Tensions between AVP and FUTURO put government's future under pressure

ORANJESTAD — Disagreements over raising the minimum wage are developing into a political conflict that could threaten the survival of the AVP–FUTURO coalition government. Although neither party has announced a coalition breakdown, developments in recent days and hours suggest that trust between the governing partners is facing a serious test.

SUNDAY EVENING

The situation became more delicate on Sunday evening after Prime Minister Mike Eman returned from the Netherlands and did not attend an extraordinary coalition meeting requested by FUTURO. According to publicly available information, which Noticiacla has been unable to independently verify, AVP indicated that it first wanted to consult its internal party bodies before continuing coalition discussions. FUTURO did not respond positively to this decision. In a reaction attributed to Minister Gerlien Croes, the party emphasized the importance of dialogue and cooperation between coalition partners. However, the fundamental question is not simply why the meeting did not take place. The real question is whether AVP and FUTURO still have enough mutual trust to continue governing together.

MINIMUM WAGE BECOMES A TEST OF POLITICAL POWER

At the center of the disagreement is Prime Minister Eman's proposal to gradually increase the minimum wage to the subsistence level, known as the bestaansminimum. Eman considers the measure a fundamental commitment to improving workers' living conditions and ensuring that Aruba's economic prosperity also benefits those earning the lowest wages.

PACE OF IMPLEMENTATION

FUTURO, for its part, does not oppose an increase in the minimum wage but questions how quickly and in what manner it should be implemented. The party insists on economic impact assessments and consultations with the business sector to prevent negative consequences for employment, businesses and the cost of living. This difference may appear technical, but politically it is fundamental. Mike Eman has presented the increase as a non-negotiable issue and has used the Dutch term breekpunt (breaking point), indicating that the matter could determine the coalition's future. FUTURO, however, is unwilling to accept a decision that could affect the entire economy without sufficient research. This creates a situation in which one party insists on achieving the proposed outcome, while the other demands assurances about the process.

COALITION AGREEMENT LEAVES ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION

An important aspect is that, according to an analysis recently published by Amigoe Aruba, the coalition agreement signed between AVP and FUTURO in March 2025 does not contain an explicit commitment to link the minimum wage to the subsistence level. The agreement does establish objectives to improve purchasing power, combat poverty and promote a fairer distribution of income This distinction is important. AVP can argue that the proposed increase is entirely consistent with the agreement's social objectives. FUTURO, however, can argue that the specific method of implementing the measure was never agreed upon by the two parties. For that reason, the conflict is not merely an economic disagreement but also a difference in interpretation of the commitments that brought the coalition together.

THE REAL PROBLEM MAY BE TRUST

Viewed as an isolated incident, the failure to hold Sunday's meeting would not necessarily be enough to bring down a government.

However, against the backdrop of existing tensions, the incident takes on greater political significance. AVP insists that the proposal must move forward, while FUTURO demands additional preparation and research. The delay in submitting the proposal to the Advisory Council (Raad van Advies) has added another element of distrust. According to a report by 24ora, AVP considers Minister Geoffrey Wever's failure to sign the relevant document an obstacle to the process. However, there is no independent confirmation that Wever is deliberately blocking the proposal. The main risk is that the two coalition partners are beginning to interpret each other's decisions as acts of disloyalty rather than legitimate differences of opinion. Once trust deteriorates to that point, even a technical solution may prove insufficient to repair the political relationship.

GOVERNMENT COLLAPSE IS A POSSIBILITY, NOT A FACT

The AVP–FUTURO government holds a majority of 12 of the 21 seats in Parliament: nine belonging to AVP and three to FUTURO.

If FUTURO withdraws its support, AVP would be left with only nine seats, insufficient to maintain a parliamentary majority. However, that would not automatically mean Parliament must be dissolved or that new elections would be inevitable. Other parliamentary combinations could be explored, depending on the willingness of the political parties and the applicable constitutional procedures. Nevertheless, a coalition breakdown would leave the government politically vulnerable, particularly at a time when Aruba faces several important economic and financial decisions. Although the possibility of a government collapse is real, there is currently insufficient public evidence to conclude that a coalition breakup has already been decided. There is also no confirmed indication that either party has begun formal negotiations to form an alternative coalition.

MONDAY AND TUESDAY COULD PROVE DECISIVE

AVP's Party Council meeting, scheduled for Monday evening, November 2, could determine how the party intends to handle its conflict with FUTURO. AVP is expected to establish its position before further coalition discussions. The question is whether AVP will maintain its position without leaving room for negotiation, or whether it will accept a formula allowing FUTURO to participate in the economic preparations for the wage increase. At the same time, FUTURO will have to determine whether its demand for research and consultation is an absolute condition, or whether it can accept a compromise that guarantees the increase while economic assessments continue.