The Viktwa political group
By Reynoldson Mompoint, Haiti Liberté, Sept. 2, 2026
Sometimes we need to stop pretending not to see what's going on.
In Haiti, a new political battle is taking shape on the horizon of the elections. It will not be fought solely between candidates, programs, and voters. Above all, it is likely to revolve around a fundamental question: who owns the resources of the Republic and who is using them to seize power?
The Viktwa political coalition, which unites several dozen political groups and constitutes one of the largest approved coalitions in the electoral process, is already displaying its ambitions. The coalition is presented as bringing together up to 52 parties, according to data published by the Provisional Electoral Council (CEP).
But behind this show of political force lies a much more serious question: Is Viktwa simply a powerful political grouping, or does it benefit from an institutional advantage linked to its proximity to power?
The question is legitimate. It does not constitute a condemnation. But it deserves an answer. And above all, it deserves evidence.
The problem isn't that Viktwa wants to win
Let's be clear. A political party that doesn't want to win an election has no place in an electoral competition. Viktwa has every right to want to win the elections. Its leaders have every right to mobilize their activists, defend their platform, and try to convince the electorate.
But there is a fundamental difference between winning with the resources of a party and winning with the advantage afforded by the state apparatus. It is this boundary that the Republic must guard. Because the state belongs neither to Viktwa, nor to the government, nor to the Prime Minister, nor to any political party. The state belongs to the nation.
Public vehicles belong to the state. Public buildings belong to the state. Civil servants belong to the public administration. Public funds belong to the taxpayer. Public institutions are not election offices.
Viktwa and the government: a close relationship that is causing concern
The questions did not come out of nowhere. For several weeks, the alleged closeness between Viktwa and the government of Alix Didier Fils-Aimé has fueled criticism in public opinion.
Viktwa's general coordinator, Camille Leblanc, was called upon to publicly explain the relationship between his group and the government. He maintains that Viktwa's constitution is based primarily on political and electoral considerations. Fine. But a serious democracy cannot be satisfied with mere declarations. It must look at the facts.
Which public officials participate in Viktwa's activities? What logistical resources are used? Who finances travel? Who handles communications? What resources are mobilized on the ground? Do civil servants participate in partisan activities during their working hours? Are public vehicles or premises used? Are state-funded social programs used, directly or indirectly, to promote a political grouping? These are the questions. And they are perfectly legitimate.
Article 212 must be taken seriously
The issue becomes even more sensitive when examining the electoral framework. According to a recently published analysis, the 2026 electoral decree prohibits government members and senior officials from using state materials and resources for electoral propaganda in favor of a party, group, or candidate. If this rule exists, it must apply to everyone. Not just opponents of the government. Not just small parties. Not just those without access to ministerial offices. To everyone. And especially to those in power. Because the more institutional power an official wields, the greater their responsibility.
The Prime Minister may have an administrative machine at his disposal. A small party sometimes doesn't even have the means to pay for a room to hold a meeting. That's why the State must be particularly vigilant.
An election won before the day of the vote?
This is where the problem becomes political. If a group enters the competition with superior resources because it is close to power, then the election may be regular in form but deeply unbalanced in substance.
Polling stations can be opened. Ballots can be printed. Observers can be appointed. Results can be published. But if, even before the polls open, certain candidates have a considerable institutional advantage, the equality of electoral arms is already compromised. A democracy is not measured solely by the presence of a ballot box. It is measured by the equality of the conditions under which citizens choose.
The government cannot be both referee and player
This is where the real problem lies. The government must facilitate the elections. The government must ensure security. The government must provide the Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) with the necessary resources.
The Prime Minister himself stated that the State is providing the necessary resources to support the electoral process and ensure the elections can take place. This is its duty. But precisely because the State controls these resources, it must refrain from directing them towards any particular political camp.
An official who enters the field wearing a team's jersey can no longer claim to be an official. The Republic cannot be run like an election campaign.
