, two institutions that have encouraged the manipulation of constitutions and presidencies for life in Central Africa.

What were conditions like for civil society under Bongo family rule? Do you think there is any chance that the situation will now improve?

Civic space and the conditions for exercising democratic freedoms and human rights were difficult under the former regime. The rights of association, peaceful assembly and expression were flouted. Many civil society activists and human rights defenders, including myself, spent time in prison or were deprived of their fundamental rights.

With the establishment of the transitional regime, we are now seeing fundamental change towards an approach that is generally favourable to civil society. The new authorities are working in concert with all the nation’s driving forces, including civil society, which was received on 1 September by General Oligui and his CTRI peers, and I was the facilitator of that meeting. The transitional president, who was sworn in on 4 September, took to work to restore state institutions, human rights and democratic freedoms, and to respect Gabon’s national and international commitments. A strong signal was given on 5 September, with the gradual release of prisoners of conscience, including the leader of Gabon’s largest civil service union confederation, Jean Remi Yama, after 18 months of arbitrary detention.

Civic space in Gabon is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Georgesthrough hisFacebook page and follow@gmpaga on Twitter.

The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.
GABON: ‘Under the old regime civil society was not taken into account’
CIVICUS discusses the military coup in Gabon with Pepecy Ogouliguende, expert in human rights, governance, gender and peace mediation and founder and president of Malachie.

Malachie is a Gabonese civil society organisation that combats poverty and promotes sustainable development and gender equality. It is active in a areas that include biodiversity protection, aid in the event of natural disasters, medical support, particularly for people living with HIV/AIDS, and human rights education, especially for the most vulnerable groups in society.

What’s your opinion on Gabon’s recent general election and subsequent military coup?

At around 3am on 30 August 2023, the Gabonese Electoral Commission announced the results of the presidential election, with incumbent Ali Bongo as the winner. A few minutes later, the military announced they had seized power. It is important to stress that this was not a coup d’état, but a seizure of power by the military. This distinction is justified by the fact that it took place without bloodshed.

The election was marred by irregularities and the announcement of the results would have led to protests, albeit legitimate, but which would have ended in violence. I would therefore like to salute the bravery of the defence and security forces.

The military then dissolved all governing institutions and set up a Transition Committee for the Restoration of Institutions (CTRI).

Was your organisation able to observe the election?

No, my organisation was unable to observe the election for the simple reason that no international or national observers were admitted. The election was conducted in total secrecy. Like all Gabonese people, I saw that the announced results did not correspond with the results at the ballot box.

The seizure of power by the defence and security forces in this particular context of public distrust of the authorities and deep suspicion of the election results is rather akin to a patriotic act.

Why has military intervention taken place now, after so many years of Bongo family rule?

Our defence and security forces, along with the public, have observed numerous irregularities and dysfunctions in the state apparatus in recent years. They therefore decided to put an end to this regime, which no longer corresponded to the aspirations of the Gabonese people.

The military saw an opportunity in the 26 August election to end the current system by assuming their responsibilities to save the nation and the rule of law. The aim of this seizure of power is to ‘restore the dignity of the Gabonese people’. As the CTRI spokesperson put it, ‘we are finally on the road to happiness’.

What’s your perspective on international criticism of the coup?

The international community simply acted by the book without first analysing the context. Gabon’s is a very special case.

Celebrations on the streets of Gabon’s main cities showed the extent to which the old regime was no longer wanted, just tolerated. These scenes of popular jubilation, which contrast with the international community’s condemnation, should be a wake-up call to the international community, inviting it to review its approach, which is more focused on safeguarding stability at all costs, often to the detriment of real social progress, development or economic growth – in short, at the expense of the wellbeing of the majority.

All those in the international community who spoke up condemned the ‘coup d’état’ and assured us that they were following developments in Gabon with interest, while reiterating their attachment to respect for institutions. Reactions from international organisations were very strong: the United Nations condemned the coup and the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) suspended Gabon because they directly associated this ‘coup d’état’ with those that had previously taken place elsewhere in the region.

The USA has distanced itself somewhat by stating that it will work with its partners and the people to support the democratic process underway. This is where we look to the rest of the international community to help us work towards building strong institutions.

We salute those states that have clearly understood the need for this change. We condemn AU and ECCAS sanctions. The international community should support states in respecting their laws and constitutions and ensuring that democracy and human rights are respected.

Do you think this coup is part of a regional trend?

First and foremost, it should be reminded that in the case of Gabon, this was a military takeover and not a coup d’état in the strict sense of the term. It was in fact the result of bad governance and failure to take account of the needs of the population, particularly social needs, but also of the thirst for change. It can have regional impacts in the sense that most African populations are experiencing the same difficulties – youth unemployment, poverty, lack of access to healthcare – and aspire to major change. When people don’t feel taken into account by policymakers, they become frustrated.

We don’t rule out the possibility that this will have an impact on our neighbours. It is not too late for the regimes in power in Central Africa to seize this opportunity to rethink the way they serve their people.

What were conditions like for civil society under Bongo family rule? Do you think there is any chance the situation will now improve?

In Gabon, the operation of organisations and associations is governed by law 35/62, which guarantees freedom of association. That said, under the old regime civil society was not taken into account. It was only partly involved in the management of public affairs.

Some leaders, particularly trade union leaders, could be arrested or intimidated if the regime felt they were being overzealous. Several Gabonese civil society leaders denounced arbitrary arrests linked to their opinions and positions.

Like the Gabonese people, civil society is delighted at the change. Civil society as a whole is committed to taking an active part in the actions and reforms carried out by the authorities during the transition, to promote respect for human rights, equity and social justice, the preservation of peace and good governance.

The CTRI has just authorised the release of some of Gabon’s leading trade unionists and prisoners of conscience. In view of the first decisions taken by the CTRI, the best is yet to come. I can safely say that the Gabon of tomorrow will be better. Today there is a glimmer of hope.

Civic space in Gabon is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Malachie through itswebsite or itsFacebook page.

The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.
Global civil society alliance, CIVICUS urges a peaceful transfer of power in Brazil
Brazil’s presidential election results have been declared by the country’s election authority with Luiz Inacio Lula De Silva securing 50.8% of the vote as compared to 49.2% for the incumbent Jair Bolsonaro. The incumbent Jair Bolsonaro has delayed conceding defeat through a public statement in accordance with tradition. He has also repeatedly questioned the integrity of Brazil’s electoral system.

“We celebrate Brazil’s democratic electoral process and urge Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters to accept the election results by respecting the people’s mandate. The incoming government should place human rights at the center of its agenda and work with civil society to continue strengthening the country’s institutions,” said Lysa John Secretary General of CIVICUS.

Civic space in Brazil is rated as "Obstructed" by the CIVICUS Monitor
Global rights group condemns violent repression of peaceful protests in eSwatini (formerly Swaziland)
- Global civil society alliance condemns ongoing violations of freedom of assembly
- At least two protesters shot, several injured in police attacks on marches
- Hundreds of thousands of workers staged three days of protests
- Violent police action against peaceful protests comes on eve of controversial elections
Global human rights groups have condemned the violent repression of peaceful protests in eSwatini (formerly Swaziland) as part of a long-running pattern of fundamental rights violations in the southern African kingdom.

