During his weekly press conference, Member of Parliament Eduard Pieters of the PPA faction launched an extremely strong critique against the President of Parliament, Marlon Sneek, after the decision to suspend the parliamentary meeting with Minister Gerlien Croes sparked outrage within the opposition. For Pieters, what happened on Monday was not just a procedural decision, but rather a dangerous display of how the Parliament of Aruba is losing its independence and increasingly becoming an instrument to protect the government instead of controlling it.
Whom does the President of Parliament truly serve?
Pieters recalled that the President of Parliament has a constitutional and moral responsibility to execute his function “conscientiously” (naar eer en geweten), maintaining neutrality, impartiality, and respect for the Rules of Order (Reglamento di Ordo).
But according to Pieters, what took place in the hall of Parliament on Monday was completely contrary to that. “We thought that the President would finally stand firm to protect Parliament and put pressure on the minister to legitimately answer the questions,” Pieters declared. “But the moment the meeting began moving in a direction uncomfortable for the government, the President opted to cut the debate short and suspend the meeting ‘until further notice’ (tot nadere order).” For the PPA faction, this was not a neutral action, but a political move to protect the minister from parliamentary oversight.
Democracy cannot function with a submissive president
In a particularly harsh tone, Pieters accused President Sneek of acting more as a defender of the government rather than a defender of Parliament.
“Where are we heading as a country?” Pieters questioned. “What kind of democracy do we have when the President of Parliament becomes the main actor in silencing debate and preventing a minister from being confronted with serious questions?” According to Pieters, Parliament has a fundamental role in a constitutional state: to control the government, demand transparency, and obligate ministers to take responsibility for their policies. But if the President of Parliament himself intervenes to stop the process, the democratic system itself is weakened. “This is how our democracy is being hijacked little by little,” he declared.
Parliament has become a coalition rubber stamp
Pieters also expressed deep disappointment with what he has experienced during his first six months as an MP. According to Pieters, the coalition constantly demonstrates that they do not view Parliament as an independent power, but as a mechanism to validate whatever the government wants.
“Parliament cannot become an automatic rubber stamp for the cabinet,” Pieters stated bluntly. He criticized President Sneek for failing to show independence or the “backbone” to let the meeting follow its natural course, implying that external political pressure was influencing the decision to suspend the meeting. “It seems that just a phone call or message from the government is enough for Parliament to change direction in the legislative hall,” Pieters declared.
“If Parliament does not control the government, democracy is in danger”
For the PPA faction, this incident is much more than a temporary political conflict. According to Pieters, it is an alarming sign regarding the current state of our democratic institutions.
“Parliament must be the place where the government renders accountability, not a place where the government is protected,” he concluded. “When the President of Parliament uses his position to stop debate and avoid questioning, then we are no longer speaking of neutral leadership, but of a Parliament losing its democratic essence.”