Dutch researchers propose less autonomy for the islands in exchange for greater political power

THE HAGUE--Sixteen years after St. Maarten and Curaçao became autonomous countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, two prominent researchers are calling for a fundamental restructuring of Kingdom relations, arguing that the current system places excessive responsibilities on small Caribbean countries while denying their citizens sufficient influence over decisions made in The Hague. Their proposal would see certain government responsibilities transferred to the Kingdom level, but only if accompanied by substantially greater Caribbean political representation and stronger guarantees of equality.

In an opinion article published Monday, October 12, 2026, researchers Oberon Nauta and Wouter Veenendaal argue that the constitutional arrangements governing St. Maarten, Curaçao and Aruba have created a situation in which Caribbean citizens experience unequal access to essential public services while the Netherlands exercises increasing influence without corresponding democratic accountability.

Nauta is a partner at Dutch research and consultancy organization DSP-groep and has conducted extensive research into governance and social issues in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom. Veenendaal is Professor of Kingdom Relations at Leiden University.

Their article, titled "Naar een Koninkrijk zonder tweederangsburgerschap," translated as "Towards a Kingdom Without Second-Class Citizenship," challenges whether the present constitutional structure is capable of guaranteeing comparable standards of education, healthcare, environmental protection and economic security throughout the Kingdom.

The researchers contend that autonomy, while constitutionally important, should not take precedence over the fundamental rights and well-being of citizens.

Small Countries Carrying Responsibilities of Full States

At the center of their argument is the considerable administrative burden placed on St. Maarten, Curaçao and Aruba.

The researchers point out that each country is responsible for administering many of the institutions and services normally associated with a much larger state, despite having relatively small populations, limited labor markets and restricted financial resources.

These responsibilities include education, healthcare, taxation, policing, justice, border control and the operation of important government institutions.

They compare the situation to a medium-sized Dutch municipality being required to operate its own national education and healthcare systems, judicial institutions, tax administration and immigration controls, while simultaneously managing an international airport, migration, natural disasters and environmental challenges.

According to the authors, few would expect a municipality of comparable size in the European Netherlands to successfully manage such an extensive range of responsibilities independently.

They argue that the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles in 2010 further reduced the administrative scale available to the Caribbean countries, leaving them more exposed to shortages of specialized personnel, financial pressures and institutional weaknesses.

While acknowledging that progress has been achieved in some areas since 10-10-10, the researchers maintain that persistent problems in education, healthcare, government capacity and public finances demonstrate the limitations of the present arrangements.

Importantly, they do not attribute these difficulties exclusively to shortcomings in local political leadership. Instead, they argue that the constitutional structure itself has not sufficiently accounted for the practical limitations facing small island governments.

article continues below...

Netherlands Accused of Selective Intervention

A central criticism in the article concerns what the researchers describe as selective intervention by the Netherlands in Caribbean affairs.

They argue that the Dutch government has demonstrated a willingness to intervene when issues concern public finances, integrity, governance and matters potentially affecting Dutch interests or international responsibilities.

Examples include financial supervision, the Integrity Chamber in St. Maarten, the Law Enforcement Council and the reform measures introduced through the Country Packages.

Although these arrangements are intended to strengthen governance, the researchers contend that they have gradually restricted Caribbean autonomy without formally changing the constitutional relationship.

At the same time, they argue, the Kingdom has been far less willing to assume comparable responsibility for persistent problems involving education, healthcare, poverty, environmental damage and waste management.

According to Nauta and Veenendaal, this creates a situation in which Caribbean governments can invoke autonomy to resist Dutch involvement, while the Netherlands can invoke that same autonomy to avoid responsibility for problems affecting Caribbean residents.

They also criticize arrangements in which temporary Dutch assistance establishes or improves public services, only for the long-term costs of staffing, maintenance and operations to fall back on Caribbean governments.

The researchers argue that this approach frequently produces temporary improvements without resolving the underlying problems, eventually creating another need for financial or administrative assistance.

Should Some Government Responsibilities Return to the Kingdom?

Rather than continuing with temporary interventions and additional supervision, Nauta and Veenendaal propose a more fundamental review of how responsibilities are divided within the Kingdom.