At least two protesters were shot on Wednesday and several reported injured after police attacked demonstrations by workers, who were protesting the autocracy of King Mswati III, ruler of sub-Saharan Africa’s last remaining absolute monarchy, and calling for improved wages and better working conditions. The workers were among hundreds of thousands of others who responded to a call by the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA) to stage three days of peaceful protests, beginning on September 18, in the cities of Manzini, Mbabane, Siteki and Nhlangano.

The latest incidents in ongoing restrictions on freedom of assembly and expression have come just ahead of today’s highly controversial parliamentary elections. More than 500,000 registered voters are expected to cast ballots for representatives of the legislature – an institution under the firm control of the King. The elections will be held without the participation of political parties, which are banned in Swaziland.

Global civil society alliance, CIVICUS, said the brutal police action against protesters violated constitutionally-protected rights to freedom of assembly and highlights the continued actions by the authorities to repress fundamental rights in Africa’s last remaining absolute monarchy.

“Swazis are unable to participate in political processes and with the tight controls exerted by the authorities over the media, constitutionally-guaranteed peaceful protests remain the only means through which they can raise concerns about issues affecting them,” said David Kode, CIVICUS Campaigns and Advocacy Lead.

“By using violence against those who exercise this right, the authorities are revealing the true extent of the brutality of the regime,” Kode said.

The current wave of repression of protesters is the latest in a trend observed since the start of the year to curtail the only means available to citizens to inform the government about issues affecting them. On June 29 for example, the police used brute force to disperse protesting workers as they made their way to deliver a petition to the Deputy Prime Minister’s office, calling for an introduction of a minimum wage and an end to the abuse of small-scale sugarcane workers. Four protesters were injured and hospitalised and one was detained and released after a while.

On September 8, police used force to repress demonstrations led by nurses to express concerns over healthcare cuts and medicine shortages. The protesting healthcare workers were blocked as they tried to deliver a petition to government officials. Violence was also used against hundreds of trade union members demonstrating against the King’s misuse of the state pension fund.

King Mswati III unilaterally changed the country’s name from Swaziland to eSwatini in April, to celebrate the 50^th anniversary of independence from Britain.

CIVICUS calls on the authorities to respect the rights of citizens to assemble peacefully and hold to account security forces who targeted peaceful protesters.

The CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks threats to civil society in countries around the world, rates the space for civil society in Swaziland as ‘repressed’.

For more information, please contact:

David Kode
Government repression undermines legitimacy of Cambodian elections

Legitimacy of upcoming #Cambodia elections questioned as Hun Sen has narrowed democratic space by cracking down on opposition & journalists & attempting to silence #civilsociety https://t.co/qDWesXp3cS| @prakchanthul @SuySe1 @HannahEP @EmmaRichards85 @asiatimesonline @mongster pic.twitter.com/Xz0WtxWVNt
— CIVICUS (@CIVICUSalliance) July 26, 2018

The assault on civic freedoms in Cambodia has narrowed the democratic space in the country and raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the 29 July elections. Over the last year, monitoring by the CIVICUS Monitor shows how the authorities have outlawed the leading opposition party, shutdown or arbitrarily interfered with media outlets, introduced laws to restrict and silence civil society and jailed its critics.
GUATEMALA: ‘Disregard for the will of the people expressed at the ballot box is the greatest possible insult to democracy’
CIVICUS speaks with Jorge Santos, General Coordinator of the Guatemalan Human Rights Defenders Protection Unit (UDEFEGUA), about the imminent inauguration of a new president, which comes after 100 days of mobilisation to demand respect for the election results.

Founded in 2000, UDEFEGUA is a civil society organisation dedicated to documenting, verifying and recording attacks against human rights defenders in Guatemala.

What was the significance of the election of Bernardo Arévalo as president, and what’s the reason for the enormous resistance he has faced?

29 December 2023 marked 27 years since the signing of the peace accords that put an end to 36 years of internal armed conflict in Guatemala. That conflict claimed more than 200,000 direct victims and left deep scars on Guatemalan society. The peace accords established a structural transformation agenda to tackle the root causes of the conflict. Instead, the last three governments – and particularly that of current president Alejandro Giammattei – have done nothing but produce a severe authoritarian regression.

The presidential elections held in June and August 2023 were meant to consolidate this authoritarian regression and to finish burying the peace and democracy-building agenda.

More than 20 parties competed in the first round of the presidential election, most of them located on the right and far right and identified with the groups that have captured the state, closely linked to economic, political and military elites and organised crime.

The mere fact that the election took place was a milestone. That the winning candidate had clear democratic and progressive views made it all the more remarkable. Bernardo Arévalo’s victory represents society’s repudiation of the corrupt political elite. We were at a historic crossroads, between an authoritarian past and a possible future in which we could build a democratic state.

This explains the enormous resistance the president-elect has faced. Bernardo is the son of former president Juan José Arévalo, the first popularly elected president following the October 1944 revolution and the architect of what was called the democratic spring of those years. His legacy is still very much alive: it was then that the right to vote was extended to women, the labour code was passed and the Guatemalan Social Security Institute was established. In other words, it led to the transformation of the state.

It’s been 79 years that we have been dominated by particular groups interested in maintaining the privileges of a small segment of the population. They would obviously resist a government like Arévalo’s coming to power. However, although very powerful, these groups are in the minority and at last it seems that they are beginning to lose the privileges they have always enjoyed.

How has democracy in Guatemala been at risk?

Recent governments have completely bypassed legality. The outgoing government practically broke the rule of law. One indicator of this, which we have identified as part of the overall context of aggression against human rights defenders, is the violation of the republican principle of the separation of powers. The three branches of the Guatemalan state – executive, legislative and judicial – have been captured by mafia elites.

Repeated attempts to violate the popular will expressed at the ballot box only aggravated the situation. The Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office have pressured the Supreme Electoral Tribunal to reverse the election results, carrying out four illegal and arbitrary raids against the Tribunal.

It is important to note that national and international election observation missions, including from the Organization of American States and the European Union, corroborated the transparency of the process and stated that the allegations of fraud were unfounded.

Disregard for the will of the people expressed at the ballot box is the greatest possible insult to democracy. In the face of this, people have mobilised. Starting on 2 October, a national strike was called for an indefinite period of time to demand respect for the will of the people. 9 January marked the 100th day of peaceful resistance, led by Indigenous peoples, in defence of democracy.

What was new about these protests?

The protests called by the ancestral authorities of Indigenous peoples have been joined by numerous spontaneous expressions of citizen mobilisation. In the past, the urban and mestizo – mixed ancestry – middle classes opposed mobilisation by Indigenous peoples. This time, however, the protests led by Indigenous peoples have been supported and legitimised by broad segments of society. This broke with a long tradition of prejudice and racial discrimination by urban and mestizo society towards Indigenous peoples, and resulted in massive and widespread demonstrations throughout the country.

The protests succeeded in bringing together the 23 peoples that make up Guatemala. Broad segments of society carried out road blockades at the country’s main transit points. Passage of vehicles transporting food or providing medical services was not obstructed, as protesters cleared the way for them.

The blockades were an unprecedented demonstration of citizen joy. People rediscovered and recovered public spaces, danced on blocked streets and organised football games, yoga and chess classes on occupied spaces.

A key characteristic of the protests was their peaceful character. In the face of provocations by external forces and the national police, people responded with non-violent actions. For 100 days they held a rally in front of the headquarters of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The protesters did not leave their place and continued to demand the resignation of the attorney general, Consuelo Porras Argueta, for her repeated attempts to annul Bernardo Arévalo’s presidential victory.

What should be the new government’s priorities?

The Seed Movement – Arévalo’s party – faces important challenges. Although it will control the executive branch, the legislative branch remains highly captured by mafias. Out of 160 parliamentarians, around 130 belong to groups that make up what is popularly known in Guatemala as the ‘corrupt pact‘. The same is true of the justice system.

Bernardo Arévalo faces the enormous challenge of rebuilding public institutions. Corruption and impunity have reached such levels that services as essential as obtaining an identity card have become an ordeal. Infrastructure must be rebuilt so that people can access essential services such as health and education free of charge. The long list of human rights violations experienced by the Guatemalan people must stop.

Another major challenge is to generate a systematic and permanent process of dialogue with civil society. In particular, Indigenous peoples, historically excluded, their rights violated by the Guatemalan state, must be recognised as key political subjects.

The government of the Seed Movement will have only four years to address these challenges. We hope that its mandate will be part of a transition that will usher in a long period of governments that respond to the interests of the majority of the population.

What improvements in the situation of human rights defenders can be expected following the change of government?

In 2014, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in the case Human Rights Defender against the State of Guatemala, initiated following the murder of a human rights defender in 2004. Our request to the Court was to include as a reparation measure the introduction of a public policy for the protection of human rights defenders. The Court accepted this request and included it in its ruling, imposing five parameters for the design of such a policy.

But efforts to develop this policy were truncated and there is only a draft document to date. It will therefore be a key responsibility of the new government to complete this process and commit itself to approving the policy and providing the resources required for its implementation.

Another of its responsibilities in this area will be to push forward a legislative agenda to dismantle all the criminalising legislation passed in recent years. This process must go hand in hand with an activation of the institutions in charge of ensuring the state’s compliance with its human rights obligations.

How can the international community support the strengthening of democracy in Guatemala?

The risk of a break with the constitution remains. The new government will have to confront one of the continent’s most conservative and backward oligarchies, responsible for the crime of genocide. Stripping these groups of their privileges will be no easy task.

Continued support and vigilance by the international community will be extremely necessary. Crucial forms of support would include the sharing of information and best practices, denouncing of human rights violations and provision of technical assistance.

On 14 January, the date of the presidential inauguration, a period of democratic transition begins that promises to leave corruption and lawlessness behind. Both the new government and Guatemalan civil society will need all the support they can get in order to achieve this.

Civic space in Guatemala is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with UDEFEGUA through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@UDEFEGUA and@JorgeASantos197 on Twitter.
GUATEMALA: ‘Our democracy is at risk in the hands of political-criminal networks’
CIVICUS speaks with Evelyn Recinos Contreras about Guatemala’s general elections – where a candidate promising reform has surprisingly made the second round of the presidential race – and the prospects for democratic change and opening up civic space.

Evelyn is a former investigator for the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and former advisor to the Attorney General of Guatemala. She is currently living in exile because of her human rights activism.

What is the state of civic space in Guatemala?

Civic space in Guatemala is under serious threat. To understand this better, one must understand that, as a consequence of armed conflict, the social fabric is broken. There is hardly any grassroots citizen engagement to speak of. The sectors that for decades served as an engine of social change, such as teachers, trade unionists and high school and public university students, have been irreparably affected by the violence.

Of these, probably the only grassroots sector that remains organised is Indigenous Mayan peoples, who fight for the defence of their territory and natural resources. In addition, in urban areas, civil society human rights and pro-democracy organisations have organised their work around strengthening democratic institutions, with much emphasis on the issue of justice.

It is precisely these sectors that are once again being hit by authoritarianism and state violence. In the interior of the country, thousands of community leaders are being criminalised and entire communities are subject to arrest warrants and threatened with criminal prosecution. A similar situation is experienced in urban areas, where the justice system has been captured by political-criminal networks that use state platforms to fund their criminal endeavours and intimidate justice operators, human rights defenders and activists who fight for human rights and the strengthening of civic space and democracy.

Networks of corruption and impunity affect the democratic space, as evidenced by the fact that people such as Thelma Cabrera of the People’s Liberation Movement were prevented from registering as candidates and participating in the elections.

What are the causes of Guatemala’s democratic erosion?

Democracy in Guatemala is being eroded by political-criminal networks that have taken over institutions and use them for their own benefit rather than the wellbeing of the public and the strengthening of democracy. But it has been a gradual and almost imperceptible process. Several key institutions have been weakened, such as the National Civil Police, which is in charge of two main tasks: crime prevention and the maintenance of citizen security, and collaboration in criminal investigations. For years, civil society worked with police commanders to build an institution at the service of democratic security, so that its work would serve to produce a civic space in which citizens could enjoy their fundamental rights and live a dignified life free of violence. But since 2017 we have seen the institution weakened, with commanders being dismissed and resources being misused.

Similar problems can be found in the judiciary. High courts have not followed their normal process of renewal: they have not held elections for new magistrates. In addition, the last two elections they held were denounced and investigated for acts of corruption. The Public Prosecutor’s Office has also been weakened by a policy of criminal prosecution and criminalisation of justice operators, which has also meant the sidelining of investigation of crimes against life, violence against women and property crimes, which hit citizens hard. Rates of violence and insecurity in Guatemala are almost as high as in countries undergoing internal armed conflicts.

Do you think that the anti-corruption struggle has failed in Guatemala?

It is very difficult to provide an absolute answer to the question of the success or failure of the fight against corruption in Guatemala. I think the cases that were brought to trial were supported by evidence and due process was respected. In that sense they were successful. But this was only part of the fight against corruption, because the law provides a limited platform. The damage to society had already been done and resources had already been lost.

The fight against corruption is only truly successful when there is a level of social involvement that leads to scrutiny of public officials and a sustained demand of accountability. Sadly, we are not there yet.

For those who have been involved in the fight against corruption, the negative consequences have been obvious. Prosecutors, judges, human rights defenders, activists and community leaders are being persecuted on unfounded charges and pushed towards exile. This sends a strong message of fear to Guatemalan society. But I am convinced that the struggle does not end here. We deserve a country where we can all live in freedom and dignity. The Mayan people have been resisting for more than 500 years, so I think they are our best example to follow.

Do you think a positive change could come out of this election?

