NIJMEGEN--There are sufficient opportunities for the countries in the Dutch Kingdom to work together. The Dutch Caribbean countries should not see this as an infringement on their autonomy, said former Prime Minister of the Netherlands Antilles Etienne Ys at Friday’s 2015 Constitutional Law Congress at Radboud University in Nijmegen.
Instead of focusing on a way of cooperating, the countries are wound up in discussions regarding the democratic deficit, instructions issued by the Kingdom Council of Ministers and the format of a Dispute Regulation, said Ys, who was one of the main speakers at the congress. “We get together to discuss disputes. We don’t get together to talk about where we want to go as a Kingdom,” he said.
Ys referred to a statement that Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte had made during his visit to the islands in 2013. “He said, ‘Let’s do business together.’ He suggested making use of the opportunities with the Dutch Caribbean serving as a hub function between Europe and Latin America. That is a unique selling point. Nothing much has happened with that suggestion, but in the meantime we keep talking about the Dispute Regulation,” he said.
In Ys’ opinion, there has been too much discussion on the “rules of the game” and not enough talk about the reason the countries are together in the Kingdom. “What in heaven’s name are we busy with? Why are we together? It is my theory that conflict situations are created because we are not clear about why we are together.” He said the countries, meaning their politicians, should be more in touch (“Pick up the phone and call”) and truly listen to each other.
Ys mentioned that in 1954 when the Kingdom Charter was signed, and again when the Charter was amended in 2010 to facilitate the new constitutional relations, the countries had pledged to assist and support each other. So far, that pledge has not resulted in concrete initiatives of cooperation in areas of, for example, culture, economy and the social domain.
Constitutional law expert Professor Arjen van Rijn, one of the other main speakers, addressed the constitutional/political situation in St. Maarten. He spoke of the fundamental position of the St. Maarten Constitution (“It is the anchor, we have nothing else.”) and the role of the St. Maarten Governor (“He is not allowed to do more than the King”)
According to Van Rijn, Governor Eugene Holiday “went too far” by initially refusing to sign the decree to dissolve the Parliament in October this year and again when he signed the decree to move the elections originally scheduled for February 9, 2016, to September 26, 2016.
Van Rijn said the Governor had positioned himself in the “power struggle” between the Gumbs Cabinet and the Parliament. “He should have stayed out of it. If an intervention like this had happened in the Netherlands involving the King, there would have been a crisis in the monarchy.”
As he stated earlier this week in The Daily Herald, Van Rijn emphasised once more that revoking a national decree to dissolve the Parliament and to call elections was against the Constitution. He was critical of the Governor’s role in this process. He said the Governor had made himself vulnerable and that, like the King, he should stick to his mostly symbolic function.
Van Rijn further mentioned the Dispute Regulation, a regulation that has to be established according to article 12b of the Charter. The Council of State could very well serve as the authority to carry out the Dispute Regulation, as the organisation has all expertise and knowledge of the Kingdom available. He said the Dispute Regulation could be beneficial to “making peace” in the Kingdom.
Constitutional law expert and Member of the Council of State Professor Luc Verheij warned against putting all eggs in one basket where it came to the Dispute Regulation. “Don’t expect the world. Don’t think that all will be solved by putting a dispute to the Dispute Regulation. It will not solve the underlying conflicts,”said Verheij.
Verheij, who emphasised that he was most certainly in favour of a Dispute Regulation, said that even though the call for establishing such a regulation was loud and clear, “The Dispute Regulation is not the core issue. The relations have to change.” He said it would be “quite a task” to normalise the tense relations within the Kingdom.
The situation has not improved since the new constitutional relations went into effect on October 10, 2010, said Verheij. “To the contrary, there is discord and polarisation.” He said this was not the sole effect of the constitutional dismantling, as there were also factors like increased crime, developments within the governments and the bad economic times. “Politics in the Netherlands have changed as well.”
There is also constitutional fragmentation, said Verheij. “The structure for cooperation has ceased to exist. Maintaining the autonomy seems to play a leading role for the countries.” The termination of the additional layer of government, the Country the Netherlands Antilles, has resulted in fewer checks and balances. “The problems are the biggest for the Governors, who are being confronted with politics that are a lot closer to them.”
Friday’s Constitutional Law Conference was attended by about 150 persons from the different Dutch universities, government ministries and other organisations that are affiliated to the Kingdom. The Council of State was present with a sizeable delegation, including Vice-President Piet-Hein Donner.
Asked by this newspaper what his thoughts were about the conference, Donner said it was a good thing to get together and discuss the developments after five years of new constitutional relations. And, even though it was not the task of the constitutional experts to come to solutions, it was important to discuss developments.
Donner said he agreed with Etienne Ys that it was important to listen carefully to each other in the Kingdom. “But, if I may add, at a certain point it is time to stop talking and to start doing things.”
The conference included two sessions of workshops. The themes of these workshops were constitutional review and disputes resolution; representation, cooperation and supervision in autonomy and Kingdom affairs; differentiation or equality, the Caribbean Netherlands in the Dutch legal system.
