Forty years of autonomy, and perhaps the most important question is not whether we can govern ourselves, but whether we have learned how.
In 1986, Aruba achieved Status Aparte. A historic accomplishment, celebrated as an expression of self-determination, national identity and political maturity.
We became responsible for managing our own affairs. We inherited institutions, legislation, public services and the responsibilities that come with being a country.
In other words, we were handed the keys.
And forty years later, we are still arguing about who should be allowed to inspect the vehicle.
The Netherlands insists on financial discipline. Aruba insists on its autonomy. Politicians invoke national pride, sovereignty and the sacrifices of those who fought for our constitutional status.
Meanwhile, the ordinary citizen is entitled to ask a much less ceremonial question.
Is anybody actually managing the country properly?
Governing by Emotion
Aruban politics has often been conducted through the language of loyalty, pride, personalities and political allegiance.
We celebrate announcements before examining their feasibility. We defend institutions because of their history rather than their performance. We introduce policies without always establishing how their results will be measured.
And when someone questions the effectiveness of an institution, the discussion can quickly become one about political loyalty rather than administrative responsibility.
That is not a sustainable management model.
A country cannot be governed indefinitely through good intentions, patriotic speeches and political improvisation.
It requires planning, professional administration, independent supervision and the willingness to correct what is not working.
The Cost of Learning to Govern
Aruba has experienced considerable economic success since 1986. Tourism expanded, investment increased and the island developed into an internationally recognized destination.
Those achievements deserve recognition.
But economic growth does not automatically demonstrate effective public administration.
We have also accumulated substantial public debt, experienced weaknesses in financial reporting and faced persistent questions about the management of public institutions.
Some of these problems are structural. Others reflect policy decisions, external economic shocks or institutional shortcomings.
The question is whether successive governments have addressed their underlying causes or simply passed unresolved problems to their successors.
When an institution repeatedly fails to meet its objectives, at what point do we stop changing its leadership and start questioning its design?
Oversight Is Not an Insult
There is something peculiar about our political relationship with the Netherlands.
We demand the freedom to govern ourselves, yet external financial supervision remains a recurring source of political controversy.
Perhaps the discussion has become unnecessarily emotional.
Oversight does not automatically mean colonial interference. Neither does autonomy mean freedom from scrutiny.
The legitimate debate concerns who exercises oversight, under what authority, according to which standards and with what democratic safeguards.
But there is a deeper contradiction worth examining.
If we are confident in our ability to govern independently, why should transparent financial reporting, measurable performance and independent evaluation be considered threats to that independence?
Surely, these should be among its strongest foundations.
Forty Years Later, What Have We Learned?
Perhaps we have spent too much time defending the constitutional achievement of 1986 and too little time evaluating how we have used it.
We should be asking whether our institutions remain appropriate for an island of our size.
Whether public funds are allocated according to measurable priorities.
Whether government departments have clear mandates.
Whether ineffective structures should be consolidated, redesigned or replaced.
And whether our political culture rewards long-term results as consistently as it rewards short-term announcements.
These questions do not diminish Status Aparte.
They take it seriously.
Because autonomy was never supposed to be a permanent celebration of having obtained responsibility.
It was supposed to be the beginning of exercising it.
The Next Forty Years
Aruba does not need to prove its maturity by rejecting every form of external supervision.
Nor should the Netherlands assume that additional control automatically produces better governance.
What Aruba needs is a serious examination of its institutional architecture, its administrative capabilities and the relationship between political authority and measurable public results.
Perhaps the next chapter of our autonomy should not be about acquiring more powers.
Perhaps it should be about demonstrating what we can accomplish with those we already possess.
We were handed the keys in 1986. Forty years later, it is reasonable to ask whether we have been maintaining the vehicle, or simply repainting it every election.