Even though the Félix Bautista case still looms over this election campaign, it is time to sum up what this Bautista-corruption case tells us about the Dominican political system.
First however, a very brief update since last. Nuria and other media (in particular acento.com.do and Hoy...finally) have dug further into the case and revealed how Félix Bautista ruled the OISOE and helped his friends (and himself) get rich by doling out state construction contracts that were illegal and valued too highly. Second, the smoke-screen tactic of the government has partly worked, Pepe Goico had to appear in front of a local prosecutor for questioning yesterday, while Félix Bautista of course, runs free. Third, and this is ugly, a PLD senator (Wilton Guerrero) said he had from a good source that drug traffickers close to Mejía's campaign were out to kill Nuria Piera. Piera, naturally, is now worried for her and her family's life. Today, the senator admitted he had no evidence whatsoever for what he was saying. But he (and the PLD) did manage to scare Nuria Piera. Quite a paradox that President Leonel Fernández not long ago put out a book discussing press freedom and the free word...while his government is probably doing more harm to freedom of the press in this country since the Balaguer governments (1986-1996). Fernández, as always, is silent on this matter, as he always is when it comes to corruption.
Anyway, back to the lessons about the Dominican Political system. Given all the evidence against Bautista, any regular democracy would have started an investigation against him. It is a minimal test the regime must pass should anything it says on anti-corruption be taken seriously. If nothing is done, however, in such a case of rampant and proven corruption, it demonstrates clearly that the regime does not take the issue of corruption seriously (which should come as no surprise for any close observer of the Dominican political system, but may surprise people, investigators, politicians, who only know the country from the outside). The way the Bautista case has been handled by the government and the government party, the PLD, has turned out to be just as big a scandal as the corruption case itself (for details, read two of my earlier blogs on the matter).
The lessons are:
1) There is no judicial independence in the DR. The lack of investigation into a case that is presented almost as fully investigated by Nuria Piear with damaging evidence, shows that the Ministry of Justice (Ministerio Público) and its Prosecutor General has no independence or autonomy to act on charges of corruption. This becomes even clearer when we know that the person that should have been investigated is the President's best friend (and who according to rumours is the guy behind Bautista reaping the benefits of Bautista's corruption schemes). If the prosecutor had been a professional and independent of the president, investigations would have commenced.
2) The Ministry of Justice is subordinate to other ministries and interests, and is being commanded by other people than its boss, the prosecutor general. Why? This is one reasonable explanation for why the prosecutor general decides to use state resources to investigate cases that are presented with such bad evidence that anyone can see the charges don't hold up. Why investigate supposed coup-plans against Haiti, when it is obvious from the evidence presented that this is not the plan? Why prioritise cases that don't stick over cases that clearly holds water? The only explanation is that the Ministry is used for the government's political purpose (win the election) and also to aid a neighbouring government (Haiti) from corruption charges.
3) The case demonstrates that the Dominican Senators couldn't recognise a crook even if they were held on gunpoint and were releaved of their yipetas (jeeps), much less recognise corruption. I have long argued for the closure of the Senate in the DR, a small country with few regional differences and no federalism. There is simply no need for this useless institution (ask anyone having anything to do with the Senate, they will agree). Going out in defence of Félix Bautista when it is demonstrated that he is corrupt, is just bad. The Senate and the PLD thus look more like a sect than a political party. Had the Senate had any decency they would have stated that the institution was ready to lift Bautista's immunity if the prosecutor general asked for this. The Senators represent their voters and taxpayers: is it in the taxpayers' best interest that their representatives defend a guy who steals from them?
4) There is press freedom in the DR, although some say under pressure. The greatest problem, however, is that the journalists themselves prefer to take payments from the government rather than to do their work properly. Press freedom is demonstrated by Nuria, acento.com.do, etc. The rest, such as Diario Libre, Hoy, El Caribe, Listín Diario, demonstrate too much respect for the government, fear of the government, or that they receive payment to silence critical news (to cite the tweet of journalist Marino Zapete, @mzapete: "Con excepción a la compra de periodistas y el chantaje, el gobierno no tiene ninguna política en materia de comunicación"). It is an embarrasment that respected newspapers such as Hoy and Listín Diario decide to use more space on false rumours and accusations than on the real deal. Any newspaper with any self-respect would be all over a story that the president's closest ally, and senator for the governing party, is taken with his pants down enriching himself and buying favours in Haiti, Peru and Panamá. The press in the DR should be ashamed, very ashamed for their priorities during this case.
5) The case also demonstrates that even though democracy has taken a hold in the country, the regime, state and government do not hold a democratic mind. The government together with Haiti's government have done what it can to make the playing field unlevel and difficult for the opposition. It is behind false accusations and lies that involve a coup-complot in Haiti, the killing of the PRD president, the murder of Nuria Piera, and several more embarrassing attempts at getting off the hook of the ugly corruption charges against it. The government has demonstrated that it uses illegal recordings of phone conversation to attack the opposition. The international scandal (in addition to Félix Bautista bribing Haiti's president Martelly) is that the governments of Haiti and Dominican Republic blatantly lie about coup plans against the Haitian government. If the accusations were true (and they should be given the fact that they were presented by the Dominican Minister of State, Prosecutor General and ambassador to Haiti, in addition to the Haitian Minister of Justice, and ambassador to the DR) should this not be a case to bring forth at the OAS. This could clearly be cause to invoke article 1080? I would have loved to see the two governments' attempt to convoke an extraordinary meeting in the OAS on these grounds. The governments have made a mockery out of serious institutions such as the national elections, the OAS articles regarding the defence of democracy, and they have made a mockery out of themselves in order to avoid any serious investigation into the deeply rooted corruption on the island of Hispaniola.
6) The case also demonstrates that the abyss between the rhetoric and realities has grown tremendously under Leonel's regime. Despite many reforms and some changes to the better (for instance macroeconomic stability) under his regime, many realities remain the same. Even though the Cámara de Cuentas (the external auditing agency) has been reformed, gotten more resources, and according to the law is more powerful and autonomous, the case demonstrates clearly that the Cámara neglects its tasks whenever it comes over corruption schemes. It is as impotent as ever. The same is Congress (at least as long as the government holds a majority). A new constitution calling for a new democracy are also empty words as long as the government, the senate and the governing party calls thieving for honesty, and corruption for hard work. The democratic revolution has at the least stumbled in the very start (maybe the government should feel lucky the case isn't tried in the courts, which could have revealed that these have become increasingly politicised under Leonel and in particular after the reshuffling of the Supreme Court, filling of the Constitutional and electoral tribunals). In the end, when considering the new Constitution and new laws regulating the economic dealings of the government, the Bautista case may mean that a) the new laws and constitution is just a show to satisfy voters, international donors, academics, Leonel's ego, etc; b) if the reforms were sincere, the effect of institutions are only skin deep, political culture and legacy is much more important.
7) In the end, like no other case I have seen (and I have followed DR politics closely since 2002), this case and the official reactions it has created, have made abundantly clear that this government has no shame, and that all the fine rhetoric the last eight years have been just that, and nothing more.
I also think that like in no other case, the handling of the Bautista case has disappointed me because it is so obvious that he has stolen other people's money, money that the people who defend him vigorously (the government, the senators) are entrusted to spend wisely for the greater good. For the PLD it is obviously more important to defend one of their own's "right" to steal than to defend their voters' and taxpayers' money.
The Bautista case has been a test of the Dominican democracy which it has failed horrendously.
No comments:
Post a Comment