Analysis: Three former ministers in prison: A problem of individuals or the system?

By Tito Laclé

This morning, Aruba learned that yet another former minister will begin serving a prison sentence for crimes committed while holding public office. With this latest development, if I am not mistaken, three former ministers have now received final convictions that include prison sentences: Paul Croes, Benny Sevinger and now Guilfred Besaril.

And the story is not over yet. Other former ministers still have criminal cases moving through the courts or are awaiting final rulings. Among them are Otmar Oduber, who is awaiting an appeal verdict in September, and Glenbert Croes, whose case also remains pending. There is also the case of former parliamentarian Alan Howell, whose conviction was recently upheld by a higher court. As is fundamental in a state governed by the rule of law, every person has the right to defend themselves and to exhaust all available legal remedies. Until a final judgment is issued, they must be regarded as innocent.

OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE

The larger question, however, is not simply whether one individual is guilty or innocent. The real question is: what does this say about Aruba's system of governance?

Three former ministers ending up in prison within a relatively short period cannot simply be dismissed as a coincidence. It is a warning sign that something in the system is not functioning as it should. Whether the problem lies in candidate selection, political culture, internal controls or oversight, the outcome raises serious questions about the level of trust citizens should be able to place in their leaders.

But the problem goes beyond those who have been convicted. Perhaps the more important question is: why did the system fail to prevent this from happening in the first place?

CONTROL MECHANISMS

A strong democracy should not rely primarily on prosecutors and judges to correct abuses of power years after they occur. It should have mechanisms capable of identifying risks early and stopping irregularities before they become crimes.

That means a Parliament that vigorously exercises its oversight role, effective internal controls within ministries, a professional public administration, and independent institutions that can carry out their duties free from political pressure. When those safeguards fail, the cost to society becomes much higher.

THE RESPONSE OF POLITICAL PARTIES

There is another aspect that cannot be ignored: the reaction of the political parties involved.

If, after a final conviction, there is no clear condemnation of such misconduct, there is little assurance that similar situations will not happen again. In some of these cases, parties continued to support candidates who were facing criminal proceedings, arguing that "the people voted for them."

Legally, every eligible individual may have the right to run for office. Morally and politically, however, the question is whether political parties also have a responsibility to protect the credibility of the institutions they represent.

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY

An important distinction must be made.

Criminal responsibility is not the same as political responsibility. A minister may never be convicted of a criminal offence and yet still bear political responsibility because of poor leadership, inadequate oversight or decisions that undermined good governance.

In many mature democracies, leaders step down not because they have committed a crime, but because they recognize that public trust must be safeguarded.

SETTING AN EXAMPLE

A political leader does more than represent a party; that leader also sets an example.

When a political party signals that a criminal conviction or a serious integrity issue carries no immediate political consequences, the message sent to society is that political accountability is secondary.

This also holds up a mirror to society itself.

Politicians do not emerge out of nowhere; they are elected by voters. If candidates facing serious allegations continue to receive broad public support, it suggests that for part of the electorate other considerations outweigh integrity. For some, loyalty to a political party carries more weight than a candidate's public conduct.

It is an uncomfortable reality, but one that deserves reflection.

Do not misunderstand me. This does not mean that every politician in Aruba is the same. Our island has many honest public servants who perform their duties with dedication and integrity. Precisely for that reason, cases involving corruption and abuse of power cause even greater damage. They affect not only those who are convicted, but also the reputation of countless officials who serve honorably.

THE SOLUTION

The solution is not simple.

Stronger laws alone are insufficient. Greater transparency, independent oversight, protection for whistleblowers, stricter internal controls and a culture of accountability must all become integral parts of our system of governance.

At the same time, we must strengthen the institutions responsible for preventing abuses of power. Irregularities should be detected and corrected before they end up in court. Political parties must also have the courage to demand higher ethical standards from their own candidates and leaders.

Ultimately, however, the most important change lies in the hands of the electorate.

Every vote sends a message. If integrity, honesty and accountability do not become the primary criteria for choosing leaders, meaningful structural change will remain difficult.

The recent convictions should not be viewed solely as victories for the judicial system. They demonstrate that, despite its imperfections, Aruba's rule of law is willing to hold even former government officials accountable. That is a positive sign.

At the same time, these convictions serve as a warning that our preventive mechanisms have not functioned as they should.

The true measure of a democracy is not merely its ability to punish corruption after it occurs, but above all its ability to prevent corruption from happening—or from happening again.

For Aruba, the challenge is no longer simply to punish the past. The challenge is to build a future in which news like today's—another former minister going to prison—becomes the rare exception rather than something people begin to regard as normal.

C'est la vie.