Gestapo
The ease with which politicians use comparisons with the Second World War to characterize the attitude of the Netherlands towards St. Maarten is – to use a Frans Richardson expression – unfortunate.
Yesterday the term Gestapo was used by PM William Marlin and by UP-leader Theo Heyliger who threw in the Nazis for good measure.
The Gestapo was Hitler’s secret state police, but the organization itself was not by a long shot as frightening as the sources it depended on: ordinary Germans who tattled on their neighbors or on anybody they happened to have a beef with. The Gestapo itself was overworked and understaffed, historians have established.
But why bring in such terms in a political debate in the first place? If politicians really understood how the Gestapo did its job between 1933 and 1945, they would know that the comparison is first and foremost a denouncement of their own people.
Apparently, politicians do not trust their own citizens, the people who voted them into office. In Nazi-Germany it was ordinary citizens who fed the Gestapo with information.
If there is such a fear of snitching, what difference would an Integrity Chamber or the arrival of a platoon of Dutch detectives make anyway? People who have a score to settle have already the option to take their complaints to the local police, to the prosecutor’s office, the media and the Ombudsman.
Is there then a fear that things will come to light that politicians prefer to keep hidden? It is tempting to think along those lines. Because on the one hand we hear an increasing number of politicians admit that – yes – St. Maarten has integrity issues (like every other country in the world) and no – they have no problem with the Integrity Chamber. At the same time Nazi-comparisons roll off their tongues like there is no tomorrow.
It does not add up. Take UP faction leader Franklin Meyers who said yesterday with a straight face that his party had no problem with the establishment of the Integrity Chamber. It is true that the UP voted in favor of the legislation in 2015, but Meyers was not happy with it at all.
First he discredited in April 2015 the PricewaterhouseCoopers integrity report, saying that it was biased and accused people who did not get the opportunity to defend themselves. Then he added “that the Dutch want to implement their might, overstepping their boundaries, because they see us as the most corrupt people in the world.”
Then came this famous statement: “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees. I am not going to beg the Dutch; they are not my massa. My massa sits on Mount Zion, not in Amsterdam, Rotterdam or The Hague.”
Lastly, Meyers said clearly: “I am not going to cooperate with this. This legislation sends my people back to colonialism and slavery.”
If that is so, this is exactly what Meyers later did when he voted in favor of the legislation. Before reaching that stage, he bombarded the Parliament with a flurry of amendments to the legislation, but turned out to be no more than a face-saving tactic. When it came to the vote, Meyers suddenly withdrew all these amendments and voted for the legislation as it was put in front of him.
So we see here that politicians attempt to rewrite their own history, increasingly giving lip service to the idea that they have absolutely no problem with integrity investigations whereas in reality, this seems to be a development they watch with utter dread.
It is of course okay – if not necessary – to be critical of whatever the kingdom government comes up with. But in the end, politicians ought to look at what is good for this little country of ours. And the bottom line is that the better the system acts against integrity-violations the better the people are off who live here.
