Published on October 30 at 08:51, this opinion piece from Suriname challenges deeply entrenched outdated social and political mindsets that continue to undermine the country’s inclusive progress. The author opens by calling out persistent harmful prejudices, ranging from false beliefs in the inherent superiority of one ethnic group over another to the widespread, unspoken cultural attitude that prioritizes personal loyalty over collective public good. Even children in Suriname’s diverse public schools learn firsthand that talent has no racial or ethnic color, but ingrained upbringing and narrow social environments often perpetuate biases that no level of formal education or religious teaching can fully erase – as centuries of history show, scholarly advancement and religious piety have long coexisted with systems of slavery and mass oppression.
All humans share the same core emotions, hopes, and desires, and life outcomes are far more shaped by surrounding circumstances than inherent traits: a child born into poverty who is raised by affluent, supportive adoptive parents will almost always access far more opportunities than peers left behind in underresourced communities. This reality extends directly to Suriname’s political landscape, where outdated ideas that individual leaders matter more than formal rules have spawned a pervasive culture of political patronage. Parties across the ideological spectrum often run on platforms of national unity and collective public interest, but routinely prioritize jobs, resources, and favors for family, close friends, and loyal core supporters once in power. While parties like the NDP, VHP, and NPS explicitly work to build a cross-ethnic national identity, and groups including ABOP, PL, and BEP maintain closer ties to specific ethnic communities, multi-ethnic composition alone does not make a party more committed to the rule of law or less prone to corruption: cross-ethnic governing coalitions have also been known to siphon public funds for private gain, and ethnic diversity within a party is no guarantee of ethical governance.
Most Surinamese voters cast their ballots out of longstanding habit, ethnic loyalty, or narrow personal self-interest, prioritizing individual favors and personal connections over formal policy platforms and ideological principles. This creates a self-sustaining cycle: politicians reward their base with targeted benefits, and voters reward them with re-election, even as nearly every member of the public complains about the unfair and dysfunctional system that results. The author argues the only path out of this stagnation is a shift to principle-driven politics built around verifiable, publicly accountable policy plans, where shared ethical commitments act as collectively agreed-upon frameworks to help a diverse population live together peacefully.
Suriname’s historic “verbroederingspolitiek” (brotherhood policy) was once framed as this kind of unifying principle, designed to foster peaceful coexistence between the country’s many ethnic and cultural groups. In practice, however, it operated mostly as a set of backroom deals between political elites, delivering short-term intergroup peace but often masking nepotism and patronage under the guise of cross-cultural solidarity.
The critical next step for Suriname is to build robust, independent public institutions that prevent ruling political parties from dividing up state resources and power for their own private benefit. The author stresses that Suriname’s core national challenge is not its rich ethnic and religious diversity, but the toxic feedback loop between weak public institutions and systemic patronage: personal connections routinely overrule formal official processes, as seen in the common scenario where a resident named Pjotr needs a government permit that would take months to process through official, legal channels, but can secure it in less than a week by asking a politically connected friend for help. Pjotr, the politician, and the complicit civil servant all benefit in the short term, but the broader public loses out as the system becomes increasingly unfair and unaccountable. In Suriname’s small, tight-knit society, personal social ties can be a valuable source of mutual support and trust, but they also create major risks of unchecked conflict of interest. The solution is to build a system where all citizens can rely on fair, impartial public institutions, rather than depending on personal relationships with powerful individuals to access basic services and opportunities.
The blueprint for building these strong institutions is straightforward on paper: all public officials who steal state funds, accept bribes, or unfairly prioritize personal connections for public positions must face legal punishment and be required to repay all misappropriated resources. Every government public procurement contract must be fully disclosed to the public, with clear information on the recipient, total cost, and official justification for the award. All state-owned enterprises must publish full, audited annual reports of their revenues, expenditures, and operational outcomes, so every citizen can track exactly where their tax dollars are being spent. Public sector jobs must be awarded to the most qualified, demonstrably competent candidates, not the people with the strongest personal political connections. All elected officials and senior civil servants must publicly declare their personal assets and private business interests. Independent auditors and whistleblowers must receive full legal protection, and any politician who attempts to pressure or retaliate against them must face immediate, severe consequences. Full transparency in the distribution of public resources will eliminate the pervasive intergroup distrust that leads different communities to assume they are being systematically excluded from fair access to state benefits.
The greatest barrier to implementing these rules is that the very people tasked with enforcing them are the ones who profit the most from weak, unaccountable institutions. This is why sustained public pressure and fully independent oversight are non-negotiable requirements for real reform, the author argues, using the analogy of security cameras above retail cash registers: the cameras are not installed because every cashier is a potential thief, but because trust without structured accountability will inevitably lead to abuse, and someone must actively monitor the systems in place to ensure rules are followed.
Well-built public institutions must be strong enough to outlast individual bad actors in political office, limit the arbitrary power of ruling leaders, and prevent the country from resetting its progress to zero every time a new election cycle brings a new government to power. Suriname’s rich diversity of cultures and ways of life can only be sustained by a set of universal rules that apply equally to every single person, regardless of their background or political affiliation. The author notes that every citizen deserves equal access to opportunity, using the metaphor that everyone should be given the same fishing rod to use in the same shared pond, rather than having opportunities handed out based on political or ethnic favor. Ethnic and political differences do not need to be erased, but they must never be allowed to determine a person’s access to equal legal rights and public services.
The country’s newly expected oil wealth belongs to every single Surinamese citizen, not just the small group of politicians who happen to win the next election. Full public transparency around oil revenues, how those funds are stored, and how they are invested in public education, healthcare, and critical infrastructure is essential to ensure the entire population feels the tangible benefits of that new resource. Independent, critical journalism is an irreplaceable pillar of this accountability system. For anyone still clinging to the outdated belief that a country can be saved by the good personal intentions of individual charismatic leaders, the author offers a simple final prescription: reduce collective dependence on individual political figures, build widespread public trust in strong, impartial institutions, and enforce public rules consistently and fairly for all. This opinion piece is written by D. Balraadjsing.