Dear Editor,

Long before the southern or Dutch part of St. Martin obtained an adjusted autonomous status as a territory of the Netherlands kingdom on October 10, 2010 (nicknamed “10-10-10”), politicians and others, both on the island and beyond, have used language that is inaccurate and often misleading to mask their own fears and shortcomings and create an obviously confusing narrative.

We cannot ascribe this to ignorance. To the contrary, I think many of them have a pretty good grasp of what the reality is but are not honest enough to admit it publicly and let the population know that the system was not designed to favor them, nor does it work for them.

The thinking is, were the people to really realize this, they would most probably opt to change the system.

It is against this background that I have randomly selected a few words and phrases that, as the school children would say, are “trending” in the political space, especially in the aftermath of a parliamentary election that has no absolute winners nor losers.

The idea is to show how these words are often (deliberately) misused, leading to a confusion and sometimes totally erroneous interpretation of the concepts they are meant to convey. Here we go:

‘Citizens’

There are no “citizens” of St. Martin!

When you fill immigration forms when you travel abroad you never write that you’re a “citizen” or national of St. Maarten but of The Netherlands. That is why you carry a passport showing your nationality to be Dutch.

By definition, a citizen is a “person who, by place of birth, nationality of one or both parents, or naturalization, is granted full rights and responsibilities as a member of a nation or political community.”

St. Martin is not a nation in the strictly political sense of the word. Citizenship is also defined as “the relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and in turn is entitled to its protection. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities.”

(www.law.cornell.edu)

Citizenship is therefore the political status of an individual. St. Martin is a colony and not a state.

‘Country St. Maarten’

However you spell it, the southern part of St. Martin is not a country. It is an “autonomous” territory within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which itself is a country. Obviously, you cannot have a “country” within a country.

So, it is very wrong to call St. Martin a “country” or to use the current phraseology favored by some officials and so-called political analysts or experts, “a sovereign constituent country within the kingdom”! Talk of confusion!

But this confusion is, I repeat, not a question of ignorance; it is a deliberate attempt to make the people think they do not need to seek political independence. The theory is, when the people are confused, they stay put; they reject change.

‘Our democracy’

St. Martin is not a “democracy.” Again, it is a colony, and you cannot by definition have democracy in a colony. It is antithetical. Consequently, it is fundamentally wrong and misleading to talk of “our democracy.”

The fact that periodic elections are held does not qualify a territory or country to be called a democracy.

Elections which are carried out through a democratic process, i.e. conducted in an open, free, and fair manner with the participation of the people who have an inalienable right to vote, are necessary, and may even be a prerequisite for any democracy, but holding periodic elections is not sufficient to be considered a democracy.

In a democracy, the Trías Politica i.e., the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government must be well established and well rooted.

Russia holds periodic elections. The 450 members of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of Russia are elected every five years. Yet, is Russia a democracy?

So, instead of saying “our democracy,” we should more properly and correctly say, “our electoral system/process” or “our constitutional system/status.”

We – particularly those who believe in the independence of the island – need to constantly challenge anyone referring to St. Martin as a “democracy” until we change that erroneous narrative.

The path to independence requires that we make it clear that true democracy does not allow another authority to be imposed above the will of the people. It does not accept a CFT – the Board of Financial Supervision Curaçao and St. Maarten – to overrule, supersede or dictate decisions taken or to be taken by the representatives chosen by the people.

Similarly, it does not accept “higher supervision” by any authority not chosen by the people of St. Martin.

‘Political parties’

The “constitution” of the southern part of St. Martin does not recognize political “parties.” There are therefore no political “parties” in the territory.

There are political lists that are assigned a number, and a color on the ballot paper under a name they choose.

The electorate chooses 15 independent members of parliament to a term of four years. They do not vote to elect political “parties” to represent them but individuals who are required to vote their conscience.

Similarly, they do not vote to elect the executive (government; “ministers”). They vote for 15 individual members to represent them in parliament. That is why the whole territory is the constituency of each individual candidate.

‘Postulate’/’Postulation Day’

We use this word incorrectly where it concerns individuals being placed on a political list to contest an election.

