(Avril-Mai 2010)
Some of you have perhaps seen one of the reports from CNN live stories in Port-au-Prince following the earthquake, where the reporter illustrated the difficulty of providing food aid on the ground.
In the scene there was a group of a few dozens of people who were looking for food that was offered by foreign humanitarian workers on the ground. In this case, bars of protein were distributed to the population. The people took the bars to eat, when one individual in the group declared that the expiry date of the bars had passed. With a good level of self-confidence, he informed the other members of the group that the expiration date written on the bag was 2007. Let us remember that knowing the situation in Haiti, one can bet that most people involved in this incident, do not quite know how to properly read, although they are probably or might be able to read numbers.
Following this statement the group de facto leader indeed threw his protein bar on the ground, and with a frustrated look on his face went to look for food elsewhere. His action was followed by the remainder of the group including the act of dropping the bars and stepping on them to make their point across. The reporter attempted to make them understand that the bars were not outdated, but the group confident in its assessment of the situation, went on to follow its leader who had quickly left the place to forage elsewhere. By his body language, the leader seemed to say that: ”We are not going to be mislead by foreigners”. The reporter then explained to the viewers that the date written on the bag, which the leader of the group referred to, was in fact the date the product was manufactured and not the expiry date.
I think that this short story captured the essence of the social dynamic in Haiti. Indeed, first the guy became leader in the midst of confusion. Secondly, he was able to speak very confidently in a chaotic situation. Next, he seemed to act with great knowledge while in fact his action was motivated by impulse. Fourth, people had followed him without recognizing his ignorance. The key idea is that in the absence of real expertise, the self-confidence he projected demanded nevertheless a clear answer from the followers. The mere fact that he left the area with authority commanded the respect of his disciples. By not entering in a dialogue with the journalist, he deprived himself of information critical for his future and his well-being. Who knows if he will be able to find other food that day in such a positive environment and under such favorable conditions? Who knows if he will not make himself needlessly assaulted in another distribution center where the competition might be fiercer?
This anecdote reflects the sociological image of the typical Haitian, who without knowledge of his ignorance, does not respect expertise in the general sense and that of others in particular. He or she is satisfied with what he / she has, which is viewed as being the real deal. Thus, with bits and pieces of information which appear to be clear, he acts to the detriment of his vital interests. Everything seems so clear in his mind that he does not give himself a chance to doubt a moment of his analysis and the conclusion at which he arrives. Therefore, he deprives himself of an escape route, if ever a plan B or an alternative solution is required. He moves himself into a dead end corner.
The Haitian people like the group who had followed our de facto leader, misses for the wrong reasons good opportunities to advance its interests and out of ignorance voluntarily abdicates its ability to take care of itself and to progress.