PHILIPSBURG — Maintaining the myth that there is equality between the four countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands is hypocritical, St. Maarten’s representative in the Council of State Maria van der Sluis-Plantz said during the presentation of the Handboek Caribisch Staatrecht (Handbook Caribbean Constitutional Law) in Leiden.
The author of the book is Arjen van Rijn, professor of Constitutional Law and Constitutional Reform at Curacao University. Van der Sluis-Plantz was stating the obvious and politicians in the Caribbean have often complained about the so-called democratic deficit. What is Van Rijn’s opinion about this issue?
“Equality exists as long as a Caribbean country operates within the limits of its own autonomy and respects the fundamental human rights and freedoms, legal certainty and good governance,” Van Rijn told stmaartennews.com in an email. “A Caribbean country can do its own thing within that context. In the fields of the Kingdom – like foreign relationships, defense and the guarantee function (article 43, paragraph 2 of the Kingdom Charter) the Netherlands is in control when push comes to shove. That makes it difficult to speak of equal footing in this context.”
Richard Gibson Sr., a former Minister of Constitutional Affairs in the government of the former Netherlands Antilles once said that in constitutional law “nothing is written in stone.” A couple of years ago the constitutional crisis in St. Maarten (when parliament passed a vote of no confidence against Prime Minister Marcel Gumbs and Gumbs refused to step down and reacted by dissolving the parliament) showed how this works in practice: everybody managed to find expert opinions that supported opposing points of view. Is there a solution for this?
Van Rijn: “It would help if there was a constitutional judge who could rule on disputes about the interpretation of the Kingdom Charter. This way disputes would be depoliticized. For the time being, the Netherlands is not prepared to go there, given the draft Kingdom Law Kingdom Disputes that is currently at the Second Chamber for handling.”
Van Rijn explains the shortcomings of this draft law: “The proposal contains a regulation that such disputes will be assessed by the Council of State but it also stipulates that the kingdom government has the final word in special circumstances. Other concerns also make that, in the end, this proposal does not defeat the existing inequality. That is a pity. It would be a step in the right direction if we would at least get a real constitutional judge.”
Van der sluis-Plantz characterized the position of the Caribbean islands versus the Netherlands according to the news site koninkrijksrelaties.nu as follows: “In the political reality President Trump is to Prime Minister Rutte, what Rutte is to Prime Minister Romeo-Marlin. There is no objective equality.”
Van der Sluis-Plantz furthermore noted that decisions taken by the Kingdom Council of Ministers are always a done deal, given its composition: there are three Minister Plenipotentiary – representing St. Maarten, Curacao and Aruba – and eighteen ministers representing the Dutch government. The Kingdom Council of Ministers only takes decisions about matters that have been agreed upon beforehand with the Caribbean countries and about disputes. Inequality is a fact, Van der Sluis-Plantz points out.
Both the Caribbean countries and the Netherlands are opportunistic when it comes to a choice between autonomy and intervention based on the guarantee function, she says.
The Caribbean countries complain about infringement on their autonomy when intervention by the Kingdom is necessary. On the other hand, the Netherlands uses autonomy as an excuse for not intervening, even when fundamental rights are at stake.
Koninkrijksrelaties.nu reports how Van der Sluis-Plantz quotes a line from Van Rijn’s handbook: “Cynical voices even claim that the legal standards are so vague that the kingdom can do whatever it wants. There is cynicism in politics on both sides of the ocean and it comes to light in finger pointing, mutual reproaches, often in the media and for the home crowd and the electoral fan base.”
Van der Sluis-Plantz noted that cynicism leads to irritation and labeled it as a characteristic of the Zeitgeist; the political debate is getting more brutal on both sides of the ocean; she even used the term ‘verhuftering’ (according to journalist Steven Petrow this means loosely translated bullying and the disappearance of good manners. “It actually means much worse than that, but that’s what I am saying here,” he said during a TED talk about what it means to be civil).
Van der Sluis-Plantz tip for the way forward was simple: “Talk more with each other and listen more to each other, instead of talking about each other. Only that will lead to a beginning of understanding and a bridge towards trust.”