It could be because it sounds like a false cognate, a word that seems similar and may even have the same spelling in one language but that has a different meaning in another language.

“Postulate” in English usually means to advance a theory whose truth still needs to be tested. It is only in ecclesiastical law that the word means to nominate or elect someone to ecclesiastical office, like for example, a bishop.

Our elections have nothing to do with ecclesiastical laws. Therefore, rather than a candidate “postulating themselves” as candidates on political lists, the correct word to use is “nominate.” This is a transitive verb which requires an object. In other words, ordinarily, you cannot nominate yourself. But even that is more acceptable usage than to “postulate oneself.”

The day on which the lists of candidates are officially submitted should therefore be called correctly “Nomination Day” and not “Postulation Day.”

‘Minister Plenipotentiary’

The Minister Plenipotentiary in The Hague is not a minister. The “Constitution” of St. Martin provides for only seven ministers who head seven ministries.

The Minister Plenipotentiary falls under the Prime Minister and Minister of General Affairs and reports directly to him or her.

The Minister Plenipotentiary title may sound misleading, but it apparently derives from diplomatic nomenclature. It is similar in function to the office of the Dutch Representative in Philipsburg, St. Martin.

Fabian A. Badejo

Fabian A. Badejo is a culture critic, author, and senior St. Martin journalist.

Dear Editor,

That Latin aphorism, “Vox populi, vox Dei” simply means “the voice of the people (is) the voice of God.” In our own parlance in St. Martin, we would say, “the people have spoken.”

But what did the people really say with the results of the last parliamentary elections held in the southern part of our island on January 11, 2024? Here are 12 points that stood out for me:

1. Six out of the eight lists got seats in the new Parliament? That’s 75% of the contesting lists.

2. Every government requires at least a simple majority support in parliament. That’s a minimum of eight seats. The so-called “2 x 4” agreement signed between the four lists with two seats each gives the projected incoming government exactly that.

3. We must also note that the outgoing coalition government similarly consisted of four factions – NA (4), UP (2), Brownbill, and Arrindell – with a total of eight seats. This coalition lasted over a year and half, providing the “stability” that became the buzzword during the election campaign.

Yet, we have seen in the recent past, coalitions boasting the support of 10 seats in parliament crumble like crackers in less time. This goes to show that “stability” does not depend on numbers alone but on the Members of Parliament (MPs) supporting the government.

4. The electorate was asked to choose 15 members of parliament out of a field of 130 candidates and they did just that. The system does not allow them to choose a (coalition) government. That is left to the MPs they elect to figure out.

All the different interpretations of the election results that claim that the electorate wanted this or that coalition government in or out of office can be considered subjective because that is not what the voters were asked to do when they went to the polls.

5. Each voter had to choose one out of 130 candidates who were not significantly different from one another in ideas. That’s a daunting choice to make. So, they returned nine out of the 15 who were seeking reelection. This means 60% of the outgoing parliament will be returning.

6. This could, in fact, be interpreted as saying the electorate was satisfied with the work of the majority of the MPs. However, such an interpretation would not be based on objective facts. But elections are not a scientific examination.

7. The issue of “mandate” is one that is sometimes misunderstood. “In representative democracies, a mandate is a perceived legitimacy to rule through popular support. Mandates are conveyed through elections, in which voters choose political parties and candidates based on their own policy preferences.” (Wikipedia)

In the case of St. Martin, we are not a representative democracy and we do NOT vote for political parties per se, but INDIVIDUAL candidates. As a matter of fact, the “Constitution” of the territory does not recognize political parties. But that’s a different discussion.

What is important to know here is that whatever combination of MPs that results in a coalition government with the backing of at least eight (a majority) seats in parliament can be said to have a legitimate “mandate.”

8. The electorate “punished” the “party hijackers,” that is, those candidates who took over political groups and sidelined the founders of those organizations.

9. The electorate also made it clear that posters and other campaign paraphernalia don’t necessarily win elections.

The fact that many voters went out to vote without sporting their candidates’ T-shirts and, for example, with hardly any bumper stickers visible, also indicates that they were not interested in overtly demonstrating their political allegiances as has been customary until now.

