This past weekend the Chief Minister, his Ministers and other members of the Anguilla United Movement, attended church services together on Saturday and Sunday at the Mount Fortune Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Central Baptist Church, respectively. Such visits to churches by groups and organizations, including political parties, are quite normal and indeed commendable. These visits are sometimes made to celebrate an anniversary or milestone; in response to an invitation; as an act of thanksgiving; as part of the opening of an event; or simply for the group to fellowship together. Usually, the Pastor or a designated official grants such visitors recognition during the church notices. This would take the form of an acknowledgement, and possibly an invitation to a member of the group to bring greetings or give brief remarks.
On both visits by the CM and his group the congregation was subjected to what some described as a political tirade totally inappropriate for such occasions. True to his style, the Chief Minister, upon receiving the courtesy of making a few brief remarks, proceeded into campaign mode. I have been told that on both occasions the disapproval of the Pastors of both churches was most obvious in their demeanour as well as in the comments that they made later. Needless to say, the congregation, having come to worship, were not forthcoming with appreciative “Amens” during the CM’s presentation either.
Obviously, the events of recent weeks evoke much speculation as to the purpose of the AUM’s visit to these church services. Upon inquiry, I was told by one source that the Chief Minister has been asking the churches to pray for the Government to assist them in overcoming their many challenges. And yet from another source it was hinted that the “hands of evil” had beset members of the Government and they needed prayer. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and, although I have not heard it expressed, I believe that the visit may have been to mark their third Anniversary in Government. In any case, I must say that based on what was reported to me, the presentation by the Chief Minister was most unbecoming and not in keeping with the reverential attitude of a church service.
In my article, “Not even the Lord’s Anointed” dated September 7, 2012, I spoke about the Chief Minister running to the Christian & Evangelical Community whenever he is in trouble. Yet both he and some of his supporters are very quick to attack them (the Church) viciously when they present an opposing position. I wrote: “I reflected on the many times when the Chief Minister had run to the Christian Council to get legitimacy for his conduct or simply to bamboozle the electorate”. Whenever he is in trouble he calls on his so-called “prayer warriors” to bail him out — thus associating himself with Christian principles and ideals and posturing as “the persecuted one”. Can it be that he is in trouble again? I have no intention of speculating about this. My only objective is to point out the callous nature of our present leadership.
But that was last weekend. This weekend, however, we will be more respectfully engaged in observing the birthday of the Father of the Nation, the Honourable James Ronald Webster. And even though I am tempted to show the contrast between leadership styles — I fear that to do so would not be in keeping with his stated desire to unite rather than divide Anguilla. In his letter to the Government, dated January 10th 2013, Mr. Webster wrote: “There has been some indication that the official observance of my birthday, with a number of activities, can become a source of political rivalry and disunity in Anguilla – all in my name. My aim, as Revolutionary Leader, has always been to unite all Anguillians towards a common goal and my desire is for this to continue.” For any Anguillian who had any doubts about Mr. Webster, as a leader, deserving of the acclaim that he is accorded as “Father of the Nation”, this letter to the Government should erase them all.
In my article: “From Warrior to Statesman” dated June 8, 2012, I expressed my satisfaction with the transition the Father of the Nation had made over the period of his life. It is a transition that reflects the times and period in which we live as Anguillians, and the new approaches we must take to achieve our goals as time moves on. It shows a leader who is not prepared to look in the rear view mirror, but rather to look ahead at the approaching challenges with new perspectives. Mr. Webster’s presentation clearly showed that the “warrior” stage of our development is over — this is the era of the “statesman”, the “board room negotiator”.
I believe that it is most appropriate on this occasion to include in its entirety an excerpt from my article which includes Mr. Webster’s advice to the Government and People of Anguilla on Anguilla Day 2012. I wrote as follows:
“I must say that Mr. Webster’s presentation and his letter to the Chief Minister, delivered by his daughter, were both most statesmanlike and befitting the station of one who is acclaimed Father of the Nation.
