Dear Editor,
On social media I note many St. Maarteners searching for understanding of the political and administrative shortcomings that are being displayed in the first 12 years of our status as a country. Many are considering conspiracies in which St. Maarten people have very poor views of their fellow countrymen. Moral and mental shortcomings are extensively considered, heavy accusations are levelled and a degree of polarization appears to be developing.
But should one really be surprised that in spite of the institutions that are in existence with significant budgets. comprehensive legislation and many qualified persons there are shortcomings and breakdowns that make the bigger political picture look bleak. Is there really reason for such despondency and breakdown in trust of the fellow citizens that are involved with the failures?
The history of public administration shows that countries with effective and consistent administration usually have long-established civil service establishments where norms are strongly ingrained. Those cadres of civil service in some cases are in existence for hundreds of years. Many colonies that became independent had civil services with many years of experience and consolidation. Consider this about St. Maarten:
1. The size of St. Maarten and the relative isolation it had experienced historically meant that “village norms and relationships” play a large role in the community.
2. The majority of administration and all legislation had taken place in Curaçao prior to country transition.
3. The territory experienced rapid growth in the 20 years preceding transition to country, a period with relatively “wild” economic conditions and a general belief in limited control.
4. During the rapid growth period the territory did not enjoy a commensurate growth in prosecution services and the expectations of being prosecuted in many areas was not high as is indicated by the adventurous schemes that have recently been exposed.
Clearly the chances of public administration and political management instantaneously achieving a high level of stability and productivity in the short term was never high.
It has also become clear that the creation of the comprehensive range of institutions fully equipped with all the physical and legislative attributes for stable government do not function without the participants having taken on the spirit of their design.
This turbulent period will end when effective leadership focusses on where the breakdowns have occurred, corrects them and reduces the political polarization of the country.
In due course the turbulence of the first years of country will have been forgotten, but the inevitability of this turbulence should not be allowed to limit future success.
Robbie Ferron
