Yawn inducing?
Posted by AlexT - 27/07/09 at 03:07 pmIain Hunter, a Canadian journalist writing for the Times Colonist, asks why so many of us will react with a yawn to discussion of the Commonwealth.
I suspect a lot of us don’t like the whiff of colonialism that we detect about the institution, the implication that Britain is still running the show.
Australians have been rude for some time about our dear Queen, who is titled “head” of the Commonwealth, which makes it sound like a private school. Quite a lot of Canadians, too, feel that the monarchial tie with the mother country should be severed.
But, he argues,
The Commonwealth is more than just fun, or its Games. It’s an institution, like NATO, looking not just for a reason to exist, but ways in which to use its existence to better the human condition.
What do you think? Yawn-inducing? Or a force for good? Perhaps both?
Read the rest of his article here. And comment below.
Commonwealth can make a better world, By Iain Hunter, Times Colonist, July 25 2009
Category : My Commonwealth
Tags: Human Rights, monarchy
Stay Updated : 
RSS 2.0 feed.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Excellent article, and absolutely true. The Commonwealth is one of those few organisations these days that exists for positive and diverse reasons.
The EU, AU, NATO etc. are for exclusive protection of interests and cultural insularity. The UN is hamstrung by inequalities and a lack of consensus.
But the Commonwealth has core values, a common language, and no matter how much people are afraid of it, a common history. As well as massive ethnic diversity and widely differing cultures. Nowhere else has that.
The Commonwealth represents the globalisation the world needs, not the glaobalisation it has.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
RFLowings, you say the Commonwealth represents the globalization the world needs. globalization has a lot to do with integration through global networks of exchange.
I agree with you that nowhere else has what the commonwealth has, but has it been utilized to the best? have we had the exchanges within the commonwealth that come along with globalization?
To me the commonwealth represents the ideal vehicle for development, peace building, security, equality, cultural integration, tolerance, respect, understanding…. but the vehicle needs to move!
July 29th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
“Some Canadians might feel miffed that upon embarkation at Heathrow or Southampton they can no long jump the queue as subjects of the Commonwealth. Others might feel little common bond with subjects from places where political disorder is promoted and human suffering condoned.”
There are two points here.
The first of course seems flippant, but it seems to be the case that where there is a distinction made between Commonwealth and Foreign there’s a greater sense of connectedness. The British Army, for example, has different joining regulations for Commonwealth people and others, and there seems to be a much greater and much more positive awareness of the Commonwealth in those circles. Perhaps a few small changes like these could foster a positive attitude more broadly?
The point about not feeling a connection with countries where “political disorder is promoted and human suffering condoned” is important too. There seems to be no transparent set of red lines which, when crossed, lead to suspension from the Commonwealth. This leads to the unfortunate impression that the Commonwealth functions like a school common room.
July 30th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Murangira, quite correct – the vehicle needs to be moved, and movend in the direction of building links.
I propose that the Commonwealth work with volunteer programs throughout member states in order to create a ‘work and travel’ program which should be availible to people of working age – such programs exist at a national level in semi-developed and developed countries but the Commonwealth should make efforts to reach young people and the unemployed in deprived member states where their skills cannot be used, or they are trapped in a cycle of subsistence. If the Commonwealth can provide an opportunity to see the world and earn some money/get an education, then there is the possibility for real change in the ‘thrid world’, and greater understanding between cultures.
In response to Invictus_88, your first point refers to an issue of National, not Commonwealth, policy. I agree that it must ‘mean something’ to be a citizen of the Commonwealth but this is exceptionally difficult to enforce, often to encourage. Developed nations fear being swamped by immigrants and asylum seekers, developing nations resent percieved ‘Imperialism’ from rich foreigners, even from within the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth must work to dispel these fears first. It would be nice to see some Commonwealth treaties on travel/free passage to be sure.
“Red Lines?” If the Commonwealth establishes a ‘one size fits all’ policy to dealing with crises, it loses the unique flexibility it possesses. The Commonwealth club is a means to help the underprivilaged and the oppressed peoples of the world, not punish them when their governments step out of line. Having a ‘line’ in itself smacks of the “black & white” (for want of a better expression) morality which the Commonwealth has outgrown.
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
I continually see the words “democracy” and “diversity” used when the commonwealth tries to describe itself. Then I notice that the Head of the Commonwealth, for life, is a monarch.
I know the title will not necessarily pass on to her offspring but it should be made clear that it will absolutely not happen. De facto hereditary titles have no place in an organization promoting equality, diversity, and democracy. The idea that some people were born better than others died last century.
