Bill meant to reduce democratic deficit raises its own consultation questions

THE HAGUE--Questions are being raised in the Dutch House of Representatives over whether Curaçao, Aruba and St. Maarten were properly involved in the preparation of a Kingdom bill that seeks to reduce the democratic deficit within the Kingdom by limiting the ability to regulate Kingdom matters through general administrative measures outside of parliamentary approval.

The issue was raised by the VVD parliamentary group, which wants to know whether the three Caribbean countries were involved in the creation of the bill concerning general administrative measures of Kingdom Government, commonly known as AMvRBs. The VVD noted that the matter concerns a consensus Kingdom law, making the position and involvement of Curaçao, Aruba and St. Maarten especially important.

The proposed legislation is intended to make it impossible for general measures of Kingdom Government to be proclaimed outside of the parliaments, a practice that has occurred in the past and has long been cited as one of the examples of the democratic deficit within the Kingdom.

GroenLinks-PvdA has also asked the Dutch government to clarify the extent to which the Caribbean countries were involved. The party noted that the bill stems from an amendment to the Kingdom Charter aimed at reducing the democratic deficit, but said the documents submitted to the House do not clearly explain how Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten view the proposal.

At the center of the concern is a long-standing constitutional imbalance in the Kingdom. While Aruba, Curaçao, and St. Maarten are autonomous countries within the Kingdom, the institutions of the Kingdom largely overlap with those of the Netherlands. There is no separate Kingdom Parliament, and in practice the Dutch Parliament is the main body that controls the Kingdom Government, although most residents of the Caribbean countries do not vote for that Parliament.

This is why the involvement of the Caribbean countries is central to the debate. The democratic deficit refers not only to the lack of voting influence, but also to the limited role of the Caribbean parliaments in Kingdom legislation that can directly affect their countries. GroenLinks-PvdA argued that now that the Dutch government has submitted the bill to the House of Representatives, it is essential to know whether there is agreement among the countries.

The matter has added relevance because of recent criticism that the Dutch government failed to consult the CAS countries before a vote on a United Nations resolution on slavery. That episode has sharpened questions about whether The Hague is consistently respecting the consultation and consensus obligations within the Kingdom.

The current bill also has a specific legal background. A public consultation on the proposed Kingdom Extradition Act for Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten explained that rules currently contained in the Extradition Decree for those countries, an independent general administrative measure of Kingdom Government, would be transferred into a Kingdom law without major substantive changes. The consultation was opened on May 23, 2025 and closed on August 11, 2025.

The broader effort to restrict the use of independent AMvRBs dates back more than two decades. The Van Laar initiative proposal, originally submitted in 2000, sought to amend the Kingdom Charter so that Kingdom matters could only be regulated by or pursuant to Kingdom law, instead of through independent AMvRBs. The proposal was adopted by the Second Chamber in June 2016 and by the First Chamber in July 2016.

During earlier handling of the proposal, special delegates from the parliaments of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten were present in the Dutch House. A 2016 background document also noted that the proposal was meant to make it impossible to establish general measures of Kingdom Government without a statutory basis.

For the Caribbean countries, the question now is whether the current legislative process reflects the spirit of that reform. If the purpose of the bill is to reduce the democratic deficit, MPs in The Hague are asking whether Curaçao, Aruba and St. Maarten were treated as full partners in shaping the proposal, or whether the legislation is being advanced without clear evidence of their agreement.

The Dutch government is now being asked to clarify whether there is consensus among the countries, what input was provided by Curaçao, Aruba and St. Maarten, and how their positions were reflected in the final proposal.

‍