They argue that the question should no longer be how small Caribbean countries can continue independently administering every government function with occasional Dutch assistance.

Instead, they believe the countries and the Kingdom should determine which responsibilities can realistically and sustainably remain at the national level and which might be more effectively managed through permanent Kingdom-level arrangements.

Their approach is based on the principle that government responsibilities should generally be exercised as close to citizens as possible, but may need to be handled at a higher level when the smaller jurisdiction lacks the financial resources, expertise or administrative capacity required to deliver essential services effectively.

Under this proposal, certain responsibilities could be transferred to the Kingdom where persistent shortcomings prevent residents from enjoying fundamental rights and adequate public services.

However, the researchers explicitly acknowledge that such decisions cannot simply be imposed by the Netherlands.

They emphasize that the right to self-determination means the people of the Caribbean countries must ultimately decide whether they wish to transfer particular responsibilities to the Kingdom level.

More Kingdom Responsibilities Must Mean More Caribbean Power

Perhaps the most significant element of the proposal is the researchers' insistence that any reduction in national autonomy must be accompanied by a corresponding increase in Caribbean political influence.

They argue that the existing Kingdom institutions are heavily dominated by the Netherlands, with the Caribbean countries having limited representation in the Kingdom Council of Ministers and no full parliamentary representation at the Kingdom level.

The Dutch Parliament exercises oversight over the Kingdom government, but most residents of St. Maarten, Curaçao and Aruba cannot vote in Dutch parliamentary elections.

Consequently, the researchers contend that transferring additional responsibilities to existing Kingdom institutions without changing their democratic structure would simply concentrate more authority in Dutch hands.

They propose strengthening Caribbean representation within the Kingdom government, addressing the absence of full parliamentary representation and establishing an effective mechanism for resolving disputes among the four countries.

Their argument is that greater shared responsibility must be accompanied by greater shared political power.

They acknowledge that the Netherlands would remain the largest and most influential country because of its population and economic size.

However, they contend that genuine equality within the Kingdom requires arrangements that prevent any one country from unilaterally imposing its will on the others and ensure that Caribbean citizens have meaningful influence over decisions affecting their lives.

A Challenge to the Meaning of Autonomy

The proposal raises fundamental questions about the future of St. Maarten's constitutional relationship with the Netherlands.

Since achieving country status on October 10, 2010, St. Maarten has maintained responsibility for most domestic affairs, while certain matters, including defense and foreign relations, fall within the Kingdom's responsibilities.

The researchers' proposal would potentially change that division of responsibilities, depending on which government functions the countries themselves agreed should be handled at the Kingdom level.

However, their argument is not simply that Caribbean countries should surrender more authority to the Netherlands.

Rather, they propose a restructuring in which some national responsibilities could become shared Kingdom responsibilities, provided Caribbean citizens and governments receive substantially greater influence over how those responsibilities are exercised.

This would require consideration of both the constitutional division of government functions and the democratic institutions through which Kingdom decisions are made.

The researchers warn that continuing the current arrangement risks allowing Caribbean autonomy to diminish gradually through Dutch financial conditions, supervision and administrative intervention, without establishing the greater political representation that such changes should require.

They argue that the Kingdom must confront two issues simultaneously: whether small Caribbean countries can sustainably manage all the responsibilities currently assigned to them, and whether the existing Kingdom institutions provide adequate democratic representation for the citizens affected by their decisions.

Their central conclusion is that constitutional arrangements should serve the rights and interests of citizens rather than becoming obstacles to improving their living conditions.

The opinion comes as St. Maarten and Curaçao mark sixteen years of autonomy and questions concerning electoral reform, political stability, government capacity and the future of Kingdom relations remain subjects of debate.

For Nauta and Veenendaal, the way forward involves moving beyond a system in which the Caribbean countries retain formal autonomy while the Netherlands increasingly influences their governance through financial and administrative measures.

They call instead for a Kingdom in which responsibilities are more realistically distributed, Caribbean political participation is strengthened and citizens throughout its four countries have a meaningful voice in the decisions affecting their future.

‍