The need for change

It’s supposed to be about you. Aruba’s parliament is supposed to represent you. Our Government is supposed to serve you. And you should have enough influence on how we develop as a country.

In reality, Aruba has developed a traditional political culture in which power and influence is shifted away from the people towards a few political parties. Democratic checks and balances are undermined. Election results are disproportionately skewed in favor of bigger parties because of how remaining seats (restzetels) are allocated. Party interests are placed above public interest. There’s a lack of transparency. Personal attacks and bullying are used to discredit political opponents, often in collaboration with party-friendly media companies. Constitutional rights are not respected. Attention is deviated from what really matters.

Our political system doesn’t look bad on paper, but it doesn’t function properly in real life. In different ways it facilitates the traditional political culture. It’s time we change the system.

Keep in mind that how our democracy, our government and our parliament functions, affects you every day. It’s the system in which all governmental and parliamentary decisions are made. These decisions impact our daily lives. It affects whether citizens have equal opportunities, our wellbeing, wealth distribution, our schooling system, health care, taxes, how your tax money is spent, economic developments and so much more. Fixing our political system has an effect on the entire way you’re being governed. Changing the system isn’t just about politics. It’s all about you.

Below you will find thirteen ideas to change the traditional political system, covering different layers of the system. The goal: a system of government in which your interests are properly represented and effectively served. Without having to depend on favors and who you know.

If you have any questions or feedback, send me a message on WhatsApp +297 5678497

Innovation

CARLOS GUIAMO

Candidate #5 RAIZ

Learn more  about Carlos

INTERVIEWS

THE PLAN

Government

Parliament

Elections

Upholding our Constitution

State-owned enterprises

Government

Active transparency

The System

There’s no democratic system that can function optimally if there’s not enough governmental transparency. In Aruba we have become used to having to ask for government information to get transparency. And even when information is publicly available, you may have to jump through multiple hoops to find it.

The Change

Government information and data should be easily accessible to everyone, in an innovative way. Information on how money is spent, how the government is organized, the granting of permits, policy documents, ministerial trip reports (dienstreisverslagen), and so much more should be at the tip of your fingers. The first steps to realize this have been taken with Publico.aw, and a legal framework is in the works. This project should be developed to its full potential during the next term of government, including all ministries, much more information and more functionality, including artificial intelligence to help you find exactly what you’re looking for.

Be heard

The System

Once you vote, your influence on government policy diminishes a lot. The Government chooses which stakeholders are consulted for specific policy decisions and laws. There is no structural way to engage citizens and give citizens the opportunity to have a say in a matter.

The Change

There are multiple ways of making sure you have more influence in governmental decisions. Think of platforms where citizens can get and ask for all relevant information on a matter, discuss the matter, and advise the Government and members of Parliament. Such platforms generally lead to better informed decisions when compared to referendums. There are different variations of this applied in different countries. Together we can design a method that works best for Aruba.

We should also structurally allow citizens to give feedback on proposed policy decisions and draft laws. The first steps have been taken, just take a look on the consultation page of Publico.aw. With the experience of these consultations, the process can be improved and structuralized during the next term of government.

The compositions of the ministries

The System

Aruban ministries are often composed of affairs that have little to do with each other. Reasons vary from the limited number of ministries compared to the amount of government affairs, to project-based approaches, or even personal preference and expertise of individual ministers. For example, from 2001 up to 2024, Social Affairs has been bundled with ministries of Infrastructure, Education, Economic Affairs and Culture, Youth Policy and Labor, and Justice. Continuously changing ministries and not providing coherency within ministries can lead to inefficient governance in the short term as well as the long term.

The Change

Ministries should be coherent and efficient, without being subjected to continuous change. More structural ministries enable better continuity and eliminates the need for every new minister to hire a completely new staff. Think of 7 or 8 ministries (fewer can lead to a decrease in efficiency which outweighs the decrease in costs). The exact formations will depend on Parliament and coalition negotiations. There is no one single composition that is always necessarily best. However, if we take coherency and efficiency as the starting points, we will achieve a proper division of government affairs over the ministries.

