A wave of concern and strong criticism has arisen in the community regarding the direction the country is heading in matters of autonomy. The decisions that some wish to impose at this moment in Parliament especially regarding the approval of Kingdom laws such as HOFA and LWHO cannot be left solely to the decision of the parliamentarians and the current AVP-FUTURO government, considering the weight of this decision on the country’s future.
It is no secret that the management of the AVP-FUTURO coalition has put Aruba at a dangerous crossroads, where the country runs the risk of losing its character and its own autonomy within the Dutch Kingdom. Looking at recent developments, many in the community are formally questioning the stance of the ministers and parliamentarians, specifically questioning whether the leaders of this alliance are acting against the interests of our ancestors, adopting a defeatist/surrendering stance that could cause enormous damage to the country.
This situation has led to structural discontent, where many categorize this way of governing as one based on anger and structural partisan interests. Inconsistency in the National Dialogue discourse: The biggest point of contention at the moment is the apparent inconsistency in the political discourse regarding a National Dialogue.
Initially, when the so-called “gremionan” (commercial and professional associations) were not involved, these leaders strongly advocated for an open and structural dialogue within the community. On several occasions, questions were raised about the real discussions taking place, raising doubts about whether there truly is a structural national dialogue with the people, or if the dialogue is purely internal and with the Netherlands.
However, now that the associations have been heard and have consciously expressed themselves, the discourse has changed radically. Suddenly, the demand for a national dialogue was dropped from the table, arguing that the discussion must take place exclusively in Parliament. Now that the associations have been heard during the “marketing tour” of Minister Geoffrey Wever and Prime Minister Mike Eman in the Netherlands, the ministers pretend that everything is settled, leaving the desire of the people themselves aside.
This raises a structural question: Why did the dialogue stop being important? Did the people vote for these leaders to hand over Aruba’s autonomy to the Netherlands? The heart of the concern in the community is that Parliament, as the final decision-making body, should not be used to impose decisions of such magnitude without due consensus from the people.
A call goes out to every citizen to approach the politician they voted for and voice their decision: whether they want to remain the master of their own home, or hand their home over to the Netherlands so they can decide how you can and are allowed to live in your home, according to what they decide in the Dutch House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer).
For the approval of laws that tie the financial and structural future of Aruba into the hands of a “third party” (the Netherlands), there must be a clear route of popular consultation.
There are two fundamental points:
Lack of consultation: True leadership must pave a path where the people are heard and convinced before reaching Parliament with decisions of this magnitude.
Loss of Freedom: Approving these laws in their current form is seen as a direct surrender of autonomy and a threat to Aruba’s freedom to self-determine its own future.
This situation continues to generate a lot of tension in the political and social spheres. The demand of the community remains one: total transparency, and for the people not to be pushed aside in decisions that will define the course of the country for the coming decades.
Now the golden question is: People, did you vote for the politicians of AVP-FUTURO to surrender your freedom and colonize Aruba again