The position should simply be merged with the Secretariat so we can see people of different religions, race and nationality in the role.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
…and this is where I must disagree. The fundamental priniciple of having a Monarch as head of the Commonwealth is continuity.
I hae noted in the Republics I have visited that the primary difficulty with reconciling the system is that individuals are reluctant to criticise the President while not criticising the Country. One represents the other – and anyone who doubts in the power of symbols should try wearing a swastika to work and see what it gets them.
The head of the Commonwealth is a symbol. This is its role. Under no circumstances must the role be merged with the Secretariat. For one, the Commonwealth Secretary-General has heretofore been an even more unknown entity than the Commonwealth itself, especially in Westernesse. To have one individual both representing and governing the actions of the Commonwealth would be disastrous. Where is the fail-safe?
If you have a Secretary-General representing the Commonwealth then you have another unelected individual, thus making the switch meaningless. Without the pomp and circumstance of Monarchy the role becomes about a thousand times less interesting.
Having democratically elected leaders would be worse. It would encourage politicians to apply or the position – or be randomly allocated from heads of state. Can you imagine the madness of Jacob Zuma of South Africa as head of the Commonwealth?
No politicians, please. They really are apalling people.
But the diversity issue is a difficulty. While Charles, Prince of Wales is proving to be a most excellent Monarchical example, there is something unpalatable for many of the bitter and twisted elements in memeber states by having a British King or Queen representing the whole.
So I woud argue that, if the head of the Commonwealth must be rotated, the role must be given to philosiphers, poets, activists… People whom the Commonwealth would be happy to award a ceremonial position. This does not knock King Charles III out of the running but it enables any level-headed individual from across the Commonwealth to compete.
Thus, we have a system where politicians are not given any more power than they deserve, nor are unknowns, no matter how hard-working.
Monarchy is far from an outdated principle – do not make the mistake of assuming the politicians are equal to the role. Would you put faith in one?
August 4th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Democracy is tough no doubt about it. Those arguing against it often cite the lack of continuity over time and the need for a politician to appeal to popular opinion (“mob rule”) as weaknesses. For myself, I would always err on the side of people making a bad decision rather than having no decision at all.
The Commonwealth will have to decide if having a member of a single family living in England as its head is the kind of image they are trying to present as their vision of a diverse and democratic association.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:40 am
I am coming around to the idea of rotating heads of Commonwealth. But politicians are the wrong people to have. As I say, philosophers and activists – people of sound mind – are the way to go. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles are two such, but it is up to the Commonwealth who they wish to put in place as head. Whoever it is, the role should remain ceremonial.
The head of Commonwealth is a figurehead. They should make speeches, promote campaigns… but executive power is not desirable. That should remain with a Secretariat who act in a parliamentary way. One individual deciding upon matters for the Commonwealth goes against the grain of the organisation.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Is there a way we can separate the idea of the grand British monarch and the executive with powers and mandates over member states?
August 5th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
The two are seperate. HM Queen Elizabeth is Head of the Commonwealth due to the affection felt for her at the organisation’s inception in 1949. If such affection is no longer extant, then it is a shame, but the role of Head of the Commonwealth must pass to another individual on HM’s Death.
There are no powers or mandates over member states in the Commonwealth. There never were. The organisation and the role of the HOC was established b consensus, and the next HOC should be established bny the same.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“?Red Lines?? If the Commonwealth establishes a ?one size fits all? policy to dealing with crises, it loses the unique flexibility it possesses. The Commonwealth club is a means to help the underprivilaged and the oppressed peoples of the world, not punish them when their governments step out of line. Having a ?line? in itself smacks of the ?black & white? (for want of a better expression) morality which the Commonwealth has outgrown.”
You say this, and I do certainly accept your point about the essential value of a flexible response to problems, but there must surely be some agreeded sense in which some things are acceptable and others not?
If the Commonwealth really has outgrown objective standards for good and bad, then what is the value of the principles laid out in the Harare Principles? Racial equality, individual liberty, responsible development.
If a state (Zimbabwe is the obvious, if clich? example) begins to enact policies directly contrary to those priciples, can one not say that lines are being crossed?
August 7th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
But what then is the result?
The Commonwealth has no disciplinary measure beyond suspension, and certainly no capacity for ‘restoring order’.
Had Zimbabwe been ejected from the Commonwealth nothing would have changed. The same goes for Fiji, and Fiji has now allowed Commonwealth arbitrators into the country.
