Oligarchy in St. Maarten

The history of elites

Overview

St. Maarten’s political history is a story of enduring oligarchic rule, shaped by its small population size, unique geographical positioning, and non-sovereign status. Jessica Roitman and Wouter Veenendaal highlight how factors like migration, familial rule, and political patronage have entrenched power within a few elite families. The island’s colonial ties to the Netherlands have further influenced this dynamic, sustaining a system where democracy and oligarchy coexist.

“Self-government is proving a blessing for a chosen few… the people, not the representative’s own little clique, were meant to profit.”

-Windward Islands Opinion newspaper criticizes the Wathey family’s rise

Key Points

1. Limited Political Representation Although 70% of St. Maarten’s population is non-native, the same few families have largely maintained power, controlling both political and economic spheres. This trend points to a “gatekeeping system” where limited access to power consolidates influence within a select few, primarily benefiting family dynasties over a broader, more democratic governance.

2. Historical Influence of Key Families Families like the Van Romondts (19th century) and the Watheys (20th century onward) illustrate how “personalism over policies” became a defining trait of St. Maarten’s political environment. The Wathey family, for example, extended influence through patronage and “incumbency effects,” which gave them control over the island’s resources and reinforced their power through successive electoral wins.

3. Power Dynamics in Small States The island’s small population and geographic constraints foster an environment where, as the authors put it, “the distance between the governed and governing is shortened. ” This proximity does not necessarily ensure equitable representation but instead breeds an oligarchic style of governance, where familiar ties outweigh institutional checks and balances.

4. Non-Sovereign Influence St. Maarten’s non-sovereign status within the Kingdom of the Netherlands theoretically includes oversight from the Netherlands to safeguard democratic values. However, the authors argue that this oversight has had “little impact” in mitigating oligarchic practices, which are instead supported by local political traditions and economic pressures.

   
   
   
   

Timeline of Key Events

• 1800s: The Van Romondt family rises to power. The first Van Romondt, Diederik Johannes, quickly acquires both land and government roles due to a declining economy and limited local talent. His family establishes deep roots in political and social roles, controlling key resources like salt pans and local trade permits.

• 1850-1940: The Van Romondt family consolidates power, often filling multiple government posts simultaneously. As noted by the authors, St. Maarten’s “small demographic scale” supports the rise of these “gatekeeper” roles, where influence over government positions and resource distribution becomes concentrated.

• 1948: Universal suffrage is introduced, allowing more locals to vote. However, oligarchic dominance continues as powerful families adapt, using patronage to secure votes.

• 1950s-1960s: The Wathey family emerges as the dominant political force. Claude Wathey capitalizes on emerging tourism by controlling government land sales and leases, further entrenching the family’s political power. The Windward Islands Opinion newspaper criticizes the Wathey family’s rise, stating, “Self-government is proving a blessing for a chosen few… the people, not the representative’s own little clique, were meant to profit.”

• 1970s-1980s: Despite the growth of opposition movements, electoral and administrative structures favor incumbents. The Democratic Party (DP), led by Claude Wathey, maintains significant influence through what the authors call the “incumbency effect,” giving them access to local and regional power.

• 2010: St. Maarten becomes a constituent country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Hopes for more balanced governance emerge, but oligarchic patterns remain largely unchanged.

• 2014: Nearly 70% voter turnout marks one of the highest participation rates, but political power remains with long-standing elites.

Notable Quotes & Analysis

• On Power Consolidation:"In small states, politics is strongly person-oriented and non-ideological," making individual politicians and their families the main drivers of political loyalty (Roitman & Veenendaal). The authors explain that in St. Maarten, family connections and direct benefits, like jobs or housing, become critical elements in maintaining control.

• On Limited Economic Opportunities:“The migration of locals to Aruba, Curaçao, and the US left limited economic prospects,” reinforcing the role of local elites as gatekeepers to remaining opportunities. Families that stayed, like the Watheys, used this control to cement political and economic power through patronage and gatekeeping.

• On Non-Sovereign Constraints:While St. Maarten’s constitutional ties to the Netherlands theoretically support democratic checks, this influence is minimal, as local governance is shaped by “entrenched patron-client relationships,” limiting any external interference.

Valuable Data and Stats

• Population Demographics: Around 40,000, with nearly 70% non-native residents.

• Electoral Dominance: Claude Wathey’s Democratic Party held control of the island’s executive council and parliamentary representation for decades.

• Economic Dependency: In 1923, St. Maarten exported f. 45,847 worth of goods but imported f. 235,403, a stark indicator of economic reliance on outside resources.

• Historical Out-Migration: By 1950, St. Maarten’s population fell to 1,484 from its peak due to economic migration, leaving behind elites to dominate limited opportunities.

Conclusion

St. Maarten’s oligarchic political structure illustrates how limited economic opportunities, historical migration, and family-based political dynasties shape small island governance. Despite shifts toward self-governance and democratic ideals, entrenched power structures persist. Roitman and Veenendaal’s analysis suggests that “close personal networks” and the small population size create conditions where democracy coexists with oligarchic rule, forming a complex political landscape that may be hard to disrupt without significant institutional reforms.

Article: St. Maarten’s Political Roots—The Rise of Oligarchies

Authors: Jessica V. Roitman & Wouter VeenendaalSource: European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies (ERLACS)Access Link: DOI: 10.18352/erlacs.10119