WILLEMSTAD — The year 2025 is drawing to a close without an answer to a question that directly affects thousands of senior citizens: will the General Old Age Insurance (AOV) finally be indexed by law, or not? Despite sustained political and social attention, the AOV dossier remains unresolved. Instead of a decision, the year ends once again with postponement, according to former minister and political commentator Stanley Bodok.
Bodok notes the irony that the AOV was historically a symbol of political resolve. The scheme was introduced in the early 1960s, at a time when protecting the elderly was seen as a core responsibility of government. Political differences were bridged to legally anchor social security. Six decades later, that sense of inevitability has faded. The AOV remains a subject of debate, but not of decisive policymaking.
Throughout 2025, the AOV featured prominently on the public agenda. Loss of purchasing power, rising living costs, and the absence of statutory indexation were recurring themes in political and societal discussions. Yet, according to Bodok, a coherent political course failed to materialize. Policy intentions were discussed but not concluded, while the central question — whether the government is complying with the existing legal obligation to index the AOV — remained unanswered.
Strikingly, Bodok points to the restraint shown by institutions that are meant to provide direction. The government opted to largely park the issue while awaiting a court ruling, effectively shifting responsibility from the political arena to the judiciary. At the same time, Parliament, in Bodok’s view, did not assume a corrective or steering role, despite its constitutional duty to oversee and adjust government policy.
This wait-and-see approach is all the more contentious because the Ombudsman Curaçao has already issued a clear interpretation. According to the Ombudsman, the AOV must be indexed in accordance with the law, and policy changes cannot be applied retroactively. In legal terms, Bodok argues, there is already a strong signal on the table. “But politically, it remained quiet,” he observes.
The broader context sharpens the contrast. While elderly residents continue to lose purchasing power, the Algemene Rekenkamer Curaçao reported that billions of guilders in government spending in the 2023 annual accounts were insufficiently accounted for or unlawful. That finding brings the issue of priorities into sharp focus. Not because the AOV is an easy problem to solve, but because the absence of clear choices becomes most visible in the most vulnerable corner of the social security system.
As a result, 2025 ends in what Bodok describes as a paradox. The AOV is more important than ever, yet from a governance perspective it remains stuck in the waiting room. The dossier has not been closed, not resolved, and not even clearly advanced toward a concrete political decision point. The year concludes with uncertainty for older citizens and an open question for 2026: will there finally be political closure, or will another year be marked by further delay?
For a scheme that once emerged from vision and consensus, Bodok suggests, that may be the most telling conclusion of this year’s end.