When listening to comments from our political leaders on the results of talks with Metropolitan Governments in particular concerning constitutional change, we are forced to ask ourselves the question: Are they coming from a negotiating table or from a deceiving charity fair?
Obviously European statesmen and our local politicians are not on the same wavelength when it comes to the sense of “Words”. While the meaning and context of constitutional "Words" are of capital concern for the former, the latter same to divert from the fundamentals of constitutions and public law by contemplating a hypothetical and unprecedented status, that by all evidence is to satisfy their personal need for arbitrary powers, budgetary irresponsibility and a not forsaken means to secure their absolution.
Constitutional process on both French and Dutch St-Martin is suffering for lack of a common language with European’s governments in matters of constitution and public law— national and international. There can be no progress in holding a scatterbrained soul-searching attitude, pretending to negotiate with forearmed European's Statesmen, whose aim is to bring the entire island within the frame of national and European Union policies and legislation while not forsaking the fundamentals of colonialism.
Two conflicting languages, is the true reason why the constitutional change process for French and Dutch St-Martin is appearing to be on a perpetual merry-go-round and our elected representatives reduced to perpetual disappointed beggars. A politician without a vision and a politic ideology is a perpetual beggar. He or she can never be satisfied for cause of lacking sustainable priorities, which results in a lack of reference points.
In example, local politicians—while holding talks such as building a distinct Nation or freedom from colonial powers, will never lay on the negotiating table with mother country and use “Words” like self-determination, autonomy or independence. Words that are clearly defined in public international law therefore equivocally free.
On the other hand, our local politicians delude themselves in claiming one thing and its opposite in the same breath. Like seeking to be constitutionally recognized as a distinct country but at the same time claiming to remain within the Mother Nation.
Obviously our local politicians are mistaking administrative reshuffle with a true political reform. European's statesmen are knowledgeable of the difference, but their option is to play the passive democratic game.
It is illusive to pretend to have an evolution of political powers and nation building through a simple administrative reform. Time will surely tell the truth. At the end of the day, the people will find themselves quoting a famous French writer: “ Je me suis retrouvé capot par un six de Cœur” (I found myself knocked out by a six of heart).
It is pretentious to claim an unprecedented constitutional status with political freedom and legislative liberty, while remaining within European Nations known for their colonialist mentality and profound attachment to writing laws and fundamentals of national or international principles, with complete disregard and consideration of their colonies.
Additionally, in a world where globalization is the rule, the blunt consequence for a Caribbean Island to be within an European mother country, is to suffer their economic repercussions and financial costs, while remaining totally left out from the benefits of economic and social development through regional cooperation and participation in the sharing of global compensation to underdeveloped countries.
Our politicians content themselves with words and terms that may be flattering in tone to the ears of the mass, but empty in substance, missing in connections and proven to be deceitful because their ignorance in the real facts that confront the country and its people.
By resorting to terms that may be meaningful in the context of the E.U's community budgetary classifications (but legally undefined within national constitution or legislation), we should not be surprised to find ourselves politically retrograded in our human rights as a distinct country (within the absurdity of a Caribbean-European’s framework), instead of in a positive statutory evolution.
WHAT TO CONSIDER
Unprecedented entities within the framework of the French Republic or within the Kingdom of the Netherlands can only be translated into facts through a profound constitutional reform at Nations level.
This means transforming the principle of uniqueness of the Republic or of the Kingdom into contextual principles, meaning: Distinct countries within the frame of a federated constitution. In other words, constitutional recognition of distinct and autonomous Overseas’ countries within the notion of Republic and/or Kingdom. We must invent, if it doesn't already exist, the expression: “Constitutional Contextualization”.
In this process the fundamental constitutional principle of uniqueness is to give place to a constitutional principle of ‘diversity’. Republic and Kingdom being henceforth defined each as a ‘frame of contexts’ within which each country member is to be equally recognized as a distinct entity in its relative context, by means of negotiated treaties rather than through perpetration of colonial links.
Not seeking the right language to fit our unique condition (a constitutional language in common with our Caribbean regional counterparts) would place us on an equal footing in reciprocal relations. Which will result in always remaining and being treated as remnants of colonialism, no matter what Government or States level agreements may be concluded.
No Court of justice can overrule the fundamental principle of uniqueness of Republic and Kingdom. Once we limit our ambition to be “Within”, our fate is to be forever considered and treated as marginalized specificities, at the mercy of Metropolitan’s stateswomen and statesmen.
