Why don’t we have a national anthem 15 years after 10-10-10?

A national anthem is a serious, even solemn national symbol which serves to identify a (sovereign) nation.  It is typically considered fundamental and necessary for the following reasons:

1. Unifying Factor: It serves as a single song and rallying cry that unites diverse people under a common banner, fostering a sense of shared community and loyalty.  

2. Expression of Identity: Like a flag or a coat of arms, it is a primary symbol of national identity, culture, and sovereignty.  

3. Emotional Connection: The music and lyrics evoke powerful emotions of patriotism, pride, and sometimes remembrance of national struggles (like wars or independence struggles).  

4. Inspiration: A national anthem inspires people to perform at their utmost possible best, especially in international sporting competitions or even on the battlefield, representing or defending their countries.

5. International Recognition: A national anthem is also an established diplomatic and international marker. When a country's anthem is played abroad, it confirms the country's existence and standing on the world stage.

6. Solemnity: It lends importance, credence, and solemnity to official ceremonies and public occasions.  

We heard speeches aplenty from our political leaders during the recent celebration of “Constitution” Day, an official public holiday on St. Martin (South) to mark the 15th anniversary of the attainment of the constitutional status of “an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.” Ironically, a basic requirement of that same “Constitution” has not been fulfilled in 15 years.

I am referring to the very first article of the so-called “Constitution”  which states in 1.3:

“By national ordinance the national flag, the coat of arms and the national anthem of Sint Maarten shall be enacted.”

This means that a national anthem has to be established by law. We have a national flag. We have a coat of arms. Both were established by law. But why don’t we have a national anthem enacted in the same way by law? Why have we permitted this situation to fester like a sore for 15 years after our change of constitutional status?

The answer(s) may sound complicated but can be reduced to a colossal failure on the part of successive governments and parliament to act in good faith and in accordance with the provisions of the “Constitution.”

But it isn’t that they didn’t try. Prior to 10-10-10, the Executive Council had launched a spirited effort to adopt Father Gerard Kemps’ song, “O Sweet Saint Martin’s Land as the national anthem. The song, written in 1958, has been used basically as an unofficial anthem. It was admittedly also very popular with the people on both sides of the island. However, there was a legal obstacle: it was copyrighted. So, the island government had to obtain permission from the estate of Father Kemps before it could officially declare his song as our national anthem.

A delegation was dispatched to the Netherlands to negotiate with the surviving siblings of Father Kemps but the delegation did not succeed in its mission. What exactly happened? The people of St. Martin have not been informed about the outcome of those negotiations up to this day. The delegation returned home and “O Sweet Saint Martin’s Land continued to be used as the de facto national anthem of the island territory.

Not only is it constantly used at official functions but it is also taught to our children at school as our national anthem. Could this be out of benign ignorance or a deliberate and deceitful disregard for the Constitution? As a matter of fact, could this practice be considered unconstitutional, given that Parliament has not yet passed the requisite national ordinance to establish a national anthem?

In my view, it can indeed be argued that the continued use of an unofficial song in official settings, while the Parliament neglects its constitutional duty to pass the law, constitutes not only a dereliction of duty but also a violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

It means that every time the song is played at an official event attended by government officials, they are participating in an act that is not supported by the governing law. In other words, each time Father Kemps’ song is played in the presence of government officials and other public office holders, and it is accorded the respect and dignity associated with a national anthem, (by standing at attention and removing hats) all those officials are engaged in an act that has no constitutional basis. Why do they persist in doing so?

As all of them are honorable men and women, my theory is this. The inability to secure copyright permission from the estate of Father Kemps is perhaps the primary and most important reason why the Parliament of Sint Maarten has not passed the required legislation (National Ordinance) to officially adopt "O Sweet Saint Martin's Land." The normal duration of a copyright is 70 years after the death of the author. Since Fr. Kemps died in 1990, this means the song will likely remain under copyright until 2060. Thereafter, government may be free to use it. But do we really have to wait another 35 years for an official anthem?

Former Governor drs. Eugene Holiday doesn’t think so. In fact, at the recent Governor’s Forum, he proposed that we establish a national anthem via a referendum.  It’s an unusual route to take and one that is not backed by any historical precedent.  And although the idea is in itself a tacit acknowledgment of the fact that we have no official anthem, it contrasts sharply with the former Governor’s endorsement and use of Father Kemps’ “O Sweet St. Maarten Land,” which he constantly called “our national anthem,” including at ceremonies at which he administered the oath to newly naturalized Dutch citizens.

How practical is his proposal? I don’t know, however, if we have not been able to get Parliament to convene a constitutional referendum on independence in almost a decade, I think it is highly unlikely that we would get a referendum on a national anthem any time soon.

It is relevant at this point to recall that following the referendum of 1994,  the political leadership of the Netherlands Antilles at the time organized a competition, won by a St. Maartener, to choose a national anthem for a so-called “restructured” Netherlands Antilles. That anthem, unfortunately, did not fulfill its goal of unifying the people of the five-island constellation.

Coming back home, Dr. Rhoda Arrindell, when she became Minister of Education, Culture, Youth and Sports, attempted to organize a similar competition to select a national anthem for St. Martin (South). However, out of fear of a public backlash, her efforts were derailed before they could even get off the ground. She was literally thrown under the bus by her very own coalition partners. That was about a dozen years ago. It was the last time any serious attempt was made to comply with the provision of the “Constitution” with regard to the national anthem.

Nevertheless, no matter how we twist and turn it, organizing a new, nationwide competition seems the easiest, fastest, and least legally confrontational path to solving the National Anthem impasse. And it has multiple advantages.

1. Legal Certainty: The winner of such a competition would sign over the full rights (or create the song as a "work for hire"), guaranteeing the government a clean, free-and-clear copyright, solving the Fr. Kemps legal barrier entirely.

2. Complies with the Law: It directly meets the constitutional requirement of establishing a National Anthem by National Ordinance without legal confrontation over the possible expropriation of a copyrighted song.

3. Promotes Nation-Building: It would be a powerful exercise in nation-building, allowing the current generation of Sint Maarteners to actively participate in defining their national identity post-10-10-10, rather than simply adopting a song from the past.

Besides, I should point out that the national flag was also the result of a competition won by a young St. Martiner. There was no referendum to establish it, neither was there any referendum to use Father Kemps’ song in official settings, including the opening of Parliament and other public events.

If, as has been obvious for at least a generation now that Father Kemps’ song cannot be legally adopted as our national anthem, why not tell the people so and let’s move on from there?

‍