History tells us that Dumarsais Estimé, like René Depestre, Emile Saint Lot and many others, was occasionally followed by the leader of the masses, Daniel Fignolé (1).
By James St GERMAIN
Le Nouvelliste
August 3, 2021 | Reading time: 5 min .
History tells us that Dumarsais Estimé, like René Depestre, Emile Saint Lot and many others, was occasionally hounded by the leader of the masses, Daniel Fignolé (1). This page of history that has escaped us will show to what extent a simple divergence of position on an issue has created a situation for which the country tends to pay dearly for its consequences.
Dumarsais Estimé
Based on such questioning, I consider it interesting to try to locate the elements that could have stood as obstacles to an agreement between the two leaders. By virtue of this, I cast my gaze on the path of the two.
As well as I look at the historical facts of the time, here is what I discover as information elements: Dumarsais Estimé was never Daniel Fignolé’s first choice. During the elections of August 16, 1946 in the Chamber which opposed Démosthènes Calixte, a convinced noiriste, Dantès Louis Bellegarde and Edgard Numa to Dumarsais Estimé, Daniel campaigned for the first (2). It seems that the support that Dumarsais Estimé gave to Élie Lescot to have him elected president when President Sténio Vincent presented him to the Chamber as his protégé was frowned upon by Daniel.
In the meantime, Daniel, seen as a leftist and a trade unionist, ran his newspaper Chantiers, co-founded in 1942 with a liberal noirist political orientation. It was through this instrument that he castigated the country’s mulatto elite for its selfishness. It is understandable that Dumarsais Estimé’s vote in 1941 for Élie Lescot who represented the interests of the mulatto bourgeoisie was not to be forgiven. Dumarsais Estimé had to pay for it in part.
In addition, I noted that on October 25, 1946, Daniel Fignolé had to withdraw from the national unity ministerial cabinet of President Estimé, which he joined because of the presence of Georges Rigaud (a disciple of Jacques Roumain) from the bourgeois class. He left his post as Minister of Education for refusing to tone down his attacks on the bourgeoisie. Once again, he made people talk about his noirist radicalism. He also declared: “If anyone thinks they can stop what I am doing for my people, I will be forced to use my woulo to destroy them!” (3).
This would then translate that Daniel Fignolé was the perfect incarnation of noirism, and Dumarsais Estimé had not gone into his position of noirism that he sold in his presidential campaign speech, so much so that he chanted the slogan “A black man in power” to try to distance himself from the domination of the mulattoes, who seized all the wealth of the country in the aftermath of the assassination of Emperor Jacques I. Faced with this, he was expected to set up a black elite that could rival the traditional bourgeois class, something he did not do and this was the reason why Daniel severely criticized him.
Dumarsais Estimé
In relation to this divergence of position, Daniel opposed Dumarsais Estimé despite his progressive spirit. It was the country that paid dearly for their division. Well before anything else, power was the source of their division. Both used the noirist discourse as a springboard to access it, even if Daniel was much more aware of color issues than his rival.
History may have proven Daniel Fignolé right despite his radicalism on Dumarsais Estimé, given that historical data indicates that the mulatto bourgeois elite is just as radical in its position. It is ready to kill its opponents and destabilize the country to maintain its class interests. This type of behavior is radicalism in the same way as that displayed by some elements of the intellectual and political class who always attack the bourgeoisie.
This page of history that we are revisiting must teach one to tolerate the other in his vision if we want to offer an alternative to the country. Daniel Fignolé had gone too far in his hatred against the mulatto elite for not having accepted to cohabit with Georges Rigaud who shared a socialist discourse in the same way as him. In addition, he seemed too radical in his positions not to accept to collaborate with Estimé who aimed for the progress of the country.
In any case, in the absence of an agreement between Daniel Fignolé and François Duvalier, and between the latter and Clément Jumelle, the country has experienced a dark page of history; many brains have had to leave the country to seek refuge elsewhere. We are told of a long list of assassinations and missing persons.
The question of colour is certainly a fundamental problem within society, but it must not be used as a victimising phrase for political purposes. In such cases, it is society that pays the price, especially if the discourse is demagogic and instrumentalised.
I choose this chapter of history to indicate to what extent radicalism on both sides has always plunged the country into chaos.
—————————
Reference notes
1. The Revolution of 1946, Leslie François Manigat, published on 2008-12-02 | lenouvelliste.com
2. The indigenous heritage: Motherhood (II), Gérard Alexis, published on 2017-03-21 | lenouvelliste.com.
———————-
By James St GERMAIN
Le Nouvelliste
August 3, 2021