Shouldn't the people have the rights to an unequivocal definition of the word "Within" before its entry into our questionable constitution?
As long as we restrain from demanding France and Holland a new definition of the words "Republic" and "Kingdom", our politic status and universal human rights as equal human being, will always remain questionable and our two halves of island looked upon as two distinct remnants of colonialism in a growing independent Caribbean context.
The absurdity of a little island as St-Martin to be divided into two distinct nations for the only satisfaction of colonial powers supremacy is nothing less than a crime against humanity evolution and blossoming.
Colonialism is a curse and as such ought to be approached at its roots, straightforward, not sideways. Being a distinct society means at the very least having legal arguments to protect us from the alteration of our identity, culture and moral principles and obviously from genocide by substitution.
The arbitrary application of gay marriage and same sex civil union in our little island, that by all evidence, is essentially a foreigners accommodations policy, is a complete disregard of the will or approval of the concerned population, and is enough to awake our awareness for the need to be legally recognized as a distinct society with the freedom to decide on our policy and to determine our national, international and community links.
To be considered and respected as a people capable of self-government we must stop resorting to misleading and equivocal "Words" or to pretend to the unprecedented.
An undefined status illustrated upon unconventional constitutional language is nothing more than a rubber cheque.
There is clarity, rightful recognition, mutual consent, strength and power between public authorities and the people, when constitution and legislation are answering to our regional context and the realities of facts affecting the country and the life of the people.
As a little island within the Caribbean region, we ought to be assured in our quest for constitutional reform that our option is sufficiently democratized and in perfect symbiosis with the realities in our Caribbean context. To die in honor is to take on the task today and not to leave a colonial legacy to our children.
How can we be respected by European’s statesmen or stateswomen when our only resort to remain in power is to mislead the mass by flashing in their eyes a Territorial Collectivity as having country autonomy, yet running it as an administrative trinity of public entities (Commune, Department, Region) grounded upon a strict ‘transfer of competence and charges?
How can we be respected without having the power to legislate or the power to enforce voted and published laws?
And now consequently, how serious and convincing can we be in our arguments pretending to seek Caribbean integration, after advocating radical separation and dismantling of over four centuries of shared history, citizen unity under same colonial setting, and established inter-Antilles links.
Wouldn’t a language regarding future links with our Antilles brother citizens in "Words" such as Cooperation, confederation, federation, community, union, commonwealth, etc... places us in a more convincing and wealthy position?
While language such as: Secession, division, separation, etc... dismantle for our future links to European colonial powers?
How can European’s Statesmen see us differently than corrupted hypocrites incapable of self-governing when our request is to be a distinct country but our development programs and budgetary balance seems to depend uniquely on the outcome of financial support agreement with the Republic or the kingdom as the price paid for the word "Within".
Contrary to the dismantling of inter-Antilles links, a respectable and respected approach to constitutional change of French or Dutch Antilles should be focus on the primal necessity of consolidating sustainable links developed over centuries of joint history and livelihood existence, as one society suppressed for over 360 years under same European colonial powers.
Using "words" grounded in national and international constitutional laws, in order to be unequivocally identified at the very least by our neighboring countries as a distinct nation, will always result in being looked upon as a people incapable of governing ourselves, which supports European's Statesmen grounds to justify the need to keep us under perpetual trusteeship.
ELCO ROSARIO
Recently I enjoyed reading an article written by Elco Rosario, in a local newspaper on the difference between voting upon a politic ideology and voting upon a candidate personality. His comments were very instructive and if he was a candidate I would have said: “At last St-Martin is approaching the shores of enlighten democracy."
If only my thoughts were free of the doubts that, in St-Martin French and Dutch electoral environment, his initiative may be reduced to just another voice crying in the wilderness. In any case, his comments have inspired me to complete this blog.
The difference between electoral campaigns focused on a politic ideology and an electoral campaign focused on solely the candidate's personality, is that the former is built on the true meaning and impact of the “word”, while the latter's only concern is the tone of the word: “Once it sounds good, the content is secondary” .
European colonial statesmen and stateswomen have always accused, in one way or the other, colonized politicians with a politic ideology of committing a crime against territorial integrity. They have always been filed as dangerous enemies to be destroyed by all necessary means.
On the other hand, colonized politicians whose only concern is their personal image and electoral career, have always been embraced by colonial powers as godsend trusties to the service of eternal perpetuation of European colonialism in the Caribbean.
It is highly irresponsible for colonized politicians to "negotiate" statutory reform with European colonizers while ignoring their emancipation history and de-colonization evolution.
