Minister versus bankruptcy trustee. Ombudsman versus government. Court of Audit versus government.
Why do these conflicts keep happening, and more importantly, how can Curaçao resolve them?
Disagreement is normal in a democracy. In fact, it is necessary. Ministers are elected to govern, while institutions such as the Ombudsman and the Court of Audit have a responsibility to scrutinize whether government acts properly, transparently and in accordance with the law. A bankruptcy trustee, meanwhile, has a legal responsibility to act in accordance with the duties imposed by law and the interests of the bankruptcy estate.
The problem begins when institutional oversight is perceived as a personal attack, when ego becomes more important than the interests of the country, or when disagreements between institutions are allowed to escalate without resolution.
Curaçao needs fewer institutional battles and more accountability.
That means clear rules defining the responsibilities and authority of every institution. It means transparency when important decisions are made. It means acknowledging and correcting mistakes instead of automatically becoming defensive when shortcomings are identified.
It also requires a Curaçao Parliament that actively exercises its oversight responsibilities and follows up to determine whether problems identified by independent institutions are actually being addressed.
Above all, it requires respect for the law, institutional independence and the public interest.
A strong institution is not one that is never contradicted.
A strong government is not one that is never criticized.
On the contrary, a healthy democracy depends on institutions that are capable of challenging each other while still respecting each other's constitutional and legal responsibilities.
Independent oversight should not automatically be treated as opposition to the government. Likewise, government officials have every right to disagree with the conclusions of an Ombudsman, Court of Audit, trustee or other independent authority. But those disagreements should be addressed with facts, legal arguments and transparency rather than personal confrontation.
Curaçao becomes stronger when every institution performs its duty, when no individual or institution considers itself above the law, and when the interests of the population take precedence over the egos of those in positions of authority.
That leaves Curaçao with a fundamental question:
Do we want to keep winning institutional battles, or do we want to start solving the country's problems?
Curaçao deserves more than continuous conflict between those entrusted with governing and those entrusted with oversight.
It deserves accountability, integrity, respect for institutions and good governance.
Henri Isenia