The public disagreement surrounding Aruba Birdlife Conservation, Greg Peterson and the off-road sector is no longer only about UTVs, ATVs or one route through nature.
It has become a question about democracy.
Jimmy Douglas and Omar-Steve Lejuez use different approaches. Douglas attacks the credibility and motives of Greg Peterson. Lejuez calls upon ABC’s sponsors to suspend their support until ABC withdraws its court case.
What they have in common is more important than what separates them: both approaches attempt to make ABC pay a personal, reputational or financial price for going to court.
Every citizen of Aruba should understand the danger of that principle.
ABC is not trying to stand above the law
ABC did not invent Aruba’s environmental and spatial-planning laws. ABC does not decide the outcome of its own case. ABC has asked an independent judge to examine whether government decisions and activities affecting protected nature comply with the law.
That is not an attack on democracy. That is democracy functioning as it should.
In a constitutional democracy:
Parliament adopts legislation.
Government implements and enforces it.
Citizens and organizations may challenge government decisions.
Independent judges determine whether the law has been respected.
ABC is therefore not asking the court to replace the law. ABC is asking the court to implement and uphold the law.
If ABC’s arguments are wrong, the court can reject them. If the government acted lawfully, it can present its evidence and prevail. That is the proper democratic process.
The misleading arguments being used
Douglas has portrayed the dispute as a personal campaign by Greg Peterson and has described environmental protection as being “weaponized” against the off-road sector.
This avoids the essential questions:
Are the affected areas protected?
Is motorized access legally permitted?
Has environmental damage occurred?
Did government follow the required procedures?
Are Aruba’s laws being implemented consistently?
Attacking Peterson’s character does not answer any of these questions.
Lejuez takes a different route. He has publicly demanded legislation and “NO court.” He has called upon sponsors to suspend all sponsorship and partnerships until ABC withdraws the case.
This creates a false choice. Aruba does not have to choose between legislation and litigation. A democracy needs both laws and courts. Without independent courts, citizens would have no effective remedy when government fails to apply the law.
Calling for “NO court” does not strengthen democracy. It removes one of democracy’s most important safeguards.
Why sponsor pressure is particularly dangerous
Sponsors may freely decide which organizations they support. Citizens may also criticize ABC and disagree with its case.
The democratic concern arises when sponsors are deliberately pressured to withdraw their support for the specific purpose of forcing ABC to abandon litigation.
The message then becomes:
Withdraw your case, or we will attempt to deprive your organization of the support it needs to continue operating.
If this succeeds, the dispute will not be decided by an independent judge. It will be decided by whoever can create the greatest financial and reputational pressure.
That principle would not stop with ABC.
Today, an environmental organization may be pressured for challenging an off-road decision. Tomorrow, residents could be pressured for challenging a construction permit. A neighborhood association could be punished for opposing pollution. An employee could be isolated for challenging government misconduct. A business could be threatened for contesting an unlawful administrative decision.
The right to litigate belongs to everyone—or eventually it belongs to no one.
Democracy is more than majority opinion
Douglas and Lejuez frame their positions as defending Aruba’s people, livelihoods, recreation and freedom.
Those interests deserve to be heard. But no person speaks for the entire Aruban population merely by claiming to represent “the people.”
Democracy does not mean that the loudest campaign automatically wins. Nor does it mean that commercial activities become lawful because they are popular or profitable.
Constitutional democracy protects the right of minorities, citizens and civil-society organizations to challenge powerful interests. It requires government to respect the law even when enforcement is inconvenient.
Aruba’s Constitution assigns legal disputes to the judiciary and prohibits interference in court proceedings. Independent courts are not enemies of democracy. They are among its principal safeguards.
The threat to Aruba
Following the approach proposed by Douglas and Lejuez would create a dangerous precedent:
Discredit the person who raises the alarm.
Portray the organization as an enemy of the people.
Describe legal enforcement as persecution.
Pressure its partners and sponsors.
Make litigation financially impossible.
Avoid an independent judgment on the evidence.
Allow political or commercial pressure to prevail over law.
That is not how a confident democracy conducts itself.
A strong democracy does not fear an independent judge. A responsible government does not fear having its decisions reviewed. A credible industry does not need to destroy the reputation or funding of its critics. It answers evidence with evidence.
ABC’s position
ABC recognizes the right of Douglas, Lejuez and every citizen to disagree, demonstrate and defend their interests.
ABC demands the same respect for its own democratic rights.
ABC will not accept the argument that asking a judge to uphold Aruba’s laws is an attack on Aruba. It is precisely because ABC respects Aruba, its institutions and its people that it uses lawful procedures.
This matter is larger than Greg Peterson. It is larger than ABC. It concerns whether Aruba will remain a country where citizens can challenge government without being personally attacked, financially punished or publicly intimidated into silence.
Today it is ABC.
Tomorrow it could be you.
Protecting the right to litigate means protecting democracy.
Respect the law. Respect the courts. Respect Aruba.
