PHILIPSBURG:--- Fifteen years after Sint Maarten proudly became a constituent country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the island nation continues to wrestle with a complex question: Has autonomy truly been achieved — or has the country been taken back to a form of financial and political dependence reminiscent of colonial days?
The milestone date of October 10, 2010 (10/10/10) marked a historic moment. Sint Maarten gained self-government after decades as part of the Netherlands Antilles. The new status promised empowerment — a national parliament, a council of ministers, and control over domestic affairs from education and health to tourism and taxation.
But while the flag changed and a constitution was adopted, many residents argue that real power remains in Dutch hands.
Higher Supervision and the Strings of “Autonomy”
As part of the 2010 restructuring, the Netherlands granted Sint Maarten and Curaçao significant debt relief, but attached strict conditions through the Rijkswet financieel toezicht (Rft) — the Kingdom Act on Financial Supervision.
The Rft created the College financieel toezicht (Cft), a supervisory board that oversees both countries’ public finances. The Cft reviews budgets, borrowing, and expenditures, and can demand corrections or delays in government spending if it deems the fiscal framework unsound.
Although originally intended as a temporary measure, financial supervision has now been extended until at least 2027. The extension underscores the Kingdom’s continued belief that Sint Maarten has not yet demonstrated the fiscal discipline required for full self-management.
Critics, however, view the arrangement as a leash disguised as a lifeline.
“It’s not real freedom if every budget still needs Dutch approval,” one local commentator wrote recently on social media, echoing a sentiment widely shared among citizens.
Crisis, Aid, and Conditionality
Economic shocks have deepened this dependence.
The destruction wrought by Hurricane Irma in 2017 and the collapse of tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic forced Sint Maarten to seek emergency financial support from the Netherlands.
Billions of guilders in aid and loans flowed to the island — but with strict conditions. The Netherlands required administrative reforms, spending oversight, and structural governance changes before releasing funds. Dutch representatives were installed to monitor progress, effectively making local autonomy conditional on compliance.
While these measures aimed to protect public money, they reinforced the perception that Sint Maarten’s self-government exists only “on paper.”
Political Instability and Governance Struggles
Adding to the challenge is chronic political instability. Since 2010, Sint Maarten has seen more than a dozen governments, numerous snap elections, and frequent cases of “ship-jumping,” where Members of Parliament switch allegiances mid-term.
This instability has slowed reforms, strained budgets, and often triggered warnings from the Cft. In 2025, the financial supervisor again questioned the viability of Sint Maarten’s draft budget, citing incomplete documentation and unsustainable spending patterns.
Observers note that weak governance gives the Kingdom justification to keep the supervision in place — a cycle that perpetuates the very dependence Sint Maarten wants to escape.
“Back to Slavery” Sentiment: A Symbol of Frustration
Across social media and local discussions, some Sint Maarteners have used strong language to describe their frustration, saying the island has been “taken back to the days of slavery.”
This comparison, though symbolic, reflects deep-seated post-colonial frustration. Residents argue that Dutch-imposed conditions and oversight mimic old colonial hierarchies, where decisions are made abroad and locals must “ask permission” to act.
“The chains may look different,” one community activist posted on Facebook, “but the control feels the same.”
Historians note that such expressions are part of a wider Caribbean narrative where economic dependency and conditional aid replace direct colonial rule — a system often referred to as “neo-colonialism.”
Dutch Justification: Oversight as Obligation
Dutch officials maintain that financial supervision is a legal duty, not a political power play.
Under Article 43(2) of the Kingdom Charter, the Netherlands has the right — and responsibility — to safeguard “good governance” within the Kingdom.
They argue that the supervision ensures stability, prevents corruption, and protects both local citizens and Dutch taxpayers.
“Autonomy requires responsibility,” Dutch authorities often say — emphasizing that oversight will end only when Sint Maarten demonstrates lasting fiscal stability.
The Path Forward: Balancing Freedom and Accountability
Experts agree that Sint Maarten’s challenge lies not only in resisting external control, but also in strengthening internal capacity.
To achieve true autonomy, analysts and reform advocates suggest:
- Building robust local institutions in budgeting, auditing, and procurement.
- Diversifying the economy beyond tourism to reduce vulnerability.
- Reforming parliamentary rules to ensure political stability and continuity.
- Engaging the Kingdom in redefining supervision into partnership-based cooperation rather than top-down control.
Until such steps are realized, the Kingdom’s oversight will likely remain — and with it, the debate over whether Sint Maarten’s autonomy is real or rhetorical.
A Promise Yet Unfulfilled
Fifteen years after 10/10/10, Sint Maarten’s journey toward self-governance remains unfinished.
The country has its own constitution, parliament, and ministers — but its financial destiny still passes through the approval channels of The Hague.
For many, this contradiction defines the island’s modern identity: autonomous in name, constrained in practice.
“Autonomy wasn’t supposed to mean supervision,” a young Sint Maartener said during a recent community forum. “We didn’t ask for freedom that comes with conditions — we asked for the right to make our own choices, and our own mistakes.”
Until that balance is found, Sint Maarten’s autonomy will remain a promise — powerful in symbolism, but still waiting to be fully lived.