“Mr. Webster was most humble, gracious and wise in the manner in which he offered advice to the Chief Minister and his administration on the subject of Independence for Anguilla. I was very happy to note that what he had to say was appropriately placed in its historical context and supported by empirical evidence and sound analysis. The Father of the Nation took the time to explain the importance of Independence as a national aspiration — and not simply as a solution to our economic woes or to any disagreement with the British Government or the Governor. In his concluding remarks he stated:
‘I have said all this to emphasize one single fact. We need to begin the process towards independence by means of a referendum. We cannot throw the Governor and the British Government off the island as we did with the St. Kitts police 45 years ago. We have at our disposal their words and Orders in Council of commitment about our future, and we have the facility of a referendum to choose between our present status as an Overseas Territory and a fully Independent State whether under your Government or a successive Government of Anguilla.
‘Let us begin this process now: set in motion the process for a referendum. You have the benefit of getting approval both in the Executive Council, as well as the House of Assembly, where the Government has the majority of Elected Members. Once the referendum has been decided upon then comes the need to sensitize our people across the length and breadth of Anguilla about independence and the importance of unity on the issue. Give Anguillians a chance, whatever their views are, to vote for their future one way or another and take the chance we took in our early referendums of 1967 and 1969. At least your Government would have taken a practical step towards the question of Independence for Anguilla.’
“Mr. Webster arrived at this conclusion after explaining that the issue of Independence for Anguilla is a matter for Anguillians to decide. He used a number of past and recent pronouncements, legislation and policy positions to illustrate this point. He even quoted Her Majesty the Queen in an address she delivered in Anguilla in February 1994 when she said: “The choices about Anguilla’s future are for Anguillians to make. “The United Kingdom will guarantee your freedom to choose whatever constitutional status you consider best for yourselves.’
“I sincerely hope that the Chief Minister and his colleagues, many of whom seem bent on misleading Anguillians into believing that they need to “take to the streets” to achieve Independence, will now put that charade to rest. Quite to the contrary, the Anguilla United Front (AUF) through various presentations in print and broadcast media, over the last two years, have been pointing out that no one will stand between us and the road to Independence, if it is the declared wish of the people expressed through a referendum. Mr. David Carty also put it very succinctly by intimating that we can practically achieve Independence by email. Indeed, Mr. Webster agrees in his letter with the AUF position that it is time for the Chief Minister and his Government to “cut the loose talk” and get on with the process — if that is what they really want? Mr. Webster very sternly posed the question: ‘Why are we dragging our feet and saying that we want independence, but are not in fact building on the foundation already laid for it by the British themselves?’
“Mr. Webster also makes this statement in which he explains that if we are serious we can achieve our goals without hindrance from Britain. He wrote: ‘We are a lot luckier now than in 1967, and the years following, when we were groping in the darkness on the road to self-determination ….. In several cases the British Government facilitated our efforts as a united people and I don’t see any reason why Britain should not do so now if we are really serious.”’
I thought that it would be instructive to repeat my comments from last year as a tribute to Mr. Webster’s evolving legacy not only as the Revolutionary Leader and Father of the Nation but also as a Statesman with great Wisdom. And in the context of his letter to the Government concerning the celebration of his Birthday — one may observe how that action has basically dissipated the difference of opinion between groups about how that event should be observed. He effectively provides the basis for unifying the factional memories of the Revolution when he wrote: “The observance of Anguilla Day should be the sole occasion for focus and celebration as it embodies all of our past struggles, our accomplishments, our pride, and our future hopes. That realisation and observance should outweigh all other celebrations.”
Mr. Webster goes on to say, “The Revolution was not about me. It was for the freedom and prosperity of the people of Anguilla: those who lived during that period; those who are still alive today; and those of our generations yet unborn. I believe I have laid the foundation for others to take up the mantle of leadership from where I left off, and over the years I have attempted to point both our leaders and people into the direction I think Anguilla should go. My desire is to withdraw fully from any form of public life and celebration, and to devote the closing days of my life in communion with my God who has always been with me in the difficult years of our Revolution.”
Mr. Webster, we salute you in your humility and grace — it befits a Leader of our People. You have never failed to put God first in all your actions from the early days of the Revolution — not posturing, but with sound convictions. Now as you celebrate your 87th Birthday we sincerely hope and pray that you will be blessed with many more years to come. May you be around to see Anguilla heading to a place where you would want us to be — and with leaders that will serve its people with humility and grace!
