WILLEMSTAD — The debate surrounding the AOV pension scheme dominated public discussion in 2025, not only because of disagreements over the legal indexation of old-age benefits, but especially because of how politics, public administration and oversight bodies handled the issue. That assessment was shared by Stanley Bodok, who argues that the AOV dossier has evolved into a broader test of Curaçao’s system of governance.
Formally, the AOV issue is a legal and financial matter. In practice, Bodok says, it has become a stress test for the island’s administrative capacity. While the law on indexation remains in force, political decisions on its implementation were repeatedly postponed, creating a growing gap between legal obligations and what policymakers considered politically feasible.
That tension, according to Bodok, was never resolved. As a result, the courts increasingly came into focus as the forum expected to provide clarity. He describes this development as problematic. Judges, he notes, are meant to assess legality, not to substitute for political decision-making. When courts are forced into that role, it signals a lack of timely political direction.
In public debate, attention focused largely on whether the AOV law was being applied correctly. According to Bodok, this narrow focus overshadowed a more fundamental discussion. Little public attention was paid to the wider consequences of indexation, such as the long-term sustainability of the system, its impact on other social expenditures and the burden placed on future generations.
Those considerations, Bodok argues, belong squarely in the political arena. Without open debate on affordability, effectiveness and social consequences, policy choices become difficult for citizens to understand or assess. Even decisions that are legally defensible can then undermine public trust.
The role of the Curaçao Parliament is central in this context. Bodok observes that by postponing decisions, lawmakers created space for uncertainty, differing interpretations and ultimately the juridification of the issue. This, he says, underlines the importance of clear political guidance, particularly when decisions are sensitive or unpopular.
According to Bodok, governing does not mean avoiding difficult choices, but making them explicit. That responsibility is especially critical in areas that directly affect people’s livelihoods, such as pension policy.
He places the AOV dossier within a wider international discussion on good governance and oversight. Globally, there is increasing emphasis on public policy that is not only lawful, but also transparent, understandable and focused on public value. Oversight, in this view, should contribute to informed public debate rather than merely intervene after the fact.
Seen through that lens, Bodok describes the AOV case as both a missed opportunity and an important lesson. It illustrates what happens when oversight, politics and execution operate in isolation from one another, but also how future processes could be improved through transparency, timely decision-making and citizen engagement.
The AOV dossier, he concludes, has become a benchmark for the years ahead. Not just for social security policy, but for how Curaçao handles complex societal choices. Whether such issues are addressed openly and politically owned, or deferred until courts or watchdogs step in, will largely determine public confidence in government.