Aruba stands before a critical decision: to accept HOFA, or not? Many see this as a fierce struggle between Aruba and the Netherlands—a battle we might call “autonomy vs. financial supervision.” The discussion revolves around the dilemma of whether we are losing the autonomy we fought so hard for with our Status Aparte. Others claim HOFA is a financial relief. So, what is it: a threat or a blessing in disguise? If we are being honest, the question goes even deeper: what have we done with our autonomy over the last 40 years? Or to put it in Dutch terms: are our institutions strong enough to sustain us?
For years, the relationship between Aruba and the Netherlands has been marked by mutual mistrust. Aruba constantly seeks to maintain its autonomy, while the Netherlands seeks financial stability to provide guarantees before Aruba can borrow money on the international market. Before signing off, the Netherlands asks about the state of our finances. Year after year, the situation is not pretty. Every time we fail to manage our finances with discipline, the Netherlands reacts with more supervision. This has led to a pattern where Aruba becomes desperate and reacts strongly, most notably during the climax of 2014-2015. On one hand, it is understandable that the hunger strike scandal by the Prime Minister at the time was intended to defend our autonomy. However, by failing to show financial transparency and fulfill agreements, the Netherlands became greatly frustrated, and the relationship officially soured from that moment on. From the perspective of autonomy, I understand why the government took such a drastic step, but it has left us in a vicious cycle for over 10 years.
This cycle is at the heart of the current discussion. Many professionals and academics before me—including the late former minister Dr. Mito Croes—have often said the same thing: the government does “good politics” (keeping voters happy) but practices “bad governance.” It is understandable why the Netherlands has begun to demand more structure. Aruba reacts with: “Impossible, our autonomy!” The Netherlands looks again, but “not even a fly moves” in the financial situation. The Netherlands insists on more structure; Aruba, in turn, reacts strongly again. We are in an emotionally and mentally exhausting cycle, almost in a “lockdown” of our own making.
The consequence? A structural problem that adds pressure. The cause of our autonomy problems is not the Netherlands; it is our system where a single party rules over everything: the so-called “partitocracy.” Parliament becomes merely an extension and a “rubber stamp.” This leads to a total lack of oversight over the government. Even the President of Parliament succumbs to pressure, often failing to call meetings to discuss important topics that might criticize the government. The fact that ministers are prosecuted is not proof that parliament is working well or is free of corruption; it is often a political game by the opposition to eliminate rivals once they take power. Otherwise, we could hardly reach any other conclusion than that many more ministers and high-ranking officials should have been imprisoned by now. Mind you, I am not against any specific political party, but rather against the system itself.
I do not blame Aruba alone. The phenomenon of total dominance by one political party upon reaching power is very common in small nations. However, in practice, this means there is no trias politica and no proper oversight to curb government overreach and corruption. Institutions are often not independent enough and face pressure, preventing them from acting properly against officials and the ruling party. Authors, experts, and ordinary citizens have recognized this many times. In the next article, I will also explain that, on top of this, Aruba faces a “mental slavery” that certainly does not help our painful situation.
This structural problem, with all its causes and effects, shows why HOFA is on the table. In the next article, I will further expand on HOFA: if Aruba does not sign, what happens next?
Jayburtt J. Dijkhoff, PhD Expert in Health Rights, Quality of Care, and Social Reflection