Bukele, Dessalines’ Name Is Not Your License to Rule Haiti

• 

Bukele, Invoking Dessalines Does Not Give You Authority Over Haiti.

By Cherlie Joseph

SPECIAL ANALYSIS — Nayib Bukele chose to invoke Jean-Jacques Dessalines in a message addressed to the Haitian people. On November 3, he compared gang members, financiers and weapons suppliers to those who betrayed the founder of Haitian independence, presenting El Salvador as an ally in reclaiming the country. That reference deserves a response: invoking the emperor requires more than knowing his name. It requires understanding the sovereignty for which he fought.

From this editorial perspective, the problem with Bukele’s message is his attempt to occupy two positions simultaneously: that of a foreign president deploying military forces, and that of an interpreter deciding who legitimately represents Haitian historical memory. He can express an opinion about our history. What deserves scrutiny is whether that interpretation is being used to claim political authority over our present.

Dessalines cannot become a credential that a foreign leader displays to justify his intervention. His name demands a discussion about who commands, who decides, and to whom the weapons deployed on Haitian territory are accountable.

A historical memory that cannot serve every political purpose

Jean-Jacques Dessalines was an enslaved person who rose to lead the struggle for independence and govern as Emperor Jacques I. He was assassinated on October 17, 1806. His life belongs to a revolution that challenged colonial rule and the supposed legitimacy of owning human beings.

Bukele should therefore approach that memory with humility. Haitian ancestors defended a freedom whose significance extends beyond Haiti’s borders. Their sacrifice demands respect for their descendants, especially when those descendants question the decisions of a foreign power.

That respect is demonstrated by accepting uncomfortable questions. Who defines the objectives of a military operation? Who controls its duration? What effective ability do Haitians have to demand changes or its termination? Who answers to a family if an operation destroys its home?

Invoking the emperor while those questions remain unanswered turns his memory into a political communication tool.

Internal betrayal does not absolve external powers

Bukele is right that a country’s destruction can involve domestic collaborators. No serious analysis should excuse Haitians who finance violence, profit from suffering or use public office to protect private interests.

But acknowledging that responsibility requires evidence, names and proper procedures. The word traitor carries enormous emotional weight. Precisely for that reason, a leader must explain whom he is accusing and on what evidence.

We must also scrutinize the political use of that category. If it is extended to journalists, victims, community organizations or citizens questioning an intervention, it would cease to describe specific conduct and begin functioning as an instrument of intimidation.

Criticizing a foreign force does not establish collaboration with gangs. Defending sovereignty does not require defending those who kidnap, murder or expel families from their communities. The Haitian people have the right to reject both abuses.

The 111 years have a precise historical reference

Between 1915 and 2026, 111 years have passed. That figure refers to the United States invasion of 1915 and an occupation that lasted until 1934. During that period, the United States exercised control over Haiti’s finances, customs and other fundamental state institutions. American historical records themselves acknowledge that control.

This does not mean Haiti has experienced one uninterrupted military occupation for 111 years. It identifies a historical starting point from which to examine the relationships between intervention, dependency and the loss of decision-making power.

That distinction strengthens the criticism. It allows us to investigate concrete mechanisms rather than treating different periods and actors as identical.

Nor is it necessary to assign responsibilities to Bukele’s personal ancestors without evidence. The political question is more forceful: Do his current decisions help return power to Haitians, or do they reproduce a relationship in which others decide for them?

That is the question he must answer.

Two thousand soldiers require verifiable explanations

The Associated Press reported that Bukele sent more than 2,000 soldiers following the disappearance of four Salvadoran aviation technicians. It also reported that the United Nations considers those troops to be operating outside the framework of its gang suppression force. Haiti’s prime minister says foreign forces are under Haitian command; according to that report, Bukele had not confirmed that arrangement.

That uncertainty has political consequences. A military presence of this scale requires a public explanation of its chain of command, objectives and accountability mechanisms.

Searching for missing people is an identifiable purpose. Presenting oneself as a central figure in another country’s liberation considerably expands the ambition of the message. If the objective changes, citizens must know and be able to debate it.

The size of a contingent does not, by itself, prove an intention to plunder. A promise of assistance does not establish respect for sovereignty either. Both questions must be examined through decisions, documents and results.

Suspicions that someone has come seeking benefits should therefore become demands for transparency: disclose the agreements, financing, commitments and anything promised in return. An investigation needs evidence; a sovereign people have the right to demand it.

An exhausted people retain their will

I understand the anger behind saying that the people are asleep. Yet it would be unfair to confuse exhaustion with consent.

A mother trying to keep her children alive has not necessarily abandoned her political awareness. A displaced family may lack the means to protest. A threatened community may remain silent to survive.

From this perspective, public silence grants no unlimited mandate to Haitian leaders or their foreign allies. The population’s vulnerability increases the obligation to listen to it.

The independence of political leaders must also be judged through their actions: what they negotiate, what they disclose, whom they consult and how effectively they defend national interests. Political subordination must be established by examining concrete decisions.

The response must defend life and sovereignty

Outrage over the use of Dessalines’ name can be expressed with full force without threatening soldiers’ lives. A threat would shift the discussion toward violence and weaken the central demand: that no authority wield power over Haitian lives without accountability.

The political response can be unequivocal: Bukele, invoking Dessalines obliges you to respect the Haitian people’s right to decide, including when they question your presence.

A foreign president has no authority to decide who qualifies as a Haitian patriot. Nor should our own leaders use the emergency as permanent authorization to negotiate without explanation.

The standard for evaluating any assistance must be concrete: it must protect the population, allow abuses to be investigated and strengthen Haitians’ ability to govern their country.

Dessalines demands more than a quotation

My reading of Bukele’s message is that he seeks to associate his actions with a figure whose historical authority is rooted in Haitian emancipation. That association deserves scrutiny, rather than acceptance based on the emotional power of the name.

Haiti needs security. Its people need to live without kidnapping, displacement or fear. Precisely for that reason, they deserve to know who exercises force and what limits constrain it.

Bukele, acknowledge and respect the struggle of our ancestors. If you choose to invoke the emperor’s name, accept the demand that name carries: Haitians have the right to determine their own destiny. Your promise to help them does not give you the power to decide for them.