The organization of elections is one of the most decisive acts in the exercise of power. It represents the ultimate objective of any transition agreement aimed at reactivating Haiti\u2019s democratic machinery. Organizing elections cannot be reduced to a simple technical or logistical operation. It is a foundational act that durably engages the institutional future of the country. The looming electoral crisis must be avoided. <\/p>\n
However, a transitional authority whose mandate has expired cannot reasonably claim to possess such competence. From a legal standpoint, this constitutes a clear lack of jurisdiction. Decisions taken under such conditions are tainted by an original defect that affects the entire electoral process. <\/p>\n
Thus, even if the vote is materially held and citizens go to the polls, the legal framework remains irreparably flawed from the outset. Elections cease to be an instrument for restoring constitutional order and instead become a tool of artificial legitimization of power, further weakening the rule of law. <\/p>\n
This fragility is even more worrying since, as we legally demonstrated in our latest article entitled \u201cElections and the Expiration of the April 3, 2024 Agreement: Calling the Polls in the Face of the Legitimacy Challenge,\u201d the expiration of the mandate of the Transitional Presidential Council already undermines the very legitimacy of the electoral process and the ballot itself.<\/a><\/p>\n Under these conditions, challenging electoral results cannot be characterized as subversion or rejection of democracy. On the contrary, it falls within a logic of defending the rule of law. Contesting elections organized by an authority without a valid mandate is a reminder that democracy is not limited to voting but rests on the legality of the authority organizing the vote. <\/p>\n The foundations of this contestation are multiple. First, the legal incompetence of the organizing authority whose mandate has expired. Second, the violation of the principle of constitutional legality, which requires that any act of sovereignty be carried out by a duly authorized authority. Finally, the infringement of popular sovereignty exercised under the supervision of a power that no longer derives its legitimacy from law. <\/p>\n Even in a context where judicial institutions are weakened, such contestation can take various forms: citizen mobilization, political statements, or appeals to regional and international organizations. External recognition, however, cannot durably compensate for the absence of internal legitimacy. <\/p>\n The most serious danger arising from such a situation is institutional anarchy. When elections are organized by a contested authority, the resulting authorities immediately inherit fragile legitimacy. They face permanent opposition, a deficit of trust, and reduced governability. The State then becomes trapped in a cycle of endless contestation, where each institution is challenged before it can even fully function. <\/p>\n Instead of stabilizing the country, elections organized under these conditions risk deepening the crisis. They may lead to competing legitimacies, weakening public authority and causing a lasting loss of credibility in the democratic process. The objective of exiting the transition then turns into a disguised prolongation of instability. <\/p>\n Faced with this impasse, the only reasonable solution is to seek, before the February 7 deadline, a new truly inclusive political arrangement. This arrangement should be based on broad participation of political and social forces, a clear legal framework, and a realistic timetable leading to uncontested elections. Electoral haste cannot replace legitimacy. <\/p>\n The expiration of the April 3, 2024 Agreement on February 7 places Haiti at a critical moment in its political history. Allowing a transitional authority whose legal foundation has expired to organize elections would amount to engaging the country\u2019s democratic future on an unstable and contestable basis. Such a process carries within it the seeds of a lasting legitimacy crisis, likely to further weaken already fragile institutions. <\/p>\n In this context, challenging potential electoral results should not be seen as disorder or rejection of democracy. It would instead represent the legitimate expression of a demand for respect of the Constitution, the principle of legality, and popular sovereignty. <\/p>\n Political and institutional stability in Haiti cannot be achieved through elections organized at any cost, but through the prior restoration of a credible legal framework, indisputable legitimacy, and collective trust essential to any sustainable democratic process.<\/p>\n Me Daniel Veillard<\/p>\n Read more from the same author:<\/p>\n