A wave of serious concern has arisen in the Aruban community and in structural political circles regarding the way the process surrounding the HOFA Kingdom Law (Rijkswet HOFA) has been executed. Legal observers are sounding the alarm over what they consider a “hard push” to bind Aruba more closely to the Netherlands, without true consensus from the people and by structurally bypassing the Parliament of Aruba.
According to sources within the political landscape, this process has been carried out in a “bad and flawed” manner, working behind the scenes far from the transparency that such a major constitutional change requires. Even greater is the interpretation and misinformation continuously being given, where they realy want to sell the idea that HOFA will be good for Aruba and will save a lot of money, at the expense of the financial freedom of the Country of Aruba. This devaluation of Aruba’s constitutional rights raises the question: Where did the rescue of our autonomy and the respect for our own legislative bodies go?
Institutional Disrespect and Violation of Agreements in IPKO
The decision of the AVP-FUTURO coalition to rush this process in such an accelerated manner has not only shown disrespect for the Parliament of Aruba, but it has also created a dangerous precedent within the Kingdom. This action goes directly against the agreements signed within IPKO (Interparliamentary Kingdom Consultation), where the parliaments of Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and Aruba have strict agreements on how to handle Kingdom Laws that have such a profound impact on the islands.
The moment a government decides to deviate from this legal and constitutional path, it weakens the negotiating position of the entire Caribbean region within the Kingdom. Who is creating this imbalance? Precisely the three ministers currently present in the Netherlands: Prime Minister Mike Eman, Minister Gerlien Croes, and Minister Geoffrey Wever y Minister Plenipotenciario Mildred (Milly ) Schwengle.
The Double Standard of the Netherlands: Convenience or Principle?
One of the most criticized points in this development is the attitude of the Government in The Hague. How is it possible that the Netherlands, which always advocates for ‘good governance’ and the so-called ‘rule of law’ (rechtsstaat), has allowed this process to continue its course while structurally knowing that the path taken was flawed?
The question that resonates strongly in this analysis is: If this Kingdom Law did not suit the Netherlands, would they really have proceeded with the process? Or would they have tapped us on the fingers (hala nos horea) and indicated that the defense must stop because the legal process did not go well?
The silence and tactical approval of the Netherlands in this case is seen as a sign of pure convenience: when a defense or law favors the interests of The Hague, do local democratic processes take a back seat? Although politicians in Aruba are quick to accept and “sing along with” what is wrong, the responsibility of the Netherlands as the senior partner in the Kingdom should have been one of correction and respect for constitutional law.
Presence of Ministers in the Netherlands and Visit of Rob Jetten
This political tension coincides with a period of high diplomatic activity. Currently, a so-called delegation of “four ministers” consisting of Mike Eman, Gerlien Croes, Geoffrey, and Minister Plenipotenciario Mildred (Milly ) Schwengle
Wever is in the Netherlands for key meetings. This visit comes right after the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Rob Jetten, finalized an official visit to Aruba. Is this normal? Even more so when preceding Tripartite and IPKO meetings in the Netherlands.
While these visits are publicly presented as an effort for better cooperation and structurally better ties, the sentiment in the corridors of the Dutch Kingdom Parliament is different. Many view this as the final phase of a decision already made, where the Aruban People simply have to sit back and watch how a future is signed away a future where the “Pride” and Autonomy of our country are left tired and weakened behind closed doors, and steps are being finalized without the people of Aruba desiring it. It is where, for the second time, AVP (Eman) betrays local signatories who signed for a different direction.
The debate around the HOFA Kingdom Law is not over; on the contrary, it opens a much larger discussion about the shift in the balance of power within the Dutch Kingdom, how processes are handled, and the respect for the statute, consensus, and the laws and regulations that they themselves repeatedly say must be respected and complied with. Did that happen in this case?
