In the Debate on HOFA #2
In a series of articles titled “In the Debate on HOFA,” Parliamentarian Xiomara Maduro shares important information for the public debate on the HOFA Kingdom Law (Rijkswet HOFA). In this article, the central question is: Who decides when Aruba does not agree with a decision made by the Netherlands?
There Is No Independent Court Nor a Dispute Resolution Mechanism in the Kingdom
Within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, there is no constitutional court that can rule on a conflict between the countries. Neither is there a dispute resolution mechanism (geschillenregeling) to resolve disagreements regarding autonomy, equality, or the interpretation of the Charter (Statuut). When a conflict arises, there is no neutral arbiter who can have the final say.
Different Interpretations of the Charter (Statuut)
A major example is Article 36 of the Charter. This article states that the countries within the Kingdom must assist one another. Aruba and the Netherlands interpreted the meaning of Article 36 differently during the pandemic:
Aruba states: The Kingdom must help. Aruba views this as a duty of solidarity in times of crisis.
The Netherlands states: Assistance can come with conditions, and therefore the Netherlands attached severe conditions to the financial support. Among others: cutting the salaries of public servants, cutting AZV healthcare benefits (medications), forcing reforms through the Landspakket, and demanding the conversion of Aruba’s financial supervision from an Aruban law into a Kingdom Law. Furthermore, the Netherlands charged a high interest rate of 6.9% on the COVID loans, using this to exert pressure on the HOFA negotiations.
In a situation like this, which country interpreted Article 36 of the Charter correctly?
The Country with More Power Dominates
When there is no independent body to resolve a dispute between the countries, the country with more power often ends up with the final say. The Netherlands has more influence within the Kingdom institutions, has more ministers in the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom (Rijksministerraad), and possesses more political and financial power. This creates an imbalance between the countries. In the case of HOFA, at the end of the day, the Netherlands is the country with more power, dominates the discussion, and can interpret Aruba’s autonomy however it wishes.
There Is a Democratic Deficit
The reality is that a democratic deficit exists within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Important decisions for Aruba can be made in Kingdom organs, while Aruba does not hold the same level of influence as the Netherlands. Furthermore, there is still no independent mechanism to resolve conflicts between the countries.
The Question Remains
When Aruba and the Netherlands disagree on the meaning of the Charter: Who decides?
Up until now, there is no independent body in the Kingdom that can give the final word. And for this reason, it is crucial that throughout the debate on HOFA, we keep asking: who has the final say, and is what is being decided correct or not?