Continuing Watty’s Conversation

It is always a joy to listen to persons like Reverend Watty who refuses to hide behind his clerical garb in an effort to avoid commenting on issues affecting the society. His interview with Luzette King on her “Global Highlights” programme with Randy Dopwell on Saturday was a pleasure to listen to. Reverend Watty, who is now Dr. Watty, has recently completed a Ph.D and is now retired. His outspokenness on issues today is not a consequence of his retirement and is not new. He has always been like that and brings a refreshing theological approach to matters that many other members of the clergy try to dodge. Dr. Watty is of the view that although the Church has to respond to the world of the 21st century, its thinking and orientation is 19th century. This is a serious statement, and perhaps one can argue that this is part of the reason why many churches are empty today. He goes even further because he is continuing a search for a Caribbean theology which he began with others in the 1970s. Clearly, this is a man who realises that our Caribbean Church has to respond to the challenges of the 21st century.

He has some interesting views on Caribbean politics and the democracy that we take so much for granted. He makes a point that is not usually associated with men of the cloth but which others have been making over the years. This has to do with the fact that our democracy is really only meaningful at the time when we are given the right to exercise our vote. In fact, we should say the opportunity, because there are countries in the world where those who wield political power do not see this as a right. Their argument which is very common in the Caribbean is that once through a ballot, flawed or not, certain persons are elected to office, it is their right to determine what happens after the electorate decides to make a change. Some commentators, therefore, see our democracy as being limited to the five minutes in the polling booth. Reverend Watty also makes another interesting point where irregularities during an election exercise are often accepted on the grounds that they would not have changed the results. His argument is that if there are flaws there are flaws and that is what should matter, not whether or not they can change the results. Luzette King did make the point then that this is often the thinking of the OAS election observers and others too.

On the issue of elections, he is not satisfied that our elections, that is elections in the Caribbean, are as free and fair as they are made out to be. Moreover he doubts that election results are really an expression of the will of the people. He points to voting by persons living overseas and feels that there is something wrong with that. He refers to persons who spend most of their time overseas, who come back to vote largely because their passages are paid and then return to their normal places of residence, leaving those at home to live with the consequences of the decisions which they had made. Clearly, Dr. Watty had Dominica in mind where because of the small numbers of voters in constituencies the overseas vote could and did make a real difference. Reports from Dominica spoke of persons coming in by special charters being escorted by police through special immigration lines to the vans that were sent to take them to the polling stations and then leaving shortly after. We have had the issue, too, with voters being paid to come back to vote. In our case because the constituencies are much larger in terms of number of voters they were unlikely to have the kind of impact they had in Dominica. This matter, however, is one that needs serious debate. While we speak about seeing people in the Diaspora as part of the nation state, the issue of voting has to be carefully looked at. Not being resident means that the issues do not impact on you as much as those who are resident. Admittedly, there is another problem involved which we don’t seem to be able to deal with or perhaps don’t want to deal with. This is the matter of persons who have migrated and who remain on the voters list. I believe that if you are away for five years you are not entitled to vote, but who monitors this? Furthermore, what happens if those persons return for a weekend during those five years?

One of the other issues raised with Dr. Watty was the use of religion by politicians. He was firmly of the view that many, if not most, of them exploited religion for their own ends. One related issue which he did not seem to address and which might not have been posed to him in a way that would have solicited a response was that related to the issue of divine right. This happens in St.Vincent and other areas of the Caribbean for that matter. Once an individual gets into office, he is seen as occupying that position by a kind of divine right. It is God who has put him there some persons claim and to challenge him, even to criticise him, will be in defiance of the wishes of God. The politicians are aware of this kind of thinking and really exploit it for their own ends. Not only is it sacrilegious but it is downright nasty and scampish and a play on the religious sensitivity of our people.

It will be good to hear more persons of the cloth making their voices heard on matters affecting the society. One does not expect to hear ministers of religion taking partisan positions, but we expect them to make statements based on principles and values that are dear to a society that is founded on the tenets of Christianity. All of this makes religion meaningful and brings it alive. Our society has moved away in all areas from values and principles that are at the foundation of our Caribbean civilisation. This is particularly so in the area of politics. It will be good to hear the voices of the Church not taking the side of one party against the other but speaking bravely on issues and denouncing any efforts to destroy those values and practices that we hold so dear.

Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian.