MARK KURLANSKY
497
to distort these facts in order to make a solid case that the brutality of
the regimes before and after Aristide was far greater than when he was in
power. The Haitian military went to absurd lengths to justify its
usurpation of power, even claiming that an examination of the bedside
of the deposed president revealed that he had been on medication not
only for "schizophrenia and paranoia" but also for "necrophilia." They
also claimed to have discovered "voodoo striped" pajamas. Aristide, who
had built his mass appeal by whipping his parishioners into a frenzy
against the evil, meddling United States, was never well liked in
Washington circles. Nevertheless, revelations about necrophilia and
striped pajamas did not give much credibility to the anti-Aristide argu–
ment. Furthermore it was discovered that a CIA report on Aristide's
emotional instability, a report the Clinton administration apparently lis–
tened to with interest, came from CIA informants within the Haitian
military. Although many have now rushed to disclaim the report, in fact
those close to Aristide have always acknowledged that he is erratic and
given to bouts of severe depression. I and most journalists who have cov–
ered him have seen signs of this. The record also shows a disturbing
willingness to tolerate mob violence, and even to use the threat of it to
cow opponents. Shortly before his overthrow, he made a speech encour–
aging lynching by putting burning tires around the necks of victims, say–
ing, "Give them what they deserve," and talking of the "sweet smell" of
burning flesh.
According to American logic, it is not enough to work for
Aristide's return only because he is the legitimately elected president; he
must also be a great leader.
In
recent months Aristide has been compared
to everyone from Charles de Gaulle to Nelson Mandela.
In
truth
Aristide has shown skill neither as a leader, a negotiator, nor a political
activist: his one skill is his ability to deliver riveting speeches to unedu–
cated Haitian masses. Yet whatever his deficiencies, it must be remem–
bered that he came to power lawfully and was deposed unlawfully by a
junta which ever since has ruled Haiti by terror, the depths of which
have not been seen since the 1960s under Franyois Duvalier.
American advocates of Father Aristide, as well as the Clinton admin–
istration, speak frequently of "returning Haiti to democracy." But Haiti
has never had a democracy. William Gray argues for the administration
that Haiti did have a democratic government on that one day in its his–
tory, December 16, 1990. But how can democracy begin if the country's
rightfully elected leader is not allowed to rule? Ex-President George
Bush recently declared publicly what his administration would say only
off the record, that support for Haitian democracy does not have to in-