I believe there is hope. People have shown they are tired of the same murky forces that for years have embodied voracious economic interests that exploit peoples and territories and are characterised by discrimination, double standards and structural violence.

The fact that one of the contenders in the runoff is the Semilla party, born out of the anti-corruption protests of 2015 and bringing together many people who have never participated in political parties before, is evidence of a desire for change. People rejected the usual political actors who represent archaic economic interests and embody authoritarian and corrupt forms of politics.

For change to really materialise, we need the international community to turn its eyes to Guatemala. The risk to our democracy at the hands of political-criminal networks must not go unnoticed. We need the international community to draw attention to and speak out about the situation in our country, because the violation of the human rights of Guatemalans affects our shared humanity.

Civic space in Guatemala is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
GUATEMALA: ‘These elections are key because they give us a chance to take a different path’
CIVICUS speaks with Jordán Rodas Andrade about Guatemala’s general elections – where a candidate promising reform has surprisingly made the second round of the presidential race – and the prospects for democratic change and opening up civic space.

Jordán Rodas is a lawyer specialising in constitutional guarantees and fundamental rights, transparency and anti-corruption. In addition to being a university professor, in 2015 he was elected vice-president of the Guatemalan Bar Association and between 2017 and 2022 he was Guatemala’s Human Rights Ombudsman. In exercising this role he was repeatedly criminalised and threatened, as a result of which he had to go into exile.

How have civic space conditions changed in Guatemala in recent years?

In recent years there has been a very worrying deterioration of civic space in Guatemala, which has worsened under the current president, Alejandro Giammattei. His predecessor, Jimmy Morales, a comedian-turned-president, left very bad practices in place, but these reached extreme levels under Giammattei.

In recent years, many human rights defenders, land rights defenders, journalists and justice defenders have had to leave our country, forced by a hostile climate of persecution and criminalisation. This closure of spaces and the absence of an independent press have produced fertile ground for the advance of an authoritarian regime. These elections are key because they give us Guatemalans a chance to take a different path for the good of our country.

What drove you into exile?

In my five years as prosecutor, I was criminalised with 18 pretrial proceedings, all of which were rejected. It is exhausting to have to constantly defend yourself against such a succession of spurious accusations. Then I had eight requests for removal from office by members of congress, in addition to a crippling financial suffocation.

Above all, I have witnessed the weakening of justice. Many had to take the difficult decision to leave the country to save their lives, their freedom or their integrity. Among them are Juan Francisco Sandoval, former head of the Special Prosecutor’s Office against Impunity (FECI), Erika Aifán, an independent judge, Judge Miguel Ángel Gálvez and many others who in one way or another touched the heartstrings of political and economic power.

It is no coincidence that behind the persecution of justice operators and journalists is often the Foundation Against Terrorism, directed by business leader Ricardo Méndez Ruiz, who has been accused by the US government of acts of corruption and acts against democratic institutions. This organisation was a plaintiff in the criminal proceedings against Virginia Laparra, former FECI prosecutor in Quetzaltenango, who has been in prison for more than a year and who should never have been detained for denouncing cases of corruption of a judge. Whistleblowing is not a crime anywhere in the world.

The same organisation criminally prosecuted José Rubén Zamora, the founder of newspaper elPeriódico, one of the government’s main critics who for years has denounced corruption. Zamora was recently sentenced to six years in prison for several alleged crimes, including money laundering. This sent a very serious message against press freedom. The independent press has had to self-censor and yet it continues to fight this battle.

I was still in Guatemala when Zamora was captured, and so I decided to distance myself. I left in August but returned in December, by land, to participate in the assembly of the People’s Liberation Movement (MLP), which proclaimed Thelma Cabrera, an Indigenous Maya Mam woman, as its presidential candidate and myself as its vice-presidential candidate. Four years ago, the MLP came in fourth place, but in a context of social malaise in the face of corruption and thanks to its opening up to mestizo people – people of mixed European and Indigenous heritage – I thought it had a good chance of entering the second-round race.

But my successor in the prosecutor’s office filed a spurious complaint against me, as a result of which our presidential ticket was blocked. I was systematically refused information about the content of the complaint. In other words, this was used to take us out of the race. Since then, I have continued the struggle from exile. This may not be what you want, but it is what you have to do.

Under what conditions would you decide to return to Guatemala permanently?

I was just talking about this last week following a work meeting with the Guatemalan state mediated by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). I have been the beneficiary of a precautionary measure from the IACHR since 2017. These measures establish that the state has the obligation to ensure and guarantee a person’s life, integrity, security and liberty, and in my case the state of Guatemala has not complied with it. In order to return, I would need as the minimum that the state does not persecute or criminalise me.

There are currently two accusations against me, one filed by the Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office and another by the Comptroller General’s Office. I have no official knowledge of what the accusations are because I don’t have access to the documents; I have requested them through access to information requests. But it seems to me they are related to the fact that in my declaration of assets I said that I had handed over on 20 August, which is when my constitutionally established term ended, but I left the country on 18 August, leaving the deputy attorney general in charge, as the law dictates. In other words, there was no falsehood or crime. This case is under reserve, and I have asked the state, as a sign of goodwill, not to extend this reserve but to hand over a copy of the complaint so I can defend myself, and to guarantee my life and safety, and that of my family in Guatemala.

Has the fight against corruption in Guatemala failed?

The fight against corruption has not failed, but it has stalled as a result of a well-thought-out strategy of a corrupt alliance of political officials and private sector actors.

However, today more than ever I hope that we will learn the painful but positive lessons from the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), which I believe has more lights than shadows. I hope that from that learning we can, sooner rather than later, take up the fight against corruption again.

International support will continue to be indispensable because our justice system is very porous, permeated by organised crime and lacking institutionality. Three of the nine magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice and several other judges and judicial officials are on the US State Department’s Engel List of people who have committed acts of corruption or have participated in actions to undermine democracy in their countries. Members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal have been accused of falsifying their doctoral degrees to get elected and the Human Rights Ombudsman was Giammattei’s human rights officer in the prison system at the time he launched ‘Operation Peacock’, a police operation that resulted in a massacre and eventually cost Giammattei 10 months in prison, but also launched its presidential bid. Hence the trust that exists between these two officials.

But it is clear that people are tired of all this and they showed it at the ballot box on 25 June, when they said no to a return to the past and yes to a proposal that sends a message of hope for the fight against corruption. This was clearly put by the candidate who represents this hope, Bernardo Arévalo, who made it to the second round against all odds.

Do you consider these elections to have been free and competitive?

The presidential election was not free and competitive, because a fair election requires not only that there be no fraud on voting day, but also that a series of elements are present throughout the process, from the moment the elections are called. The election was called on 20 January, and on 27 January the state closed the door on us and prevented our participation. Not only did this violate our right to stand for election, but it also restricted citizens’ right to have a full range of options.

In reaction to this exclusion, Thelma Cabrera called for a null vote, and numbers don’t lie. The null vote actually won, with 17 per cent, a higher share than that received by the candidate who came first, Sandra Torres, who got around 15 per cent. People are clearly fed up.

