All Over The Place

In his recent remarks in The Hague, Prime Minister Luc Mercelina said that if the Kingdom is to remain relevant for the next generation, it must become more flexible, more equitable, and more aligned with the realities of Caribbean societies. At the same InterExpo Congress, President of Parliament Sarah Wescot-Williams urged a shift away from a narrow decolonization lens and toward the right to development, capacity building, and institutional strengthening for St. Maarten as a Small Island Developing State.

Both are serious, thoughtful contributions. Both challenge the Kingdom to look in the mirror. Yet when you place them next to each other and then listen to other Members of Parliament speaking about unity and equality in the Kingdom, and then add one motion calling for an independence referendum, a nagging question appears. What do St. Maarten’s leaders actually want, in concrete terms, for the constitutional future of this country.

Wescot-Williams framed the debate around suitability and fairness. Mercelina, in his own way, did something similar, although he started from history and political psychology. So far, you could argue that Parliament’s president and the Prime Minister are circling the same problem from different angles. One speaks of right to development and SIDS-appropriate governance, the other of responsible autonomy and a flexible Kingdom that respects Caribbean realities. So there might actually be space there for a coherent national position.

That is not the message leaving The Hague.

From the Dutch reporting around InterExpo, one clear theme is uncertainty. Is St. Maarten pushing for a fundamentally rebalanced Kingdom in which small islands have real co-decision and tailored rules? Is it preparing the ground, step by step, for eventual independence, although the Prime Minister warns against going that route in isolation? Or is it simply asking for “unity and equality in the Kingdom,” a phrase that sounds good on a panel but says little about the constitutional engineering required to get there. And inside our Parliament itself, the signals are even more mixed.

In politics, divergent opinions are normal. Coalition partners, opposition, they all have their own base and their own ideological compass. The problem here is something else. On the single most important long term question facing St. Maarten, the country is sending a fragmented message to The Hague and to the region. Each leader is speaking a slightly different language and nobody appears mandated to say, “This is the collective position of St. Maarten, based on a democratic process at home.”

To Dutch ears, that probably has a familiar ring; "They are still divided, good! Nothing has really changed." If they cannot agree among themselves on the destination, then the Kingdom can take its time on reform and continue to manage crises on a case by case basis.

It also begs a practical question. On what basis will St. Maarten negotiate with the next Dutch government, which may have its own strong ideas about financial supervision, migration, climate policy, or democratic reforms? If Wescot-Williams argues for a right to development approach, does the government intend to pursue that as a formal proposal? If Mercelina calls for a Kingdom Political Dialogue Platform and a summit to “walk the talk,” with St. Maarten, Aruba, Curaçao and the Netherlands at the table, is Parliament prepared to give him a clear mandate including priorities?

And where does the independence motion sit in that picture? If the path is “responsible autonomy” inside a reformed Kingdom, then leaders owe it to the public to say that in plain language and to explain what steps will be taken in the next four years. If the path is eventual independence, then there must be a serious national conversation about capacity, revenue, debt, regional alliances and timelines.

Meanwhile, ordinary people at home are struggling to see how any of this will change their daily lives, their cost of living, their public services or their sense of dignity inside the Kingdom. So maybe the real question is less about what the Kingdom wants and more about what St. Maarten wants from itself, because right now, if "all over the place" was a country.....finish the sentence.

It might be time for St. Maarten’s political class to do at home what they are calling for abroad. Sit together, define the common ground, and be honest about the differences. Produce a national framework, debated in public, that sets out the minimum goals for any future constitutional negotiation, whether in The Hague or Philipsburg. Agree on the direction, even if there is disagreement about speed.

Until then, the people of St. Maarten might have no choice left than to ask a simple, unsettling question: if our leaders cannot clearly say where we are going, who is really steering the ship.

‍