In a discussion on political and social matters, strong criticism has emerged against the practice of politicians and party leaders going into neighborhoods to paint citizens’ houses for free during election campaigns.
Where does this money come from? From which sponsor? Or from Aruba’s public treasury itself? This action not only constitutes a form of indirect bribery to buy votes, but it also functions as superficial “makeup” covering up the country’s true economic problems without resolving the high cost of living.
The analysis questions the political leadership’s lack of exemplary integrity. While absolute integrity is demanded from civil servants in public departments such as the Immigration Department or the Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP)—where accepting a minimal favor or gift is classified and prosecuted as corruption—political leaders themselves walk through neighborhoods offering maintenance work valued between 400 to 1,000 florins per house to influence citizens’ votes. This is a practice that must stop.
Lack of integrity and ethical imbalance
The discussion highlights that these practices send a contradictory message to the community. While citizens expect moral leadership, giving away house painting to gain electoral support teaches the electorate that a vote has a temporary material price. Nobody does anything for nothing.
“It is an indirect bribe for your people’s votes. You cannot demand integrity from your civil servants when you, as a leader, walk through neighborhoods buying votes in this manner,” the analysis notes.
Social assistance versus political manipulation
The position expressed makes a clear distinction between the legitimate work of charitable foundations and the manipulation of human need for electoral motives:
• Foundations and social assistance: It is acceptable and necessary for non-governmental organizations to provide aid to vulnerable families or those in extreme poverty. This is not the task of individual politicians.
• Political campaigning in neighborhoods: Giving away house painting on a widespread basis for electoral reasons is categorized as a “farce” that takes advantage of citizens’ needs.
The critique compares these models to populist strategies used in political regimes like Venezuela and Cuba, where the State or incumbent leader distributes material goods or direct services because citizens lack the financial capacity to cover their own basic needs.
The root problem: Cost of living and lack of opportunity
The central point of the debate is that a 500 or 1,000 florin house painting job does not lower a family’s long-term cost of living. Once the paint dries or some time passes, the household’s economic problem remains exactly the same.
A government’s primary responsibility is not to act as a provider of individual favors, but to:
• Create a strong and fair economy: Develop conditions where citizens can find decent employment and earn a sufficient income.
• Lower the cost of living: Implement efficient public policies to reduce families’ daily expenses.
• Guarantee citizen independence: Provide individuals with the freedom and financial capability to buy their own paint and choose whatever color they want for their house, without owing a political favor to any party.
A call for a change in mindset
The discussion concludes with a call to the community—especially the youth and the electorate in this digital era—not to fall for these electoral manipulations. A direct appeal is made to demand real, structural, and sustainable solutions for the country’s problems from political leaders (explicitly mentioning the political style of figures like Mike Eman), instead of accepting temporary fixes that do not resolve the citizen’s personal economic situation.