The unfairness of the competition also manifested itself in the official party’s handling of public resources and the government’s extremely close relationship with some Supreme Electoral Tribunal magistrates.

But the fact that Bernardo Arévalo managed to enter the second round is, alongside the mass of null votes, blank votes and abstentions, a sign of enormous rejection of the system. I have high expectations for the second round, in which I hope that the Guatemalan people will participate massively and take advantage of this opportunity to choose a better future.

What would Guatemala’s new government need to do to put the country back on the road to democracy?

Above all, the anti-corruption message must be accompanied by real action. Revenge against justice operators must stop, the rule of law must be restored and the freedom of the independent press must be guaranteed.

The new president should form a cabinet inclusive of progressive sectors. He should convene political parties, social forces and Indigenous peoples’ movements to jointly make a proposal that ensures public policies benefit those most in need.

The new government should totally dissociate itself from the malpractices of the past and be very careful about power’s temptations. Its responsibility to those who have placed their trust in it must prevail. There will be temptations along the way, so it is essential that it place its bets on people who are ethical, capable and consistent with the values projected in the electoral campaign, as people voted for them because they recognised them first and foremost as an honest party. Bernardo is surely the most interested in honouring the legacy of his father, former president Juan José Arévalo. His government could become a third government of the revolution, taking up and improving on the great achievements of that democratic springtime that took place between 1944 and 1955.

Civic space in Guatemala is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Jordán Rodas through his Facebook or Instagram pages, and follow him on TikTok and Twitter.
Guatemala: Respect the rule of law ahead of the second round of elections
Ahead of the second round of the presidential elections scheduled for 20 August 2023, the global civil society alliance CIVICUS calls on the Guatemalan authorities to respect the rule of law and democratic values to prevent a political crisis. Guatemala is currently at a precipice as some political parties have contested the outcome of the first round of elections held on 25 June 2023.

We welcome the official announcement by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal of the results of the first round amidst rising tensions. However, we are deeply concerned about the continued efforts by political parties and their allies in the judicial sector to alter these election results. We call on Guatemalan authorities to fully respect the integrity of the electoral process and the outcome of the first round of voting, which has been closely followed by national and international observers.

The elections were held in an atmosphere in which the rule of law was under attack, the independence of the judiciary was questioned, and journalists and human rights defenders were subjected to restrictions for their work.

To preserve the integrity of the electoral process, it is critical that the second round of the presidential elections on August 20 is held in strict compliance with the law. Constitutional order must be fully respected, and the authorities should create an environment where people participate without fear of reprisals.

CIVICUS calls on the Government of Guatemala to:
1. Ensure that people exercise their civic and political rights in the context of the presidential elections. Immediately and unconditionally drop charges against all human rights defenders (HRDs), labour leaders, and journalists.
1. Investigate and hold to account any government officials or non-state actors perpetrating intimidation and harassment against HRDs and journalists.
2. Refrain from further persecuting justice officials for defending human rights and fighting corruption.
Background

In July 2022, CIVICUS, Acción Ciudadana and Redlad submitted Guatemala’s UN Universal Periodic Review, which outlined the extreme violence against HRDs and journalists, who continue to face attacks, harassment, stigmatisation and killings. State and non-state actors have escalated attacks with impunity. The submission further reports cases of judicial harassment against justice officials and journalists and the gradual reduction of the space for a free and independent press.

As a result of these developments, civic space in Guatemala is currently rated as ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks threats to civil society in countries across the globe.
GUINEA: ‘The democratic future of the region is at stake in our country’
CIVICUS speaks about the lack of progress in the transition to democracy in Guinea since its 2021 military coup with Abdoulaye Oumou Sow, head of communications for the National Front for the Defence of the Constitution (FNDC).

The FNDC is a coalition of Guinean civil society organisations and opposition parties founded in April 2019 to protest against former President Alpha Condé’s proposed constitutional change to seek a third term. The coalition continued to fight for a return to constitutional rule after the September 2021 military coup. On 8 August 2022, the transitional governmentdecreed its dissolution, accusing it of organising armed public demonstrations, using violence and inciting hatred.

Why is there a delay in calling elections to restore constitutional order?

The National Committee of Reconciliation and Development (CNRD), the junta in power since September 2021, is more interested in seizing power than organising elections. It is doing everything possible to restrict civic space and silence any dissenting voices that try to protest and remind them that the priority of a transition must be the return to constitutional order. It is imprisoning leaders and members of civil society and the political opposition for mobilising to demand elections, and has just ordered the dissolution of the FNDC under false accusations of organising armed demonstrations on the streets and acting as a combat group or private militia.

What are the conditions set by the military and how has the democratic opposition reacted?

In violation of Article 77 of the Transitional Charter, which provides for the duration of the transition to be determined by agreement between the CNRD and the country’s main social and political actors, the military junta has unilaterally set a duration of 36 months without listening to the opinion of social and political forces. The junta is currently set on not listening to anyone.

The military are savagely repressing citizens who are mobilising for democracy and demanding the opening of a frank dialogue between the country’s social and political forces and the CNRD to agree on a reasonable timeframe for the return to constitutional order. Lacking the will to let go of power, the head of the junta is wallowing in arrogance and contempt. His attitude is reminiscent of the heyday of the dictatorship of the deposed regime of Alpha Condé.

What has been the public reaction?

Most socio-political forces currently feel excluded from the transition process and there have been demonstrations for the restoration of democracy.

But the junta runs the country like a military camp. Starting on 13 May 2002, a CNRD communiqué has banned all demonstrations on public spaces. This decision is contrary to Article 8 of the Transitional Charter, which protects fundamental freedoms. Human rights violations have subsequently multiplied. Civic space is completely under lock and key. Activists are persecuted, some have been arrested and others are living in hiding. Despite the many appeals of human rights organisations, the junta multiplies its abuses against pro-democracy citizens.

On 28 July 2022, at the call of the FNDC, pro-democracy citizens mobilised to protest against the junta’s seizure of power. But unfortunately, this mobilisation was prevented and repressed with bloody force. At least five people were shot dead, dozens were injured and hundreds were arrested. Others were deported to the Alpha Yaya Diallo military camp, where they have been tortured by the military.

Among those arrested and currently held in Conakry prison are the National Coordinator of the FNDC, Oumar Sylla Foniké Manguè, the FNDC’s head of operations, Ibrahima Diallo and the Secretary General of the Union of Republican Forces, Saikou Yaya Barry. They are accused of illegal assembly, destruction of public buildings and disturbances of public order.

How can the international community, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in particular, give the pro-democracy movement the support it needs?

Today it is more necessary than ever for the international community to accompany the people of Guinea who are under the thumb of a new military dictatorship.

The democratic future of the region is at stake in our country. If the international community, and ECOWAS in particular, remains silent, it will set a dangerous precedent for the region. Because of its management of the previous crisis generated by the third mandate of Alpha Condé, Guinean citizens do not have much faith in the sub-regional institution. From now on, the force of change must come from within, through the determination of the people of Guinea to take their destiny in hand.

