The extended Montana group has already designated the names of its representatives to participate in the negotiations with the de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry.
The team will be composed of 7 members, including 3 from the BSA, 1 representative of the elected officials, 1 representative of the representative committee, 1 member of the modified PENN-GREH, and a representative of the National Council of Transition (CNT).
The names of these people will be published by the communication team of the Montana group before the end of the day, ZoomHaitiNews has learned.
The protagonists of the Montana agreement have already met with Prime Minister Ariel Henry several times in order to find a solution to the crisis in the country. However, the head of the primacy seems not to be interested in finding a way out of the crisis.
In his responsive letter sent to the initiators of the Montana group, Ariel Henry had proposed a single-headed government which he will be in charge of, a proposal rejected by the group of Magalie Comeau Denis who opts for a transition of rupture capable of laying the foundations for the organization of the next elections, restoring state institutions and addressing the problem of widespread insecurity in the country among others.
From generally well-informed sources, we have learned that Prime Minister Ariel Henry is under enormous pressure from members of the international community to resolve the crisis. However, Mr. Henry is trying to play his last card by insisting on a one-party government. A proposal rejected by the BSA and Montana’s elected officials.
We recall that before the designation and publication of the names of its representatives to participate in the negotiations with the de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry, the extended Montana group had proposed “a common front of patriots united against insecurity and corruption, a sufficient consensus on the essential changes to be made to the constitution to make our democratic institutions more functional, the establishment of transparent and credible structures for the realization of the elections in a peaceful environment favoring a high rate of participation guaranteeing a certain legitimacy to the future elected officials and a program of social appeasement allowing to alleviate the sufferings of the most destitute”.
These points, according to what has been written in the new discussion agenda, “meet the concerns of the representatives of the extended Montana Political Consensus, who therefore have no reservations, as to their objectives, that they should be part of the menu of the political dialogue that should lead to this national consensus that is indispensable to get the country out of the crisis in which it is stuck”.
Moreover, the actors of the enlarged Montana plead for the implementation of these elements, that the different measures to be taken to ensure their efficiency and their durability, are discussed and defined so that they do not remain mere wishes.
As far as the national character of the solution to the crisis is concerned, the members of the enlarged Montana group want to be firm while specifying that they have maintained the permanent dialogue with the different social and political entities in order to reach a national compromise. To do so, they propose a step-by-step approach. First to “build a consensus with the current power and then to work on the integration of the different major entities of the civil and political society not belonging to any agreement underlining that “this method has allowed the obtaining of the Montana-PEN Modified-GREH Political Consensus”.
In the perspective of these long-awaited negotiations, the two protagonists seem to be in favor of the formation of this committee, which should be made up of three members to facilitate the smooth running of the negotiations.
On this point, “it is understood that the supporters of the expanded Montana Political Consensus, while remaining committed to direct political dialogue, do not exclude recourse to national, international or mixed mediation if their good will and their availability to put a stop to this untenable suffering should come up against insurmountable obstacles. In this case, the parties agree that this mediation will elaborate and respect the rules essential to its success”,
The expanded Montana group also returned in its document to the “disastrous” record of the administration of de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry, characterized by “the increase in the cost of living, corruption, impunity, the extension of territories controlled by gangs, kidnappings, gang rapes of women and children, heinous massacres and thousands of internally displaced persons, mass migration, increased despair, burning of corpses, and simply horror, could not be allowed to continue. Hence the urgency of this necessary consensus in order to “break with this degeneration” […] “where fear and despicable crimes are commonplace”, say Montana’s supporters.
Consensus is one of the necessary conditions for resolving the crisis in order to re-establish the functioning of the institutions that make up the republican order, facilitate a return to democratic order and promote the culture of legality, and thus prevent the government that emerges from the elections from being itself a transitional government that will be handicapped. This, say the members of the Montana group, can contribute to establishing on a transitional basis the functioning of the judiciary; to take into account the mandate of the only remaining elected officials and to articulate it with the oversight body of the transition in order to create the legislative power of the transition with an effective power of control over governmental action; to re-establish, on a consensual and transitional basis, the structure of the executive power and to install a government of consensus, according to established criteria
Further on in this document, the enlarged Montana group pleads for the creation of an environment conducive to the success of the political dialogue process with clearly defined objectives in order to unblock the situation of crisis of governability and governance to restore social peace and political stability; to agree on the main lines of a program, to constitute, on the basis of a realistic program and consequent criteria, a legitimate consensual power with competent, credible and honest personalities able to inspire confidence in the population and to restore the regular functioning of the two other powers of the State (Judiciary and Legislative) during the transition period.
Finally, the enlarged Montana group proposes that the negotiations take place in an appropriate setting and in a neutral place, which could be a hotel in the capital, the costs of which will be borne equally by the two parties, with a view to reaching an agreement within 15 days.
This agreement must, among other things, create the political conditions for the drastic reduction of armed violence and insecurity and the dismantling of armed gangs, the holding of a national dialogue on the fundamental problems of the nation, including issues related to the Constitution and political parties within its framework of reference, the systematic fight against corruption and impunity, and the implementation of accountability mechanisms….
These negotiations, to which both parties will have to designate participants, must take place in the presence of national and international observers in a respectful manner, without any form of verbal violence, with a methodology that facilitates the progress of discussions. This new proposal of the actors of the enlarged Montana group also recommends a democratic and serious management of the discussion sessions, the holding of a regular press briefing on the progress of the process.