Parliament

Real debates in Parliament

The System

In Aruba, there are no true debates in Parliament. When a minister is in parliament, it usually goes like this: members of parliament get a first round to talk and ask questions. Afterwards, the minister should answer all the questions. Then a second round of questions follows, after which the minister should answer again. A member of Parliament doesn’t get the chance to directly debate the minister 1 on 1 and properly ask follow-up questions, to truly get the information to hold a minister accountable.

The Change

The debating format should be changed to better enable members of Parliament to get the necessary information and properly hold ministers accountable. This can be achieved by allowing 1 on 1, on-topic debates during parliamentary sessions. This way, a member of Parliament can directly ask follow-up and clarifying questions, instead of being limited by two questioning rounds in which a minister can tactfully dodge answering questions.

Active Transparency (Parliament edition)

The System

Who supervises the supervisors? While Parliament should hold the Government accountable, Parliament is rarely held accountable. For instance, how does Parliament spend money? What is the true output of members of Parliament? There are yearly reports which do give some insights. But applying the concept of Active Transparency to Parliament will offer citizens a much better view and understanding of how Parliament functions. There are also many Parliament commission meetings, which take place behind closed doors. Sometimes this can be justified, but it shouldn’t be the norm for commission meetings (commissievergaderingen).

The Change

Parliament’s website should include financial expenditures of Parliament and the party factions. After each parliamentary trip (meetings and conferences in other countries), a report should be published, including what was achieved and how much it cost. To be able to see the work parliamentarians do, the website can show each parliamentarian’s written questions, amendments, motions, voting record, and videos marked by speaker. This way, whether you want to know how you’re being represented in Parliament, or simply want to follow a specific member of parliament’s work, you can.

As for the closed commission sessions: the norm of these sessions being closed to the public should be flipped. Commission sessions shouldn’t be closed to the public by default, but open to the public, excluding justified exceptions.

The President of Parliament

The System

The President of Parliament is crucial to how parliament functions. The President controls which sessions are scheduled and when, and how these sessions proceed. When members of Parliament request sessions with ministers, it is up to the President of Parliament to make sure these sessions take place timely and properly. In practice this is often not the case. Presidents of Parliament have often protected ministers (their party leaders) by delaying and influencing proceedings, thereby getting in the way of other members of Parliament trying to hold ministers accountable. This undermines our parliamentary system of checks and balances.

The Change

RAIZ took the strongest stand in decades against misusing the presidency of Parliament, by not re-electing a sitting President of Parliament, even while being part of the governing coalition. This stand led to the fall of the cabinet. The big traditional coalition-partner showed it rather offer the resignation of the cabinet, than govern without being able to control the presidency of Parliament. This stand has brought light to the importance of ending the traditional practice of having a President of Parliament that serves party-interests before general interest. It is up to all of us to keep the importance of neutrality in how a President of Parliament functions relevant, and in doing so, changing the traditional political culture of Presidents of Parliament protecting ministers instead of allowing Parliament to properly hold ministers accountable. A revision of the Rules of procedure (Reglement van orde voor de Staten van Aruba) should include rules that better guarantee neutrality in how the President of Parliament functions.

Elections

Separate elections

The System

Parliament's main task is to control (‘check’) the Government ministers, in representation of you. In reality, traditional parties have developed a dynamic in which their members of Parliament actually protect and promote the ministers they should be holding accountable. It goes like this: The party-leaders of a party that forms a government become ministers. Because of their number of votes and them not taking seats in Parliament, other political candidates from their party (often with relatively a low vote count ) get to become members of Parliament. Because we only have parliamentary elections, these members of Parliament are often dependent on the ministers to maintain their position within the party and achieve their political aspirations. This creates a conflict of interest. Instead of these members of parliament being the democratic check on ministers, they actually protect and promote their ministers. Not every such member of Parliament succumbs to this conflict of interest, but the way this generally works in traditional parties speaks for itself. Our current electoral system facilitates this practice and maintains the conflict of interest.