Civic space in Guinea is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the FNDC through itswebsite or itsFacebook page and follow@FNDC_Gn on Twitter.
GUINÉE : « L’avenir démocratique de la région se joue dans notre pays »
CIVICUS échange sur l’absence de progrès dans la transition vers la démocratie en Guinée après le coup d’État militaire de 2021 avec Abdoulaye Oumou Sow, responsable de la communication du Front National pour la Défense de la Constitution (FNDC).

Le FNDC est une coalition d’organisations de la société civile et de partis d’opposition guinéens fondée en avril 2019 pour protester contre le projet de révision constitutionnelle de l’ancien Président Alpha Condé pour briguer un troisième mandat. La coalition a continué à lutter pour le retour à un gouvernement constitutionnel après le coup d’État militaire de septembre 2021. Le 8 août 2022, le gouvernement de transition a en l’accusant d’organiser des manifestations publiques armées, de recourir à la violence et d’inciter à la haine.

Pourquoi tant de retard dans la convocation des élections pour rétablir l’ordre constitutionnel ?

Le Comité national du rassemblement et du développement (CNRD), la junte au pouvoir depuis septembre 2021, est plutôt sur la voix de la confiscation du pouvoir que de l’organisation des élections. Il met tout en œuvre pour restreindre l’espace civique et faire taire toutes les voix dissonantes qui essayent de protester et rappeler que la priorité d’une transition doit être le retour à l’ordre constitutionnel. Il emprisonne des dirigeants et des membres de la société civile et de l’opposition politique pour s’être mobilisés en vue des élections, et vient d’ordonner la dissolution du FNDC sous l’accusation fausse d’avoir organisé des manifestations armées sur la voie publique et d’agir comme un groupe de combat ou une milice privée.

Quelles sont les conditions fixées par les militaires et comment l’opposition démocratique a-t-elle réagi ?

En violation de l’article 77 de la charte de la transition, qui prévoit la fixation de la durée de la transition par accord entre le CNRD et les forces vives de la nation, la junte militaire a de façon unilatérale fixée une durée de 36 mois sans l’avis des forces sociales et politiques du pays. Aujourd’hui, elle s’obstine à n’écouter personne.

Les militaires répriment sauvagement les citoyen.nes qui se mobilisent pour la démocratie et exigent l’ouverture d’un dialogue franc entre les forces vives de la nation et le CNRD pour convenir d’un délai raisonnable pour le retour à l’ordre constitutionnel. N’ayant pas la volonté de quitter le pouvoir, le chef de la junte se mure dans l’arrogance et le mépris. Son attitude rappelle les temps forts de la dictature du régime déchu d’Alpha Condé.

Quelle a été la réaction du public ?

Aujourd’hui la plupart des acteurs socio-politiques se sentent exclus du processus de transition et il y a eu des manifestations pour le rétablissement de la démocratie.

Mais la junte gère le pays comme un camp militaire. Depuis le 13 mai 2002, un communiqué du CNRD a interdit toutes manifestations sur la voie publique. Cette décision est contraire à l’article 8 de la charte de transition, qui protège les libertés fondamentales. Les violations des droits humains se sont ensuite multipliées. L’espace civique est complètement sous verrous. Les activistes sont persécutés, certains arrêtés, d’autres vivants dans la clandestinité. Malgré les multiples appels des organisations des droits humains, la junte multiplie les exactions contre les citoyen.nes pro démocratie.

Le 28 juillet 2022, à l’appel du FNDC les citoyen.nes prodémocratie ce sont mobilisés pour protester contre la confiscation du pouvoir par la junte. Mais malheureusement cette mobilisation a été empêchée et réprimée dans le sang. Au moins cinq personnes ont été tuées par balles, des dizaines ont été blessées et des centaines ont été arrêtées. D’autres ont été déportées au camp militaire Alpha Yaya Diallo, où elles ont été torturées par des militaires.

Parmi les arrêtés aujourd’hui détenus à la maison d’arrêt de Conakry se trouvent le Coordinateur National du FNDC, Oumar Sylla Foniké Manguè, le responsable des opérations du FNDC, Ibrahima Diallo, et le secrétaire Général de l’Union des Forces Républicaines, Saikou Yaya Barry. Ils sont accusés d’attroupement illégal, destruction d’édifices publics et trouble à l’ordre public.

Comment la communauté internationale, et la Communauté Economique des Etats de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (CEDEAO) en particulier, pourrait-elle apporter au mouvement démocratique le soutien dont il a besoin ?

Aujourd’hui, il est plus que jamais nécessaire pour la communauté internationale d’accompagner le peuple de Guinée qui est sous le prisme d’une nouvelle dictature militaire.

L’avenir démocratique de la région se joue dans notre pays. Si la communauté internationale, et notamment la CEDEAO, se mure dans le silence, elle favorisera un précédent dangereux dans la région. A cause de sa gestion de la précédente crise générée pour le troisième mandat d’Alpha Condé, les citoyen.nes Guinéens ne croient pas trop à l’institution sous-régionale. Désormais, la force du changement doit venir de l’interne, par la détermination du peuple de Guinée que compte prendre son destin en main.

L’espace civique en Guinée est considéré comme « réprimé » par leCIVICUS Monitor.
Prenez contact avec le FNDC via sonsite web ou sa pageFacebook, et suivez@FNDC_Gn sur Twitter.
HAÏTI : « Il est possible de passer de l’ingérence étrangère à un véritable leadership du peuple haïtien »

CIVICUS s’entretient avec Ellie Happel, professeur de la Global Justice Clinic et directrice du Haiti Project à la New York University School of Law. Ellie a vécu et travaillé en Haïti pendant plusieurs années, et son travail se concentre sur la solidarité avec les mouvements sociaux en Haïti et la justice raciale et environnementale

Quels ont été les principaux développements politiques depuis l’assassinat du président Jovenel Moïse en juillet 2021 ?

En tant qu’Américaine, je voudrais commencer par souligner le rôle que le gouvernement américain a joué dans la création de la situation actuelle. L’histoire des interventions étrangères improductives et oppressives est longue.

Pour comprendre le contexte de la présidence de Moïse, il faut toutefois remonter au moins à 2010. Après le tremblement de terre qui a dévasté Haïti en janvier 2010, les États-Unis et d’autres acteurs extérieurs ont appelé à la tenue d’élections. Les gens n’avaient pas leur carte de vote ; plus de deux millions de personnes avaient perdu leur maison. Mais les élections ont eu lieu. Le gouvernement américain est intervenu au second tour des élections présidentielles haïtiennes, en appelant le candidat et fondateur du parti PHTK, Michel Martelly, à se présenter au second tour. Martelly a été élu par la suite.

Pendant la présidence de Martelly, nous avons assisté à un déclin des conditions politiques, économiques et sociales. La corruption était bien documentée et endémique. Martelly n’a pas organisé d’élections et a fini par gouverner par décret. Il a choisi lui-même Moïse pour successeur. Le gouvernement américain a fortement soutenu les administrations de Martelly et de Moïse malgré l’augmentation de la violence, la destruction des institutions gouvernementales haïtiennes, la corruption et l’impunité qui ont eu lieu sous leur règne.

