Dear Editor,
The proposed law “Wet herstelvoorziening St. Eustatius” is designed with the idea that this step, once approved, initiates the actions needed that would result in the restoration of the democratic processes on St. Eustatius. This step can further be seen as the second phase of what is projected to be a plan to create a renewed and sustainable governing structure on St. Eustatius. The State Secretary has based his actions with regard to St. Eustatius on the Report of the “Committee of Wise Men”. These actions seem to be divided into 3 phases.
Phase 1: Intervention (2018-2020)
Phase 2: Transition from intervention to government process as defined in WOLBES (2020-2024)
Phase 3: Restoration of governing process in accordance to WOLBES , FINBES and other regulation that govern the 3 BES Islands. (2024 and beyond)
In order to comment on the draft law is it important to view this particular phase as a part of the totality of actions as laid out by the State Secretary. The report of the “Committee of Wise Men” provided credible arguments supporting the need for a form of intervention that would address the disregard for law and order and general dysfunction of the local Island Government.
The report also expressed the need to address the failure within the existing supervisory structures (island governor, kingdom representative , CFT, minister) which contributed to the deterioration of the rule of law of and breakdown in relations between the Island and Federal Governments.
The Phase 2 as laid out by the state secretary focusses on the strengthening of Island Government and supporting structures necessary to create an environment that would result in sustainable government in the future. Less attention has been placed on the strengthening/improvement of the supervisory structures which play an equally important role in the creation of a sustainable governing structure.
The first step of the intervention plan included the removal of Island and Executive Councils and Island Governor. These were replaced by the function of Government Commissioners whose task was the restoration of supporting government apparatus and improvement of Island Infrastructure that should have created the conditions needed for subsequent phases.
In addition, the State Secretary proposed the postponement of elections in order to allow the Commissioners to execute their task outside of a politically charged environment. Recognizing the need for community involvement, an advisory council was installed in order to provide the Commissioner with feedback with regard to actions planned and executed.
The sudden removal of Island and Executive Councils while immediately ending the chaos on local level created an environment of exclusion and lack of information. Without the checks and balances provided via the division of authority (trias politica) between legislative and executive branches of government and the void in public dialog of the Island Council the community of St. Eustatius was excluded from the process of restructuring their government.
The participation of the public via the democratic process is imperative to creating a sustainable governing structure. The experience of phase 1 has shown that the use of town hall meetings and the creation of the advisory council does not adequately provide information to, nor ownership of, the processes within the community that are necessary for long term success. Within a democratic society it is important to realize that sustainable solutions can only be found via the strengthening of the democratic process, checks and balances, and the ownership that this creates.
Phase 2. The proposed law “Wet herstelvoorziening St. Eustatius” which is designed to transition from phase one into phase 2 for all practical purposes will likely be experienced simply as an extension of phase 1.
The creation of an Island Council without the authority to influence the affairs of the Island significantly undermines the credibility of such an Institution and the “democratic” process designed to create it. While it seems logical that a transition is needed in order to gradually transfer authority from the current governing structure to the structure as defined in 10-10-10, the currently proposed legislation proceeds to once again place complete executive and legislative authority on the same body (government commissioner), in fact simply resulting in an extension of phase 1.
In reading the draft legislation it appears that the state secretary is of the opinion that insufficient progress has been made to commence phase 2, which should be the restoration of authority. By drafting legislation which in practice undercuts the idea of transfer of authority there is a further risk of undermining the democratic election process which will likely be viewed by the public as symbolic resulting in lack of participation on all levels.
In order to move toward with the creation of a sustainable governing structure it is important to clearly identify the benchmarks necessary to move from one stage to the next. If the benchmarks are not achieved the extension of the phase is in order. This creates a structured approach establishing what milestones are required and the recognition of the accomplishment by the progression to the next phase.
Adoption of the law in its current form creates uncertainty with regard to the transition, raising questions such as, when will the Executive Council be appointed? When will the Island Council regain its authority? And most importantly, what are the conditions under which these dates will be established?
In conclusion, the current draft legislation does not accomplish the purpose for which it should have been intended, namely the transitioning from phase 1 into phase 2. It can be argued that in order to move forward toward a sustainable governing structure the steps from one phase to the next should be significant in impact, both seen and felt.
Assuming that there is a general consensus, which can be concluded based on the draft law, that insufficient progress has been achieved in the past 2 years to commence phase two, then it is advised that phase 1 be extended.
If it is assumed that sufficient progress has been made or other circumstance dictate that the time for phase 2 is now, then it is recommenced to reinstate both Executive and Island Councils while maintaining the Government Commissioners with Supervisory and VETO authority. This allows for the Government and supporting apparatus to enter the new phase while maintaining far reaching Supervisory Authority.
In addition, this further allows the community to recognize their involvement via their elected officials while being provided with the assurance of supervision. Such a step allows the Island and Executive Councils to resume their responsibilities under guidance and supervision and enables the supporting government apparatus to resume functioning, taking into account the roles of Island and Executive Councils. This is a necessary step in order to move to phase 3 in which restoration of authority outlined within the WOLBES can be achieved.
Referring to the report of the Committee of Wise Men regarding the strengthening of the supervisory authorities as defined in WOLBES, FINBES by introducing a phase 2 which allows for the re-instatement of Island and Executive Councils under enhanced supervision, attention can be placed on the step needed to strengthen the supervisory authority of, for example, Island Governor, Kingdom Representative, CFT, Minister BZK, as it relates to the supervisory roles in relation to the Island Governments.
I am of the opinion that the main goal of the intervention is restoration of the democratic processes and government of St. Eustatius in line with existing laws and legislation; however, I believe this should be accomplished through responsible, inclusive and transparent processes.
Central to any sustainable solution must be the recognition and involvement of the people of St. Eustatius. With the failure to recognize the importance of the democratic ownership of the people of St. Eustatius in this process, we run the risk of making the time, effort and finances spent an exercise in futility.
Gerald Berkel