French St-Martin under article 74 of France’s constitution and Dutch St-Maarten under a so called “Country Netherlands Antilles”, have made an enormous blundering backward step by taking the entire island back to the drastic depersonalized colonial regimes of the 18th and 19th centuries of which regretful scars are yet the cause of our general submissive attitude in regards to colonial powers.
From another point of view, if we should assume that the majority of voters going to the polls are motivated by a politic ideology in some way or the other, then the case of French St-Martin partial administrative secession or Dutch St-Maarten partial administrative secession from Curacao is just an ideology.
The problem with this secession as an ideology is that it sounds good but it is not operational. Considering St-Martin in its true and full regional context, the facts will shortly reveal the hidden perversities.
Dismantling the Antilles (French or Dutch) have been known since forever as the ideology of European colonizers: “Divide and reign”, but to be advocated and applaud colonizers today is a betrayal to the forefathers who sacrificed so much to get us out of colonialism.
To advocate a dismantled Antilles, and at the same time pass under the rug, the nature of these new links with metropolitan States and the E.U. is nothing more than reactionary politics.
French or Dutch Antilles united in an integral perspective within the Caribbean economic and development Organizations would have represented a force to be reckoned with. As divided and “within”, each island Caribbean policy lies exclusively in the hands of European statesmen and stateswomen.
"COUNTRY ST.MARTIN"
If I’m not mistaken, the term “country status” does not exist in international law nor in the national constitution of the Netherlands. The term may be found in the E. U. conventions between member States, but only as a budgetary classification. Not to overseas’ integrated regions.
Finding a way from “country status” to constitutional status, is to my knowledge unknown.
The obvious absurdity is the E.U's notions of Overseas’ integrated regions’ country have never to this day been introduced into the national legislation of neither France nor the Netherlands as a legally recognized right.
In the absence of a constitutional status recognized within the international framework, a rational thought process leads us to analysis of the word “within”.
A country that is governed "within" the government of another country means to be subject to the constitution and legislation of that mother nation. Being “within” means being under trusteeship.
Being “within” means that local laws must be in conformity with the legislation of the mother country or suffer the consequences of either being expressly sanctioned for non-constitutionality or simply taken as non-written by Court in the event of a conflicting application.
Being “within” means that laws voted by local parliament are not vested with the character of laws. In other words, texts are voted into law by a supreme public authority, but will simply be taken in the broad sense of the word.
ORGANIC LAW
In the case of the constitution (French Territorial Collectivity or the Dutch Country Sint-Maarten) legalized through the process of “Organic Law”. First be aware that an Organic law does not have the nature of a constitutional law. While the latter decide on the organizing and functioning of public authorities, the former is meant to precise the modalities and must be in conformity with the constitution or constitutional law.
Organic law cannot be promulgated before its constitutionality is pronounced by a supreme constitutional body of appeal at the level of the Mother States.
The question that remains a puzzle to me, is whether in the case of Dutch St-Maarten, the constitutionality of their recently voted organic law will be decided by referring to the constitution of the dismantled Netherlands Antilles, or by referring to a hypothetical modified constitution or constitutional law of the Netherlands.
If simply referring to the November 2nd 2006 Accord, it will be by definition a false organic law and the organization and functioning of public authorities instituted will be short in constitutional powers therefore liable to be simply overruled as non-written by the institutions of mother Sates.
Mistaking an administrative reshuffle with a politic reform often engenders disgraceful legal proceedings against members of local public authority and their waste of time and efforts in many useless governmental initiatives, because of their tendency to surpass the limits of their vested competences within the constitutional hierarchy. Procedure conformity is an absolute must in dealing with colonial powers.
A life preoccupied by living up to a personality built upon the perception of others, if not grounded on the self-control of our a true personality and of our faith in God’s teaching, is but an useless life.
Because on the most important day of our life, the time of our departure or rather our transfiguration for a new eternal life in spirit, a time when our earthly personality is of no value to ourselves or to others, and there is no other or nothing we can hold on to but to the mercy of the almighty God, we will experience an irreversible regretful lonesome moment, physically and spiritually not being qualified to say after Paul: “ I have fought the good fight, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4-6).
The reality of Jesus Christ will be questionable if he was not the incarnation of the Word. Man's highest purpose is to become an incarnation of the word in his earthly implications. Tell our "leaders" that this is not a question of personal perception, but rather a question of embracing a worthy ideology even at the risk of being unpopular.
- Leopold Baly
