President Moïse announced in late 2020 that constitutional reform would be a priority of his government, arguing that Haiti’s 1987 constitution — written in the immediate aftermath of the Duvalier dictatorship — contained provisions that had contributed to the country’s political dysfunction and needed to be updated for the realities of the 21st century. The announcement launched a contentious national debate about whether constitutional reform was necessary, who had the authority to lead it, and what changes should be made.
Supporters of constitutional reform argued that the 1987 constitution’s provisions had indeed created governance problems: the semi-presidential system’s ambiguous division of authority between president and prime minister had generated recurring conflicts; the complex legislative structure had proved susceptible to blockage; and the absence of provisions for national referendums or other direct democratic mechanisms had left citizens with limited tools for resolving impasse.
Opponents were deeply suspicious of the reform agenda. They argued that Moïse was pursuing constitutional changes primarily to extend his own time in power or to shift the constitutional system in ways that would strengthen executive authority at the expense of democratic checks and balances. Without a functioning legislature to oversee the process, any constitutional reform undertaken by the executive alone would lack legitimacy.
Constitutional law scholars noted that the Haitian constitution itself contained provisions specifying how it could be amended — provisions that required legislative participation that was currently impossible given the absence of a functioning parliament. Circumventing those provisions would itself constitute a constitutional violation.