La mort de Moïse n’est pas le plus gros problème auquel Haïti est confronté. Pendant son mandat, Moïse a effectivement détruit les institutions haïtiennes. Le peuple haïtien s’est soulevé contre le régime du PHTK en signe de protestation, et il a été accueilli par la violence et la répression. Il existe des preuves de l’implication du gouvernement dans des massacres de masse de personnes dans des régions connues pour leur opposition au PHTK.

Deux semaines avant l’assassinat de Moïse, un militant de premier plan et une journaliste très connue ont été assassinés en Haïti. Diego Charles et Antoinette Duclair demandaient des comptes. Ils étaient actifs dans le mouvement visant à construire un Haïti meilleur. Ils ont été tués en toute impunité.

Il est clair que la crise actuelle n’a pas pour origine l’assassinat de Moïse. Elle est le résultat de l’échec des politiques étrangères et de la façon dont le gouvernement haïtien a réprimé et stoppé les manifestations de l’opposition qui demandait des comptes pour la corruption et la violence, et qui exigeait le changement.

Ce qui me donne actuellement de l’espoir, c’est le travail de la Commission pour une solution haïtienne à la crise, qui a été créée avant l’assassinat de Moïse. La Commission est un large groupe de partis politiques et d’organisations de la société civile (OSC) qui se sont réunis pour travailler collectivement à la reconstruction du gouvernement. C’est l’occasion de passer de l’ingérence étrangère à un véritable leadership du peuple haïtien.

Quel est votre point de vue sur le report des élections et du référendum constitutionnel, et quelles sont les chances que des votes démocratiques aient lieu ?

Dans le climat actuel, les élections ne sont pas la prochaine étape pour résoudre la crise politique d’Haïti. Les élections ne devraient pas avoir lieu tant que les conditions d’un vote équitable, libre et légitime ne sont pas réunies. Les élections de ces 11 dernières années démontrent qu’elles ne sont pas un moyen automatique de parvenir à une démocratie représentative.

Aujourd’hui, la tenue d’élections se heurte à de nombreux obstacles. Le premier est celui de la gouvernance : les élections doivent être supervisées par un organe de gouvernance légitime et respecté par le peuple haïtien. Il serait impossible pour le gouvernement de facto d’organiser des élections. Le deuxième problème est la violence des gangs. On estime que plus de la moitié de Port-au-Prince est sous le contrôle des gangs. Lorsque le conseil électoral provisoire a préparé les élections il y a quelques mois, son personnel n’a pas pu accéder à un certain nombre de centres de vote en raison du contrôle exercé par les gangs. Troisièmement, les électeurs haïtiens éligibles devraient avoir des cartes d’identité d’électeur.

Le gouvernement américain et d’autres acteurs doivent affirmer le droit du peuple haïtien à l’autodétermination. Les États-Unis ne devraient ni insister ni soutenir des élections sans preuve de mesures concrètes pour garantir qu’elles soient libres, équitables, inclusives et perçues comme légitimes. Les OSC haïtiennes et la Commission indiqueront quand les conditions sont réunies pour des élections libres, équitables et légitimes.

Y a-t-il une crise migratoire causée par la situation en Haïti ? Comment peut-on relever les défis auxquels sont confrontés les migrants haïtiens ?

Ce que nous appelons la « crise migratoire » est un exemple frappant de la manière dont la politique étrangère et la politique d’immigration des États-Unis à l’égard d’Haïti ont longtemps été affectées par le racisme anti-Noir.

De nombreux Haïtiens qui ont quitté le pays après le tremblement de terre de 2010 se sont d’abord installés en Amérique du Sud. Beaucoup sont repartis par la suite. Les économies du Brésil et du Chili se sont détériorées, et les migrants haïtiens se sont heurtés au racisme et au manque d’opportunités économiques. Des familles et des individus ont voyagé vers le nord, à pied, en bateau et en bus, en direction de la frontière entre le Mexique et les États-Unis.

Depuis de nombreuses années, le gouvernement américain ne permet pas aux migrants haïtiens et aux autres migrants d’entrer aux États-Unis. Il expulse des personnes sans entretien de demande d’asile - un entretien de « crainte fondée », qui est requis par le droit international - vers Haïti.

Le gouvernement américain doit cesser d’utiliser le titre 42, une disposition de santé publique, comme prétexte pour expulser des migrants. Le gouvernement américain doit au contraire offrir une aide humanitaire et soutenir le regroupement familial et la relocalisation des Haïtiens aux États-Unis.

Il est impossible de justifier une expulsion vers Haïti à l’heure actuelle, pour les mêmes raisons que le gouvernement américain a déconseillé aux citoyens américains de s’y rendre. On estime à près de 1 000 le nombre de cas documentés d’enlèvement en 2021. Des amis expliquent que tout le monde est en danger. Les enlèvements ne sont plus ciblés, mais des écoliers, des marchands de rue et des piétons sont pris en otage pour exiger de l’argent. Le gouvernement américain a non seulement déclaré qu’Haïti n’était pas un pays sûr pour les voyages, mais en mai 2021, le ministère américain de la sécurité intérieure a désigné Haïti comme bénéficiaire du statut de protection temporaire, permettant aux ressortissants haïtiens admissibles résidant aux États-Unis de demander à y rester parce qu’Haïti ne peut pas rapatrier ses ressortissants en toute sécurité.

Les États-Unis doivent mettre fin aux déportations vers Haïti. Les États-Unis et d’autres pays d’Amérique doivent commencer à reconnaître, traiter et réparer la discrimination anti-Noir qui caractérise leurs politiques d’immigration.

Que devrait faire la communauté internationale, et en particulier les États-Unis, pour améliorer la situation ?

Premièrement, la communauté internationale devrait suivre l’exemple des OSC haïtiennes et s’engager de manière sérieuse et solidaire avec la Commission pour une solution haïtienne à la crise. Daniel Foote, l’envoyé spécial des États-Unis pour Haïti, a démissionné en signe de protestation huit semaines après son entrée en fonction ; il a déclaré que ses collègues du département d’État n’étaient pas intéressés par le soutien de solutions dirigées par les Haïtiens. Les États-Unis devraient jouer le rôle d’encourager la recherche d’un consensus et de faciliter les conversations pour faire avancer les choses sans interférer.

Deuxièmement, toutes les déportations vers Haïti doivent cesser. Elles ne sont pas seulement des violations du droit international. Elles sont aussi hautement immorales et injustes.

Les étrangers, y compris moi-même, ne sont pas les mieux placés pour prescrire des solutions en Haïti : nous devons plutôt soutenir celles créées par le peuple haïtien et les organisations haïtiennes. Il est temps pour le peuple haïtien de décider de la voie à suivre, et nous devons le soutenir activement, et le suivre.

L’espace civique en Haïti est classé « réprimé » par leCIVICUS Monitor.