10. Some major political leaders were out-polled by candidates on their own lists. But while “leadership” is generally decided at the “party” congress, performance at the polls is often considered a deciding factor for leadership. Obviously, intra-“party” rivalry for votes has become, in many cases, stronger than competing lists.

11. The turnout at the parliamentary elections of January 11, 2024, was 66% of the electorate. That’s a healthy turnout by any metric. It falls within the general norm for elections on both halves of the island.

12. However, it also means that 34% of the electorate did not come out to vote! That’s one-third of the eligible voters or one in every three! What does that say about the elections, the electoral process, and the candidates?

Fabian A. Badejo

Fabian A. Badejo is a culture critic, author, and senior St. Martin journalist.

Greetings from Canada to the citizens, residents and people of the Friendly Island.

I have been meaning to write for some time with a suggestion to improve the beach experience in St. Maarten for both locals and tourists alike. I hope that my comments will be taken in the spirit of suggestion for the mutual benefit and enjoyment for all.

My wife and I have been coming annually to St. Maarten for over 35 years. We have made many good friends there and always look forward to returning to our favourite island in the sun. We had a time-share at Towers at Mullet Bay for many years, until Hurricane Luis combined with some questionable dealings to deprive us of this. What a shame. A loss to the timeshare owners of course, but also to the island community who are deprived of another important source of revenue. It breaks our hearts to see the building standing derelict and apparently soon to become a blight on the island like the rest of the Mullet Bay properties.

Nevertheless, that is not the reason that I am writing today. Instead, I wish to make a positive suggestion for improvement that could be made for maximum effect and at little cost. It would improve the island for all, both tourists and residents alike. I speak of coconut palm trees on the beaches, and their now-almost-complete loss from the beach experience.

When we first came to SXM we loved the swaying and scenic coconut trees that lined the beaches. They were everywhere and gave the beaches that perfect and idyllic Caribbean vibe. Look at any painted pictures by local artists, or any photographs from years gone by, and you see the beautiful effect they provided. Alas, they are no more, and I must say that the beaches look much worse for their loss.

I will point out Mullet Bay specifically for a good example, since this beach is so popular with both tourists, who come from around the world specifically for this magical experience, but also for the local people who come throughout the week, but most wonderfully, on family day. It is so much fun to see the families and the children playing with enthusiastic abandon, as children do everywhere.

I wonder if they even notice, or realize, that the beach does not have the same beautiful and mystical quality as it once had, when the coconut palms gave it that special touch? Does anyone even notice that that they are all dead and decaying now, and that the beach is so much poorer for it? What was once a magnificent venue is, at best, just another nice beach. At worst, if you compare it to similar beaches on other islands, it has become a bit of an eyesore. The tourists are certainly noticing.

What a pity, and yet, something so easy to rectify. Plant young trees! I am sure that the cost would be minimal when compared to the costs of more detailed man-made infrastructure that is designed to attract tourists. The return on this small effort would be stunning and would help to return St. Maarten to its former glory and most desired destination for tourists who, let’s not forget, can go anywhere to get the best vacation experience.

We hope that this letter will raise some awareness and come to the attention of the proper local improvement authorities who could so easily and cheaply restore all of the beaches to their former beauty with just a few simple plantings, while supporting local jobs and businesses to boot!

In just a few short years these swaying palms would rise to their former glory, needing no future costly maintenance, while helping to restore and maintain the tourist trade, and to make St. Maarten the paradise that it always was for the most important people of all, those who live there and are who are most entitled to enjoy and take pride in the island's maximum beauty and idyllic character.

We close those comments by offering our most sincere intentions, and best wishes to all.

Submitted with respect, and in eager anticipation of our future return.

Clare and Beverly Brunetta

Fort Frances, Ontario, Canada

Dear Editor,

NA got the most seats, NA should be the party to try form the next government. But no parties want to work with NA, so now UP is next in line with the most seats to try form the next government.

Let's wait and see if the four small parties will succeed forming the next government.

Orlando might still have a chance to be USP’s next leader for the next election.

Okay, let’s wait to see.

Cuthbert Bannis