Afice Fresnel Advocates for Secure Elections and Governance Reform Including Diaspora

Speaking on (LRVM) in Paris this Sunday, March 29, 2026, Afice Fresnel delivered a strong stance on the Haitian political crisis: yes to elections, but with the imperative condition of guaranteeing security. Faced with a transition deemed too long and ineffective, he calls for a reconfiguration of the political landscape, fully including the diaspora, while denouncing the mismanagement of public funds supposedly intended for it.

For Director Afice Fresnel, the electoral urgency cannot be dissociated from the security issue. In a country where structural insecurity weakens any institutional prospect, organizing elections without minimal guarantees would, according to him, compromise their credibility from the outset. His position is clear: the electoral principle remains indispensable, but its application must be conditioned on a stabilized environment.

This requirement is accompanied by a direct criticism of the duration of the political transition. Deemed excessive, it fuels, according to Fresnel, a form of institutional stagnation that further weakens the State. The longer the transition stretches, the more it loses legitimacy, while leaving the field open to informal power dynamics.

Beyond the electoral question, the speaker highlights an issue often relegated to the background: the political participation of the Haitian diaspora. It is not, he insists, a one-time financial contribution, but a real integration into decision-making processes. This vision breaks with a utilitarian approach to the diaspora, often reduced to its economic transfers, and calls for structured political recognition.

From this perspective, Director Afice Fresnel denounces the mismanagement of the levies of “US$1.50” on each international transfer and “US$0.05” per incoming call minute from the diaspora, which he believes is poorly administered by the (FNE). This criticism raises a broader issue: that of the governance of public resources and transparency in their use. By questioning this mechanism, he indirectly challenges the State's ability to transform diaspora contributions into effective public policies.

All these positions outline a coherent political line: reject hasty solutions, demand minimal security conditions, shorten the transition, and redefine the diaspora's role in institutional reconstruction. But this vision also poses a complex equation: how to establish the necessary security without fully functional institutions, and how to revive these institutions without resorting to suffrage?

Implicitly, Mr. Fresnel's intervention highlights a central tension in the Haitian crisis: the need to move towards elections while recognizing that current conditions limit their scope. Between the demand for legitimacy and the constraint of reality, his analysis invites a rethinking of the political transition's priorities.