The Change

Separate elections: one for Parliament, one for Government, held alternatingly every 2 years. This will make members of Parliament have to hold their own political weight and earn their own political support from the people. Their dependency on the ones they should be holding accountable diminishes, while you get to vote on their performance in the middle of a Governmental term.

For government elections, different voting systems should be considered, for example rated voting. With such a voting system, you get to rank lists or candidates in your order of preference, resulting in election results that better reflect the democratic support, leading to a Government with broad public support.

How your vote is counted

The System

The method of allocating remaining seats (restzetels) favors bigger parties: the bigger the party, the more likely they are to get more remaining seats. This goes as far as having caused 3 out of every 10 votes to be displaced, in the sense of the voting not matching the seat-allocation proportionately. That’s 30% of votes not reflected in the actual election results! It has also lead to multiple fictitious majorities (parties get a majority of seats (11+) while having received less than half of the total votes).

The Change

Legislation with a factually more proportional way of allocating seats has already been drafted and the legal process already initiated by RAIZ.

With your vote and enough support in Parliament, a fair method of allocating seats will get passed and become a reality. This matters a lot, because this is about how your vote, your influence, is counted!

Give our students abroad the right to vote

The System

Every year, hundreds of Aruban students move abroad to continue their studies. Ideally, these students return to Aruba as young professionals and make a positive impact on Aruban society by contributing in different sectors, often with new and fresh perspectives. While we want our students to return, we give them no political influence in how the country we want them to come back to is governed.

The Change

Giving Aruban students abroad the right to vote will empower their voices, while strengthening their connectedness to their home country. There are some important factors to consider. For example: how many students are we talking about, how does that relate to the amount of local voters, and how should we define which Arubans living abroad should have the right to vote. A possible way of addressing these factors is by giving the right to vote only to those living abroad no longer than 6 years. This way, the right to vote for Arubans living abroad can be targeted towards students with a probability of returning home.

Democratic influence shouldn’t be limited to a vote. Aruban students living abroad should also be given the opportunity to be involved in public consultations and other forms of democratic participation. The public consultations on Publico.aw are a first step in realizing this. Public consultations should be further developed and structuralized during the next term of Government.

Campaign financing

The System

Campaign financing is legally regulated in Aruba. With a loophole. Any donation of Afl. 3.000,- or more should be disclosed in a public registry, including the name of the donor. The law states maximum amounts someone can donate to a party and/or candidates each year. These amounts shouldn’t be so high that politicians can get heavily influenced by donors, which can lead to favoritism and more access for people with a lot of money. The maximum amount a single person can donate to a political party each year is Afl. 30.000,-. The maximum amount a single person can donate to an individual candidate is Afl. 20.000,-. And the maximum amount a single person can donate to a party plus individual candidates of that same party, is Afl. 50.000,-. And if a person owns a company or foundation, that company or foundation can also donate those amounts yearly. In big countries where politicians need to reach millions of voters, these amounts may not seem high. But for Aruba they’re pretty high.

But the loophole almost makes these amounts and disclosures irrelevant. The loophole is simple: rifa’s and BBQ’s! Instead of giving a donation, a donor can simply buy thousands in rifa tickets, without it being considered a donation. So forget the maximum amounts and forget the disclosures. Just buy rifa tickets, and get some BBQ while you’re at it. The parties are only required to disclose the total amounts spent and received for a rifa or a BBQ. No details of how much was paid by who.

The Change

To implement effective regulation of campaign financing, the loophole should be closed. One way of doing this is to require money raised by such fundraisers to be registered the same way as donations. Doing so, such payments also count towards the maximum amount, and disclosure is also required when surpassing a certain amount.

Enforcement should also be prioritized. Because having a campaign financing law without enforcing it properly, isn’t much more than political cosmetics.

Transparency in political advertising

The System

Many politicians, ministers and members of parliament pay the media for coverage, airtime, interviews and publications. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Members of the press need to be able to make money to run a sustainable business. But it’s only fair to you as a listener, viewer or reader, to be able to know if it’s paid content you’re listening to. Often enough it’s not clear to you as a consumer if what you’re listening to or reading, is neutral media coverage, or paid for by politicians or with public government or parliamentary funds (that’s your money!).