The point is that the Commonwealth is a toothless tiger. While they can talk about and set an example for good governence, they cannot force anyone to abide by those principles without losing credibility.
However, when a peaceful settlement can be reached it is an even better example to the world that force is not the answer. Ejection in such cases would render Commonwealth influence totally negligible. If the Commonwealth wants to have a strict moral code for membership then it has to become a more fearsome entity altogether. And that is not what the Commonwealth was created to achieve.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
When I asked that we separate the two, I meant that we can have HM Queen Elizabeth as the head of the commonwealth. there is no problem with that. however, if you want to go into SriLanka as a police force
to help the Tamil’s or go into Somalia and restore sanity, or Zimbabwe to help the people. You can not afford to go in the name if HM the Queen.
In separating the two, the commonwealth must come off as an independent growing association of states working to promote democracy and good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law, as well as sustainable environmental, economic and social development.
with a visible, transparent and popular secretariat that has power and mandates over its member states. The head of the secretariat must strive to come to the fore front of the organization. and for the sake of implementing policies and decisions drawn up by members he/she must take center stage. HM the Queen should not be at the fore front as she is, cause she represents a monarch, and a colonial past.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
When I asked that we separate the two, I meant that we can have HM Queen Elizabeth as the head of the commonwealth. There is no problem with that. however, if you want to go into SriLanka as a police force to help the Tamil’s or go into Somalia and restore sanity, or Zimbabwe to help the people. You can not afford to go in the name if HM the Queen.
In separating the two, the commonwealth must come off as an independent growing association of states working to promote democracy and good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law, as well as sustainable environmental, economic and social development.
With a visible, transparent and popular secretariat that has power and mandates over its member states. The head of the secretariat must strive to come to the fore front of the organization. and for the sake of implementing policies and decisions drawn up by members he/she must take center stage. HM the Queen should not be at the fore front as she is, because she represents a monarch, and a colonial past.
August 10th, 2009 at 8:41 am
That’s a very good point, Murangira. If the Commonwealth is to become a more active organisation with more powers and mandates, then yes, absolutely, it must be made very clear that it is not on HM’s order.
The Head of the Commonwealth as a Ceremonial position does separate the ‘active’ Secretariat and the ‘Passive’ nature of monarchy, but yes, this is still a hot issue.
I think the problem is partly one of media coverage. Her Majesty is pretty clever with the British Government and avoid attatching her name to the actions of the ruling party. Any future Secretary-General should be a leader in their own right, undertaking actions approved by the Commonwealth without recourse to Monarchical approval
It might be like that already, but how would we know when there’s no media coverage of Commonwealth activities.
Quite right. The Secretariat and the Monarchy must remain separate. Apologies for the misinterpretation.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
The Queen is who keeps the Commonwealth together, she has worked so much for it in the past 50 years. She is the only person who is Head of State of several countries within the Commonwealth, who else for Head of the Commonwealth?
There is no monarchical tie with Britain (nor is there in any country which has the Queen has Head of State, e.g Canada severed all links with Britain in 1982, and made a distinct Canadian Crown), the Head of the C’wealth position is elected by C’wealth Heads of Government upon the passing away of the previous Head. The Queen was chosen by the C’wealth Heads of Gov in 1952 to become Head of the Commonwealth, she did not automatically become. Her Majesty is the one who has kept the Commonwealth of Nations united for more than half a century.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:19 am
It is not Her Majesty who is at issue, her conduct is impeccable. But if the Commonwealth is to substantially change its working nature and develop ‘powers and mandates’ over member states then there is a danger that it could be seen as a neo-colonialist organisation. That is a genuine risk, no matter how untrue it might be, and it is up to us to think our way out of that.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
I think the Commonwealth could be quite relevant if it would focus on democracy rather than its imperial past. The world desperately needs a world body focused on promoting democracy.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
As a supporter of the monarchy in the United Kingdom, i think it is important to draw a line under the past to make the commonwealth a relevant and acceptable international organisation for all in the 21st century.
There for i think before the Queen dies a process should be agreed by all states about how future heads of the commonwealth will be chosen. Prince Charles has enough to worry about with republican movements in the UK or commonwealth realms, without the need to worry about trying to get the support of the entire Commonwealth of Nations as well.
The commonwealth of nations has great potential in the future but it must be seen as fully democratic and not tied to the United Kingdom or just the “Commonwealth realms”, especially as the Commonwealths most important member is India.