The Viktwa case therefore deserves total transparency
Viktwa needs to understand one thing: the best defense against accusations isn't anger. It's transparency. The group must publish its sources of funding. It must explain its expenses. It must say who pays for its activities. It must clarify its relationships with government officials. It must explain how its political tours are financed. It must demonstrate that its activities are funded by partisan resources and not by public coffers. And if everything is above board, Viktwa will emerge stronger.
Even before the offices open, some competitors have a considerable institutional advantage.
But if public funds are discovered being used to finance partisan activities, then we will no longer be facing a simple political controversy. We will be facing an institutional issue.
Fils-Aimé must also respond
The responsibility should not be placed solely on Viktwa. Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé must also understand that his position of power imposes a greater obligation of prudence upon him.
It is not enough to say that the government organizes the elections. It must be demonstrated that the government does not create the conditions for one side to win.
The difference is enormous. The first falls under institutional responsibility. The second would amount to the instrumentalization of the state. And in a democracy already deeply weakened, this line cannot be crossed without consequences.
Viktwa may be powerful. But power shouldn't come from the state. We must also acknowledge a reality: he seems to have achieved something many Haitian political parties have never managed: uniting a considerable number of organizations around a single platform. This constitutes a real political force. And this force shouldn't be automatically reduced to the use of public resources.
It would be intellectually dishonest to claim that all of Viktwa's popularity necessarily stems from the state. But precisely because the group has become powerful, it must accept a higher level of control. Political power entails political responsibility.
The people must not be replaced by the administrative apparatus.
Haiti has already experienced this old practice of transforming the public administration into an instrument of political conquest. The recipe is well-known. Appointments are made. Positions are distributed. People are mobilized. Promises are made. Public resources are used. The media is dominated. And then the electoral victory is presented as the spontaneous expression of the popular will. No.
A modern republic can no longer function this way. Citizens must vote freely. Civil servants must serve the state. Ministers must serve the republic. The prime minister must guarantee the neutrality of the public apparatus. And political parties must convince voters with their ideas, not with the keys to the state.
If Viktwa wins, let him win through the ballot box.
That's the best thing Viktwa could wish for. That he wins. But that he wins cleanly. That he wins with his program. That he wins with his candidates. That he wins with his activists. That he wins with popular support. That he wins without anyone being able to say that the public administration worked for him.
Because a victory shrouded in suspicion will always remain a fragile victory. An undeniable victory, on the other hand, becomes legitimacy. And that is precisely what Haiti needs: legitimacy, not a new power born of ambiguity.
The state must have no candidates
The debate surrounding Viktwa therefore goes beyond Viktwa. It concerns the entire political class.
Today, Viktwa is at the center of attention. Tomorrow, it might be another group. The rules must be the same for everyone. No public vehicles at rallies. No civil servants turned into activists during working hours. No social funds used as campaign tools. No public buildings transformed into party headquarters. No state resources used to benefit a candidate. And above all: no confusion between administrative and political power.
The Republic does not vote
Finally, it's important to remember a basic truth that some political leaders seem to forget. The state doesn't vote. Ministries don't vote. Directorates-general don't vote. Public vehicles don't vote. Civil servants only vote in their capacity as citizens. Public budgets don't vote. Police officers don't vote. Diplomats don't vote. Public infrastructure doesn't vote. Only the people vote. And it is precisely for this reason that whoever controls the state must have the responsibility never to transform this institutional power into a partisan advantage.
If Viktwa truly possesses the popular support he claims, let him demonstrate it at the ballot box. Without administrative crutches. Without public funds. Without institutional confusion. Without privilege. Only then will his victory be indisputable. Because an electoral victory achieved through the force of the state can produce a government.
But only a victory won with the people's trust can produce legitimacy. And Haiti no longer needs rulers who inherit power. It needs leaders who earn it from the people.
Posted Sept. 16, 2026