You should know when media coverage isn’t necessarily based on impartiality, but possibly influenced by getting paid to cover someone. You should also know if a media company is making good money from a particular party, while structurally providing that party with positive coverage or structurally criticizing their opponents. Don’t get me wrong, the press is supposed to be critical and sharp, preferably based on proper research. But if the content is paid for, you should know, so you understand the context and can draw your own conclusion on the credibility of the coverage.

The Change

Political advertisers and those in the media should be required to disclose if content is paid for, and by who. For political advertisers it can be done by way of a public online registry. For media companies, it should be done by disclosure within the content. For example, by mentioning it at the beginning of the broadcast, or by writing it at the beginning of a published article. It shouldn’t take much time and doesn’t get in the way of the content. Other possible conflicts of interest should also be disclosed.

By the way, this can also be applied to that incredibly wonderful restaurant review you didn’t know was paid for by that same restaurant, or that program segment about the supplement you really need to take, paid for by the company that imports and distributes that same supplement.

Upholding Our Constitution

Constitutional Court

The System

Our Constitution is the highest Aruban law and contains fundamental (human) rights. It also contains the legal basis and structure of our country. Aruba has no Constitutional Court to help guarantee that our laws are not in violation of our Constitution – before they can be applied. Neither to ensure that constitutional processes are complied with. Recent developments in Aruba have made the need for ensuring that our Constitution isn’t violated even more relevant.

The Change

With the introduction of a Constitutional Court, the Government and Parliament will surely start paying more attention to the constitutionality of (draft) laws and processes. If necessary, the Constitutional Court will be able to prevent unconstitutional laws from going into force. This provides strong protection against unconstitutional laws, helping to secure your constitutional rights and constitutional processes.

State-owned Enterprises

Implementation of Good Corporate Governance

The System

Aruba has various state-owned enterprises, such as Setar NV, Serlimar, Post Aruba NV and Utilities NV (which owns WEB, Elmar, Refineria di Aruba and AWSS). Ministers have a role in how these entities function, by representing Aruba as the shareholder of the entity, or other specific ways specified by law. For example, ministers can decide over who becomes a board member of a state-owned enterprise, which gets fired or suspended, how (much) dividends are paid to the Government, and how shares are bought or sold. In practice such decisions have often been made unprofessionally, leading to people being named to boards of state-owned enterprises not because of their capabilities, but because of connections, or enterprises being lead by political gain instead of making the best decisions for the enterprise and the country.

The Change

With the introduction of pending legislation for Corporate Governance, a Corporate Governance Authority will be instituted. Ministers will be obligated to report the corporate governance-related decisions they want to make, and receive advice from the Corporate Governance Authority. There will also be more transparency to the public and to Parliament about these pending decisions. Parliament will be able to step in before final decisions are made.

The pending legislation also includes a Corporate Governance Code for state-owned enterprises, as well as foundations receiving government subsidies. The Corporate Governance Code provides for the implementation of good corporate governance practices within these entities. These changes will lead to more efficiently running entities, providing more effective services for Aruban citizens, with more transparency and better use of public funds.

About Carlos Guiamo

Carlos Guiamo is an Aruban politician determined to help change Aruba’s government and parliamentary system, to better represent and serve the people. Carlos has gained experience as a legislative lawyer and as a legal & policy advisor. He’s worked with ministers and members of Parliament, gaining valuable knowledge in how Government and Parliament function. As an advisor, Carlos spearheads the Active Transparency project Publico.aw, is a member of the Implementation Team Corporate Governance, and assists with various laws and projects, including changing how we allocate remaining seats (restzetels) and anchoring children’s rights in Aruba’s Constitution.

With your support, Carlos can work to realize a better democratic system for Aruba, and governance that better represents and serves you.

For more information, check out CarlosGuiamo.com or send a message on WhatsApp +297 5678497