Analysis: Sinterklaas Came Early This Year

Written by Tito Laclé

The headline of this analysis certainly deserves an explanation. Before you think this is actually news that the “holy man” has arrived in Aruba earlier than expected, creating anticipation that is not warranted, let me explain that it is merely a comparison with our current political situation.

And if that is still not clear enough, let me put it more directly: why should the Prime Minister’s departure halfway through his term, combined with a wave of “gifts,” concern Aruba?

Now that I have clarified that, let me explain before anyone misunderstands me.

Sinterklaas came early to Aruba this year. Not in December, as tradition dictates, but several months ahead of schedule. And what gifts has he brought? A subsidy here, a repair allowance or financial assistance there, an appointment for a loyal supporter, a government contract or consultancy job for a friend.

The timing is not coincidental. At all.

Remember that Prime Minister Mike Eman announced in June that he will leave office on January 1, 2027, handing over the leadership of the AVP after nearly three decades at the helm. In the months since that announcement, the government’s focus appears to have narrowed: less attention to the structural work the island still needs, and more emphasis on visible and immediate benefits that make people feel good today, with less thought about tomorrow. Think of planting trees, handing out financial assistance, painting streets, homes and neighborhoods.

It is worth calling this by its name, because this pattern is neither unique to Aruba nor new. Political science has a term for it: the political business cycle. More specifically, it describes the tendency of politicians to shift spending toward popular benefits, with less regard for long-term consequences, as an election — or, in this case, an early departure — approaches.

In English there is another sharp political term: “lame duck.” A weakened leader who knows he will not be around tomorrow to answer for today’s decisions may have every incentive to spend for the “now.”

Without having to carry the long-term responsibility himself, the politician ends up like the cat put in charge of guarding the fish. Unfortunately, in this case, the “fish” is the people’s money.

WHAT ARE THE “GIFTS”?

I can almost hear the question: what exactly are these “gifts”?

Just look at what is happening.

The Prime Minister is, among other things, pushing to link the minimum wage to the subsistence minimum without an adequate study of the consequences. He wants to earmark existing AZV revenues for a new category of medical care without securing additional income for AZV.

The repair allowance is being increased without examining who may not actually need it, for example people earning substantial amounts in tips. Fuel price increases are being compensated through lower excise taxes, meaning even people driving large and expensive vehicles benefit.

There is talk of another pension increase without a decision that safeguards the social fund for the next ten years. Cleanup campaigns have begun without first resolving the underlying dumping problem.

And there are more “gifts”: financial assistance for families with children with special needs, higher welfare benefits for people with disabilities, construction of an MFA in San Nicolas, appointments that allegedly disregard DRH advice, and not to mention the expensive service contracts in the form of DVOs.

Before anyone attacks me for criticizing all of these “gifts,” do not misunderstand me. I am genuinely happy for everyone who receives something extra. Every one of these measures can be defended with a sympathetic story.

But when you add everything together and look at what is happening with public money, you see the actions of a Prime Minister spending his final months building goodwill and loyalty rather than institutional capacity.

That is my concern.

None of these decisions necessarily point to bad faith. But a leader with only four months left in office should arguably act even more cautiously, particularly by refraining from decisions with long-term consequences for which he himself will never have to answer.

Especially under a government that, as we all know, does not exactly have a habit of rushing to Parliament to account for itself.

Aruba’s tragic reality is that voters rarely demand an accounting from politicians of what a “gift” actually costs, because the real cost is often invisible, arrives much later and is paid by another generation.

WHAT IS NOT HAPPENING

The other half of the story is what a departing Prime Minister is not doing.

The short answer: nothing unpopular.

The problem is that what is not being done does not make the news in the same way that an increase in financial assistance does. While visible “gifts” dominate social media — accompanied by plenty of photographs — a list of structural reforms, necessary legislation and urgent investments remains unfinished or stalled.

• Housing for our own people is becoming unaffordable, while people who do not live in Aruba own two, three or even ten homes, many of them on government leasehold land. Other countries have already addressed this through regulation. Aruba’s lack of rules not only hurts residents directly, but also creates fiscal and social costs: lost revenue, housing pressure and unfair competition with a regulated hotel sector.

• Our deteriorating infrastructure carries hidden costs. Everyone knows our roads are damaged and overcrowded. What receives less attention is how much this costs residents in vehicle repairs, how many productive working hours are lost in traffic, and what the environmental consequences are.

• Pension and social-security reform does not produce ribbon-cutting ceremonies, but the problem is enormous. Aruba’s population is aging, fewer children are being born, and many newcomers enter our labor market at an older age. The pension system, AZV and SVB will not remain solvent indefinitely without reform. The outgoing Prime Minister appears to be leaving this problem to future generations — or at least that is how it looks because little has been said to suggest otherwise. Perhaps after this analysis something will suddenly be announced?

• Corporate governance legislation for state-owned and semi-public entities remains stalled. This is precisely the legal framework that could professionalize personnel appointments, procurement and contracting procedures, and appointments to supervisory boards, while reducing opportunities for misuse of public funds.

Last week I asked Minister Herdé why directors had still not been appointed at DIP and DOW. His response was that simply appointing a director would not solve the problem. Fine. We will see.

The frustrating part is that the list could continue: insufficient attention to enforcement and supervision of existing laws, perhaps because stricter enforcement might also affect political supporters. Fewer votes?

These are not optional acts of generosity that a government performs out of the goodness of its heart. Absolutely not. This is precisely the work governments — or rather, our elected officials — are elected to do.

The reason they can often get away with not doing it is that the consequences are not felt until after those responsible have left office.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ONE PERSON

It would be easy, but incorrect, to write this solely as a story about the character of the outgoing Prime Minister.

It is more accurate to say that, unfortunately, this is the story of many politicians in our country.

Has everyone already forgotten the tax reduction introduced by a caretaker government and the way it arrived almost like another little gift?

Aruba’s next election is scheduled for the end of 2028, assuming the current coalition survives. Under present conditions, there is no reason to believe the pattern will disappear.

A new leader of the largest governing party will eventually enter an election year facing the same temptation: gifts are cheap for the person handing them out and expensive only for whoever has to pay for them later.

Unless citizens change the way they evaluate their leaders, the politics of “gifts” will simply repeat itself.

The characters change, but we remain stuck with the white-bearded man dressed in red handing out presents he did not buy with his own money.

Call it part of our political culture.

HOW TO BREAK THE PATTERN

Simply daring to name the phenomenon is a beginning, but it is not enough.

What would help is putting a price tag and a name next to everything being postponed. Transparency and accountability are the keys.

More than anything else, what would help is an electorate that has learned to ask the leaders it chooses:

What did this gift replace — and who will ultimately pay for it?

I stopped believing in Sinterklaas a long time ago.

And I believe even less in fairy tales.

I have spoken.