The registration of candidates has been extended until October 31, 2026. According to preliminary data from the Provisional Electoral Council (CEP), those aged 18-30 only account for 7.2% of registered individuals. Should we view this as a lack of interest in politics from the youth? That is uncertain. The real question revolves around the conditions for access to the electoral competition.
Young people are often encouraged to vote, mobilize, and believe in the future of the country. But what space is afforded to them when they wish to take on public responsibilities themselves? The recent reduction in candidacy fees deserves praise. However, it does not exempt us from questioning the underlying problem: does the Haitian political system truly open its doors to a new generation?
As of October 17, those aged 18-30 represented approximately 7.2% of registered individuals, compared to 46.1% for those aged 31-45 and 38.4% for those aged 46-60. These data remain provisional: registrations are ongoing and the files still need to be verified and validated. The published categories also do not allow us to determine the exact proportion of those aged 18-35.
However, these figures do not measure a generation's political engagement. A young person may organize activities in their neighborhood, advocate for access to drinking water, or work within an association without running for an elective office. Before blaming them for staying on the sidelines, we should consider the obstacles that facilitate or hinder their candidacy.
The first obstacle is financial. The new version of the electoral decree, published on October 6, reduced registration fees from 800,000 to 400,000 gourdes for the Senate and from 300,000 to 100,000 gourdes for the Chamber of Deputies. The candidacy fee for the presidency remains set at 2,000,000 gourdes. For local councils, the amounts are now 50,000 gourdes for the municipal council, 15,000 gourdes for the CASEC, and 5,000 gourdes for the ASEC. In these last three cases, the fees pertain to a team of candidates, rather than each individual member.
This reduction is significant. However, a reduced fee is not necessarily an accessible fee. Let's take the fictional case of a young teacher who wishes to run for the Chamber of Deputies and can save 10,000 gourdes per month. It would take her ten months to gather just the registration fee, not to mention the other expenses related to her candidacy and political project.
The right to run for office may thus be recognized in principle, while remaining difficult to exercise in practice. We will need to measure the effects of this reduction, first on the number of registrations and then on the number of accepted candidacies, that is, the files actually accepted by the CEP.
In addition to the financial obstacle, there is a legal constraint: age requirements may close the door even before a file is submitted. We must distinguish between the right to vote and eligibility, in other words, the right to run for office. The 1987 Constitution sets the minimum age at 25 years to become a deputy, 30 years to be a senator, and 35 years to access the presidency.
The draft of a new Constitution presented in 2025 proposed lowering these thresholds to 21 years for the Chamber of Deputies, 25 years for the Senate, and 30 years for the presidency. The goal was not to reserve these positions for the youth, but to allow them to seek voters' trust earlier.
Imagine a 23-year-old young person, engaged for several years in their community and eager to defend the interests of their residents in the Chamber of Deputies. With the current threshold of 25 years, they do not meet the age requirement, regardless of the quality of their program. With the proposed threshold of 21 years, they would have been able to participate in the competition, provided they meet the other legal requirements. They would then return to voters to decide if they grant their trust.
This opening did not come to fruition, as the constitutional process was abandoned in October 2025. It would be excessive to view this as a decision explicitly directed against the youth: the entire project was abandoned. Nevertheless, the proposed lowering of the eligibility thresholds was not implemented.
We can debate the relevance of these thresholds without adhering to the entirety of the constitutional project. Lowering them would not have guaranteed the competence of candidates nor their election. It would have simply expanded the choices available to voters. This debate deserves to continue independently of other constitutional issues.
The question must also be posed to political parties. What space do their leaders afford to young people, beyond their mobilization as supporters or their role in spreading the party's messages? By what criteria do they select their candidates? What support do they offer those with ideas and skills, but neither personal wealth nor established notoriety?
Asking a young activist to organize a meeting or manage the party's social media does not equate to giving them a voice in decision-making. A true opening implies that they can also advocate for a political direction, participate in decision-making bodies, and seek nomination, meaning being designated to represent the party in an election.
Transparent selection procedures would allow for the comparison of proposals, skills, and aptitudes of candidates, rather than leaving financial resources alone to determine each person's chances. Age does not guarantee competence, integrity, or a sense of state. However, a young person should be able to compete without having to possess, from the outset, the means and networks that others have accumulated over decades.
To make this access fairer, circumstantial encouragements are insufficient. Administrative and legal support could assist individuals submitting their first candidacy in gathering the necessary documents and meeting deadlines. It would not be a matter of allowing incomplete files, but rather ensuring that a lack of information does not prevent the submission of a compliant file.
Parties could, for their part, publish their selection criteria, organize internal candidacy procedures, and justify their decisions. The establishment of a mechanism for targeted financial support could also be discussed, provided it is based on public criteria and obligations for transparency and accountability. Political renewal would thus become a verifiable practice, rather than a mere campaign promise.
More detailed statistics would finally allow for tracking the paths of candidacies. If, in a fictional example, one hundred young people register, but only forty files are accepted, we would need to understand the reasons. The answers would vary depending on whether the gap results from missing documents, unmet legal conditions, or voluntary abandonment of the process. Without precise data, the debate risks being trapped in impressions and assumptions.
Facilitating access to electoral competition does not mean guaranteeing election. A young candidate must convince voters, present a credible program, and demonstrate their ability to exercise the desired function. The goal is not to spare them this democratic requirement, but to offer them a real opportunity to meet it.
We cannot indefinitely present youth as the future of the country while asking them to wait at the door of institutions. A democracy must not only offer young people a place in the electorate. It must also allow them to propose, compete, and, if they gain the trust of citizens, to govern.
