The discussion surrounding the 15-day trip by the President of Parliament appears to have come to an end. The parliamentary majority has given its approval. The opposition has expressed its concerns. Politically, that chapter is closed.
But in my view, this is precisely where the real discussion should begin.
Because the trip itself is not the biggest issue.
It raises a much deeper question: how well does our democracy function when a political majority is expected to oversee its own government?
That is the debate we should be having.
A democracy does not exist simply because elections are held. It exists because there are institutions that maintain a balance of power. The government governs. Parliament exercises oversight. The judiciary delivers justice. The press informs the public. And independent institutions, such as the General Audit Chamber, monitor the quality of governance.
When one of these pillars begins to weaken, the entire democratic system feels the consequences.
Recent developments surrounding Member of Parliament Javier Silvania have made this very clear. After stepping down as minister, he returned to Parliament. From there, he continued asking critical questions—this time directed at the government formed by his own political party. That led to public reactions from the party leadership and sparked a broader discussion about the role of coalition members in Parliament. The events opened an important debate about the extent to which independent oversight can exist within a governing coalition.
I do not know the exact reasons behind everything that happened. Only those directly involved can answer that.
But the situation has raised an important question:
Is there enough room for dualism within our political culture?
Dualism means that a member of Parliament serves the people who elected them first—not the political party. Even when a party is in government, its members of Parliament should be able to ask difficult questions, scrutinize the government, and disagree with policy without being viewed as disloyal.
Loyalty to a political party has its value.
But loyalty to our democracy should be far greater.
This is not criticism of any particular political party.
It is a principle that should apply to every government.
The same can be said of our oversight institutions. When recommendations made by the General Audit Chamber fail to produce political consequences, people begin to feel that oversight exists only on paper, not in practice. And when that happens, public confidence in our institutions begins to erode.
Our media also face significant challenges. Not because journalists are unwilling to do their job, but because the reality of a small island makes independent journalism difficult. A limited market, commercial dependence, and intense competition do not make investigative reporting easy. This is not meant as criticism. Nevertheless, it is an issue that deserves serious attention.
Meanwhile, our social challenges continue to grow.
Curaçao's population is aging. Many families still live with financial insecurity. Young people continue to seek opportunities abroad. Pressure on public services is increasing. And the recent rise in residential burglaries and thefts of vehicle parts reminds us that economic growth does not automatically mean that everyone is moving forward.
That is why I believe we are discussing the wrong issue.
The real question is not whether one particular trip was justified.
The real question is whether our institutions are strong enough and sufficiently independent to function properly, regardless of who happens to be in power.
I believe that is where Curaçao's greatest challenge truly lies.
It is not a lack of talent.
Nor is it a lack of ambition.
The challenge is to strengthen the rules and institutions upon which a mature democracy depends.
Transparency should never depend on goodwill.
Accountability should never be a political option.
And expressing a different opinion should never place the political future of any elected representative at risk.
Strong countries are not distinguished by having perfect politicians.
They distinguish themselves by building institutions so robust that even ordinary politicians are compelled to deliver good governance.
I believe that is the discussion Curaçao truly needs to have.
Orlando Meulens
Columnist