Suivez@elliehappelsur Twitter.
HAÏTI : « La société civile doit s’impliquer car les acteurs politiques ne peuvent pas trouver de solution à nos problèmes »
CIVICUSéchange avec Monique Clesca, journaliste, défenseuse de la démocratie et membre de la Commission pour la recherche d’une solution haïtienne à la crise (CRSC), à propos de la crise actuelle en Haïti et des appels à l’intervention étrangère.

La CRSC, également connue sous le nom de Groupe Montana, est un groupe d’organisations et de leaders civiques, religieux et politiques qui se sont réunis au début de l’année 2021. Le groupe a promu l’Accord de Montana à la suite de l’assassinat du président Jovenel Moïse en juillet 2021. Cet accord mettait en place un gouvernement provisoire de deux ans pour succéder à Ariel Henry, le Premier ministre par intérim. De plus, il prévoyait l’organisation d’élections dès que possible, ainsi qu’une feuille de route pour réduire l’insécurité, faire face à la crise humanitaire et répondre aux demandes de justice sociale. Le Bureau de suivi de l’Accord de Montana continue d’assurer le suivi de cette feuille de route.

Quelles sont les causes de la crise actuelle en Haïti ?

Les gens semblent associer la crise à l’assassinat du président Moïse, mais elle a commencé bien avant en raison de plusieurs problèmes sous-jacents. Il s'agit certes d'une crise politique, mais plus profondément on fait face à une crise sociale. Depuis de nombreuses décennies, la majorité de la population haïtienne subit les effets de profondes inégalités. Les écarts sont énormes en termes de santé et d’éducation, d’où la nécessité de justice sociale. Le problème va bien au-delà des questions politiques, constitutionnelles et humanitaires les plus visibles.

Au cours de la dernière décennie, différents gouvernements ont tenté de saper les institutions de l’État afin de faire prévaloir un système corrompu : il n’y a pas eu d’élections transparentes ni d’alternance, avec trois gouvernements successifs du même parti politique. L’ancien président Michel Martelly a reporté à deux reprises les élections présidentielles, gouvernant par décret pendant plus d’un an. En 2016, des allégations de fraude ont été soulevées contre Moïse, son successeur, qui a dissous le Parlement pendant son mandat sans jamais organiser des élections. Il a aussi révoqué plusieurs juges de la Cour suprême et a politisé la police.

Il a également proposé un référendum constitutionnel, qui a été reporté à plusieurs reprises et qui est clairement inconstitutionnel. La Constitution de 1987 énonce les modalités du droit d'amendement, donc en tentant de la réécrire, Moïse a choisi la voie anticonstitutionnelle.

Lorsque Moïse a été tué, Haïti faisait déjà face à la faiblesse des institutions, à la corruption massive, et à l’absence d’élections et de renouvellement de la classe politique qu’il avait accentué.À la suite de son assassinat la situation s’est encore aggravée, car à l'absence du Président s'ajoutait le manque d’opérationnalité de l'organe judiciaire et législatif. Nous avons connu, et continuons de connaître, une véritable crise constitutionnelle.

Ariel Henry, l’actuel Premier ministre par intérim, n’a clairement aucun mandat. Moïse l’a nommé Premier ministre successeur deux jours avant son décès, sans même laisser une lettre de nomination signée.

Qu’a proposé le Groupe Montana pour sortir de cette crise ?

En début 2021 le Groupe Montana s’est fondé sur l'idée que la société civile devait s’impliquer car les acteurs politiques ne pouvaient pas trouver de solution aux problèmes d’Haïti. Un forum de la société civile a donc formé une commission qui a travaillé pendant six mois pour créer un dialogue et tenter de dégager un consensus en s’adressant à tous les acteurs politiques, ainsi qu’aux organisations de la société civile. Grâce à toutes ces contributions, nous avons abouti à un projet d’accord qui a été finalisé et signé par près d’un millier d’organisations et de citoyens : l’Accord de Montana.

Nous avons élaboré un plan composé de deux parties : d'une part un plan de gouvernance et d'autre part une feuille de route pour la justice sociale et l’aide humanitaire, qui a été signée dans le cadre de l’accord. Pour obtenir un consensus avec une participation plus large, nous avons proposé la création d’un organe de contrôle qui jouerait le rôle du pouvoir législatif et d’un pouvoir judiciaire intérimaire pendant la transition. Une fois qu’Haïti aura organisé des élections transparentes, il y aura un organe législatif dûment élu et le gouvernement pourra passer par le processus constitutionnel pour nommer le plus haute juridiction, la Cour suprême. Tel est le modèle de gouvernance que nous avons envisagé pour la transition, dans une tentative de rapprochement à l’esprit de la Constitution haïtienne.

Au début de l’année, nous avions rencontré plusieurs fois Henry afin d’entamer des négociations avec lui et ses alliés. À un moment donné, il nous a dit qu’il n’avait pas l’autorité pour négocier. Il a donc fermé la porte aux négociations.

Quels sont les défis à relever pour organiser des élections dans le contexte actuel ?

Le principal défi est l’insécurité généralisée. Les gangs terrorisent la population. Les enlèvements ainsi que les assassinats sont monnaie courante. Les gens ne peuvent pas sortir de chez eux : ils ne peuvent pas aller à la banque, dans les magasins, ni même à l’hôpital. Les enfants ne peuvent pas aller à l’école : la rentrée était prévue pour septembre, puis a été reportée jusqu’à octobre, et maintenant le gouvernement n'annonce même pas quand elle aura lieu. En outre, il y a une situation humanitaire désastreuse en Haïti, qui s’est d'autant plus aggravée avec le blocage du Terminal Varreux, le principal terminal pétrolier de Port-au-Prince. Cet événement a eu un impact sur l’alimentation en électricité et la distribution d’eau, et donc sur l’accès de la population aux biens et services de base. Au milieu d’une épidémie de choléra, les établissements de santé ont été contraints de réduire leurs services ou bien de fermer leurs portes complètement.

Il y a aussi une polarisation politique et une méfiance généralisée. Les gens se méfient non seulement des politiciens, mais aussi les uns des autres.

En raison de la pression politique et de l’activité des gangs, les mobilisations citoyennes ont été inconstantes. Or depuis fin août, des manifestations massives ont été organisées pour demander la démission d’Ariel Henry. Les gens ont également manifesté contre la hausse des prix du carburant, les pénuries et la corruption. Ils ont aussi clairement rejeté toute intervention militaire étrangère.

Quelle est votre position concernant l’appel du Premier ministre à une intervention étrangère ?

Henry n’a aucune légitimité pour demander une intervention militaire. La communauté internationale peut aider, mais ne peut pas prendre la décision d’intervenir ou pas. Nous devons d’abord avoir une transition politique de deux ans avec un gouvernement crédible. Nous avons des idées, mais à ce stade nous avons besoin de voir cette transition.

L’espace civique en Haïti est classé « réprimé » par leCIVICUS Monitor.

Contactez la Commission pour la recherche d’une solution haïtienne à la crise via sa pageFacebook, et suivez@moniclesca sur Twitter.

Page 4 sur 10