Analysis: Government put its bag of gifts in the Governor’s hands

Written by Tito Laclé

In my previous analysis, “Sinterklaas arrived early this year,” I used the comparison with Sinterklaas to describe a government that, in the middle of a delicate political period, began handing out a series of “gifts” in the form of subsidies, allowances, increases and other benefits that citizens naturally appreciate, but which at the same time raise questions about timing, sustainability and political motivation.

Yesterday, Tuesday, during the opening of the 2026-2027 Parliamentary Year, the Government itself confirmed a large part of that list of “gifts.” Only this time, they were not presented by a minister or a political party. They came from the mouth of Governor of Aruba Alfonso Boekhoudt.

And that is exactly where things become interesting.

The speech the Governor reads at the opening of Parliament is not his personal speech. No. It is an exposition of the policy the Government intends to pursue during the coming parliamentary year. Aruba’s Constitution itself stipulates that the parliamentary year is opened with an exposition, presented “by or on behalf of the Governor,” of the policy the Government intends to follow. At the same time, the constitutional system places political responsibility with the ministers, not with the Governor.

So when the Governor stands before Parliament and announces increases in pensions and social assistance, the elimination of the AZV premium for pensioners, restoration of the full medication package, expanded support for persons with disabilities and families with children in school, measures to ease fuel costs and now even legislation to link the minimum wage to the subsistence minimum, it is not the Governor presenting his own programme. No. He is simply READING the Government’s political agenda.

And that is exactly where my previous analysis gets an almost ironic continuation. Ironic, you ask?

Well, remember how I compared the Government to Sinterklaas with a sack full of gifts. Now the Government has put that same sack in the Governor’s hands for him to present it to Parliament.

Naturally, there is nothing illegal or strange about the procedure itself. On the contrary: it is part of our parliamentary and constitutional system. The Governor represents the King in the Government of Aruba, while the ministers are the ones who carry political responsibility before Parliament. That is precisely why the Governor cannot simply turn the speech into a personal commentary, contradict its contents or later go out and explain which parts he agrees or disagrees with.

But something being legally correct does not automatically make it healthy from a communications perspective. No. And I will explain why.

For a large part of the public, this distinction is not obvious. That is the problem. They see the Governor — the most formal, symbolic and seemingly neutral authority in the room — standing before Parliament and saying: the Government will do this, the Government will give that, the Government will invest here. The solemnity of the occasion and the weight of his office can give those words an additional authority that a simple Government statement would not have.

And that can create the wrong impression: that the Governor is endorsing the programme, that it is his vision, or even that the announcement carries something resembling an institutional “mandate.” But it does not.

The Governor is not a political candidate. He has no electoral programme. He does not have to defend the promises in Parliament. He cannot be politically questioned like a minister about where the money will come from, why a measure is being announced now, or whether a promise is realistic. No. That responsibility belongs to the Government.

And that is precisely where there is a problem worth discussing.

Because when the Government can use the Governor’s voice, presence and institutional dignity to present its own political agenda, while the Governor himself is constitutionally limited in his ability to publicly distance himself from the content, the line between a neutral institution and Government political communication can become blurred in the eyes of the public.

Now, do not misunderstand me. I am NOT saying the Governor engaged in propaganda. No. I am saying the format can transform Government propaganda into something that APPEARS to carry the Governor’s seal of approval.

That distinction matters.

Yesterday’s speech contained clear political language. “Shared prosperity.” “Never again should an employee work for a wage that does not cover basic subsistence.” Investments that citizens “can see, can use, can feel.” A Government presenting what it has done and what it still intends to do. That is legitimate content for a Government to present. But it is Government content.

And then the question becomes: why should the Government not present its own account?

Perhaps Aruba should begin thinking about modernising this tradition. The Governor can retain his constitutional role in the formal opening of the Parliamentary Year, while the concrete political content — achievements, promises, projects, spending and priorities — could be presented directly by the Prime Minister or the Government itself.

That way, the public KNOWS exactly who is speaking. Who is making the promises. Who is responsible. And who must answer for them.

That is not disrespectful to our Governor. On the contrary. It could protect the office precisely against the risk of becoming an involuntary vehicle for political messages he did not formulate and for which he bears no political responsibility.

Because yesterday, after my Sinterklaas analysis, the Government did something curious: it confirmed practically the same package of gifts I had been describing. But it did not send Sinterklaas himself with the sack. It sent the Governor.

And I believe the public deserves to know the difference.