HAITIANS awoke on Monday, March 21 to the reality of a new political leader who would replace President René Preval in less than a month when the final tally of votes are counted. March 31 was the date when a preliminary announcement was expected but the proclamation of these results will not be until April 16. Hence, the candidates will all have the opportunity to challenge the results before the final proclamation.

Until that time, no one can say for sure whether the new leader will be Michel Martelly or Madam Manigat. However, very few people in Haiti, including the plethora of scribes who descended on the country to report on the proceedings, would bet against Martelly at this stage.

Early predictions also suggest that the Inite party of the outgoing president will control the House of Assembly. Lost in the euphoria of the moment was the wisdom advanced by the old adage that “there is many a slip between the cup and the lip”. If the derailed predictions in the first round of voting are anything to go by, then some turbulence lies ahead for this country if the April 16 proclamation varies too significantly from that of March 31. The one difference this time is the outstanding work done by the Caricom/OAS coalition mission, led by the unflappable West Indian diplomat Ambassador Colin Granderson. There is no doubt that he is held in high esteem by members of the international community based in Haiti and has earned the respect of Haitians in general.

Granderson’s credibility at all levels has definitely helped to brand the proceedings in a more favourable light. Two press conferences were called in successive days following the elections, one by the electoral council and the other by the Caricom/OAS mission. It was interesting to note how both were framed. At the first, the president of the Provisional Electoral Council declared the elections had been a triumph for Haitian democracy. The near absence of any large-scale violence or disruptions of any sort supports that assertion.

The second, chaired by Granderson, was a more sober assessment that admitted some breakdowns while acknowledging that the run-off was a much more error-free exercise. He said that the system employed in the second round was more ruthless in weeding out all suspicious elements. In addition, the massive almost door-to-door public education campaign and the training of facilitators at all levels were expected to go a far way in minimising possible breakdowns that marred the first round.

While acknowledging the improvements, he made it very clear that there was much work to be done, especially with regards to the correctness of the voters’ list. Granderson also noted that the turnout appeared to have been marginally higher than what was observed during the first round. However, he conceded that it did not meet the expectations raised by the high number of voter requests for information during the “Where to Vote?” campaign. Previously, he had explained that the call centres reported at least one million enquiries, leading to high expectations that seemed not to have been the case. Attempts to get an indication from the CEP chairman about the turnout were not successful.

Unlike the super-fast voter count system evident in Jamaica and many of our neighbouring countries, the Haitian process is a timely one played out over approximately one month. During this period, anything can happen to change early predictions. Hence, some of the older heads interviewed since March 20 choose to take a “don’t count your chicken before they are hatched” position. Others have pointed out that the danger of early predictions, as in this case, is that in the unlikely event that the final tally goes against the presumed winner, his supporters will most likely ‘take to the streets’.

While many anticipate that the Inite party will sweep the legislature, some observers suggest that such assumptions should also be placed on hold as based on experience, successful candidates are known to change their allegiance when faced with a more attractive option.

Whatever the outcome, Manigat is in an unenviable, no-win situation. In reality, though, this writer got the strong impression that her supporters had thrown in the towel even before the first set of ballots were counted. Wrong or right, this impression was gathered from a visit to her Port-au-Prince headquarters where a couple of her supporters were interviewed. All of those spoken to maintained admiration and support of their candidate, but none seemed willing to make a confident prediction in her favour. This was in stark contrast to Martelly’s supporters interviewed at his headquarters at the Hotel Karibe. The Martelly supporters were bubbling with confidence, consistent with their more glitzy US-type PR campaign.

Up to this point in time there has been limited, if any, ‘noises’ from other candidates. Of particular notice was the non-involvement of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Following his triumphant return on the eve of the elections, Aristide slipped away quietly to his rural home on the day of the elections and was not a factor. Will he continue this low-key existence? It is well known that there is no love lost between himself and Martelly, and Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas party could be a formidable force if allowed to regroup.

The true test of democracy at work in Haiti will come in the weeks between March 31 and April 16 when we will learn whether the majority of Haitians accept the April 16 proclamation.