Dominican Republic and Haiti: Country Studies

Haiti: Government and Politics
actually two distinct countries—the Republic of Haiti and the
Republic of Port-au-Prince—that have little contact with each
other. The sharp division between them and between the outsiders
of rural Haiti and the city dwellers is reflected in the
dominance of the capital city. National political institutions
and decisions, steadfastly focused on Port-au-Prince, have been
far removed from the lives of most Haitians. The political system
affects all Haitians, but changes in government have had
little direct impact on the lives of rural dwellers. Governments
have concentrated themselves in the capital, allocating twothirds
or more of their revenues to be spent in a city that traditionally
has held fewer than 20 percent of Haiti's people. Foreign
assistance has tended to exacerbate rural-urban
differences because about 40 percent of all foreign aid has
directly benefited Port-au-Prince.
In contrast to the relative, albeit selective and uneven, development
of Port-au-Prince, provincial cities and towns and rural
hamlets have remained undeveloped, lacking such basic twentieth-century
amenities as electricity, piped water, sanitation services,
and adequate roads. They offer their inhabitants little
more than primitive conditions, few opportunities, and a place
from which to try to escape, an option taken by ever-increasing
numbers seeking perceived greater opportunities in Port-au-
Prince and farther afield. As a result of shifting populations,
Haiti's rural and urban demographics have begun to change,
Port-au-Prince and its environs have expanded significantly, in
all possible directions, and in 1998 held approximately 2 million
inhabitants (see Population, ch. 7).
Following the demise of the Duvalier dictatorship in 1986,
decentralization became a catch phrase of those seeking
greater public-sector attention to secondary cities, small towns,
and villages, and a reversal of historical trends of government
investment. In the succeeding years of military rule, decentralization
came principally in the form of opening regional ports
that had been closed by the dictatorship and fallen into disrepair.
The port openings, which could have increased customs
revenue and fueled local development, resulted instead in the
generation of wealth for those linked to the contraband trade
that flowed in and out of the reopened ports. Key public institutions
responsible for controlling trade and overseeing revenue
collection, notably the customs bureau, port authority, and
coast guard, were either corrupt, inept, or nonexistent.
435