Wescot-Williams: Time to review whether St. Maarten’s governance model still fits

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘔𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘷𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘚𝘭𝘶𝘪𝘫𝘴-𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘻 𝘢𝘵 𝘐𝘗𝘒𝘖.

GREAT BAY--Chairlady of Parliament MP Sarah Wescot-Williams says that 16 years after St. Maarten attained country status on 10-10-10, the country must be mature enough to review whether the governance model it inherited and built still fits its reality.

Responding to questions from The People’s Tribune following remarks by Maria van der Sluijs-Plantz at IPKO, Wescot-Williams said there is merit in examining whether all institutions established after constitutional reform remain fit for purpose, but cautioned that “many of these bodies form the bedrock of our democratic system” and should not be questioned lightly. She said she would support a comprehensive 15-year evaluation of the institutions, councils and governance mechanisms established after 10-10-10, with the aim of measuring effectiveness, cost, staffing requirements and public value.

1. Maria van der Sluijs-Plantz stated at IPKO that St. Maarten has too many institutions for the size of the country and too little capacity to properly staff and operate them. Do you agree, and if so, which institutions should be reviewed?

I believe there is merit in examining whether all of the institutions established after constitutional reform remain fit for purpose sixteen years later. From the outset, many of our laws and governance structures were largely inherited from the former Netherlands Antilles and, in some cases, directly inspired by Dutch models. This includes aspects of our Constitution, electoral legislation, parliamentary procedures, and the system of advisory and high councils.

Those structures brought with them important responsibilities, but also recurring costs and staffing demands. In hindsight, not all of these were sufficiently tested against the realities of a small island state with limited financial and human resources.

That said, I would be very careful about making broad statements that suggest institutions should simply be eliminated. Many of these bodies form the bedrock of our democratic system and serve as important checks and balances. Their existence should not be questioned lightly.

What I do support is a serious evaluation based on evidence and performance. After more than fifteen years, we should be asking what value each institution has added, whether its mandate remains relevant, whether it is adequately utilized, and whether there are opportunities for greater efficiency.

In that context, institutions such as the Electoral Council and the Main Voting Bureau could be reviewed to determine whether responsibilities can be streamlined while preserving electoral integrity.

The objective should not be to weaken democracy, but to ensure that our institutions are proportionate, effective, and sustainable.

That review could examine:

• Governance structure.

• Institutional architecture.

• Fiscal sustainability.

• Healthcare financing.

• Capacity constraints.

• Kingdom-country division of responsibilities.

• Economic development model.

2. Should Parliament now open a formal discussion on whether St. Maarten’s current constitutional and governance structure still fits the country’s reality?

Yes. In fact, I believe such a national discussion is overdue.

This year marks sixteen years since St. Maarten attained country status. That is a reasonable point at which to conduct a comprehensive review of how the system has functioned in practice. Such a review should not be viewed as an attack on country status or autonomy. Rather, it should be seen as responsive governance.

The question is whether the governance model adopted in 2010 adequately reflects the realities of a small island developing state with limited fiscal space, persistent capacity challenges, and increasing demands on public services.

Ultimately, St. Maarten needs a new blueprint for the next phase of its development. That blueprint should address three fundamental questions: What development path do we want to pursue? What financial model can sustainably support it? And what governance structure best serves that reality?

Some people become uncomfortable when these discussions are raised, but this is not an overnight exercise. It is a long-term strategic review that every mature democracy should periodically undertake.

3. What concrete steps will you support in Parliament to reduce the burden on government while strengthening capacity where it is truly needed?

First, I would support a comprehensive fifteen-year evaluation of the institutions, councils, and governance mechanisms established after 10-10-10. That review should be evidence-based and should measure effectiveness, cost, staffing requirements, and public value.

Second, I would support identifying opportunities to consolidate functions, eliminate duplication, and modernize administrative processes where this can be done without compromising democratic oversight or accountability.

Third, I believe we must focus on strengthening capacity in the areas that directly affect citizens and economic development. Our limited resources should be concentrated where they produce the greatest public benefit.

Fourth, I would support a broader review of the country’s financial model, including the sustainability of major expenditure areas such as healthcare and other long-term obligations.

The reality is that there has been little growth in the country’s budget, while implementation backlogs continue to grow. Capacity constraints remain significant, and government often lacks the resources to outsource specialized work when necessary. These are challenges that many small island developing states face.

The real challenge is not recognizing the problem. The challenge is building the political consensus to address it while ensuring that government continues to function effectively. That requires leadership, commitment, and a willingness to have honest conversations about what is sustainable for St. Maarten going forward.

That conversation can be initiated in parliament, but it requires a national dialogue and consensus. And finally I believe an advantage today in facing these huge challenges is the availability of new technologies such as artificial intelligence. AI can help governments analyze data, identify inefficiencies, and support policies.  AI is not a substitute for sound judgment, but if used responsibly, it can help St. Maarten address some of its capacity constraints and make better-informed decisions for the future.

‍