But Aruba is a country.
And as in Canada, although the governor is appointed, the prime minister is elected.
Wikipedia:
Aruba is one of the four countries that form the Kingdom of the Netherlands, along with the Netherlands, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten; the citizens of these countries are all Dutch nationals. Aruba has no administrative subdivisions, but, for census purposes, is divided into eight regions. Its capital is Oranjestad.
Neither are particularly wrong, although it is debatable whether or not the kingdom relation should have the full name Kingdom of the Netherlands rather than just Netherlands.
But Aruba is part of (the kingdom of) the Netherlands. Just as Wales is part of the United Kingdom. For example, the town Llanfairpwllgwyngyll in Wales:
Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, Isle of Anglesey, Wales, LL61, United Kingdom
Aruba is not a sovereign state (neither are Sint Maarten and Curaçao), it is a dependant territory, so the proper hierarchy of names doesn’t stop at Aruba.
It does look strange that it says Netherlands instead of Kingdom of the Netherlands, but I fear that is a convention of using short names rather than formal ones for sovereign states.
Did you file a bug with those applications? If they do that for cities worldwide (e.g., the US, where leaving out the state means you will get a lot of duplicates) then their search results will invariably be ambiguous.
I think the Kingdom of the Netherlands should be deleted as a relation and the constituent members (e. g. Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire) bumped to AL2. This is how we deal with e. g. Isle of Man or the Channel Islands: they’re possessions of the British Crown and not independent countries, but they do not belong to the United Kingdom. The Kingdom of the Netherlands, despite having “Kingdom” in its name, is comparable to the British Crown: it’s not a country in its own right.