~Curaçao sets the standard for campaign finance transparency.~
WILLEMSTAD:--- In a striking contrast to St. Maarten, Curaçao has demonstrated a firm commitment to transparency and accountability in campaign financing. Following the March 2025 elections, Curaçao’s Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) has taken decisive action to ensure compliance with campaign donation declarations, setting a benchmark for electoral integrity in the region.
Under Curaçao’s Landsverordening financiën politieke groeperingen (National Ordinance on Political Group Finances), candidates are required to declare all donations exceeding 5,000 guilders. This includes providing detailed information about the donor, the amount, and the date of the donation. The deadline for submission was April 21, 2025, with a final extension granted until June 21.
The OM has made it clear that non-compliance will not be tolerated. Candidates who fail to submit their declarations face penalties, including up to three months of imprisonment or fines of up to 10,000 guilders. This marks a significant shift from previous elections, where enforcement was limited due to capacity constraints. The OM’s proactive stance ensures that candidates are held accountable, reinforcing public trust in the electoral process.
St. Maarten’s Delays Raise Concerns
Meanwhile, St. Maarten’s Electoral Council has struggled to finalize the review of campaign funding and donation declarations nearly a year after the August 2024 parliamentary elections. While most candidates have submitted their declarations, some are still pending, and corrections are required for others. A final review has yet to take place, leaving the process in limbo.
The lack of urgency in St. Maarten has drawn criticism, with many questioning why the process is taking so long. Richard Gibson Jr., a key figure in the process, acknowledged the delays but did not provide a clear timeline for completion. This prolonged inaction undermines transparency and raises doubts about the system's effectiveness.
A Tale of Two Systems
The stark difference between Curaçao and St. Maarten highlights the importance of robust enforcement mechanisms in ensuring electoral integrity. Curaçao’s clear deadlines, legal framework, and active involvement of the Public Prosecutor’s Office have created a system that prioritizes transparency and accountability. In contrast, St. Maarten’s delays and lack of enforcement risk eroding public trust in its democratic processes.
To address these issues, St. Maarten could take a page from Curaçao’s playbook by implementing stricter deadlines, imposing legal consequences for non-compliance, and involving the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the enforcement process. Without these measures, the credibility of St. Maarten’s electoral system remains at stake.
Conclusion
As Curaçao leads the way in campaign finance transparency, St. Maarten faces mounting pressure to follow suit. The contrast between the two islands serves as a reminder that democracy thrives on accountability, and timely action is essential to maintaining public trust.