Co-founder of the New Zealand Republican Movement says: “Queen Elizabeth should abdicate her position as Head of the Commonwealth”
Posted by AlexT - 20/08/09 at 11:08 amSavage, a co-founder of the New Zealand Republican Movement has written the following contribution to the Commonwealth Conversation:
There is a belief perpetuated in Britain and other Commonwealth countries that the British Empire was of benefit to the world. The greed and racism are forgotten. The invasions, wars, political oppression and genocide are downplayed. The poverty and inequality it created are conveniently ignored.
The damage caused by Britain’s imperial project is not something many British people want to accept. The overall approach is a self-deluding calculation. Weighing up the positive and negative, the overall achievements were positive. The empire was a good thing.
This ongoing debate about the Empire’s historical merits is relevant to the commonwealth conversation. It reminds us of the attitudes and values the Commonwealth has been left to deal with. Self-delusion was an integral part of the imperial project. Institutional inequality and a commitment to democracy could only co-exist if elaborate self-delusions were maintained. Without the historical fictions and cultural myths, the contradictions inherent in the whole project would have been exposed. The fa?ade of civility and ‘progress’ would have crumbled.
The Commonwealth is still dealing with the imperial legacy. It is now working to empower commonwealth citizens; to improve living conditions and enlarge political freedoms. To do this, however, it must also deal with the delusions and contradictions inherent in its own political structure. The privileged role of the Monarchy is the most obvious contradiction.
Recent comments by Danny Sriskandarajah, director of the Royal Commonwealth Society, highlight the issue. Arguing for a commonwealth with a post-colonial identity, he none the less maintains the fiction that ‘The Queen is almost universally adored all over the Commonwealth.’ The same myth ‘that everyone loves the Monarchy’ – is used by Professor David Flint, National Convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy as a reason why Charles should be the next head of the Commonwealth.
Such deference to the royal family is ingrained in the culture of both the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth secretariat. There is an unwillingness to accept that the British Monarchy was at the heart of the whole imperial project: That the royal family prospered at the expense of the commonwealth and that their political privileges represent the outdated and dangerous belief that hierarchy and inequality are beneficial.
Britain is now one country among many. There is no sound reason why the British head of state should be any more important within the Commonwealth than that of India or Nigeria or Malta. The Royal Family certainly does not deserve such a privilege.
The Republican Movement in New Zealand is cooperating with republican movements in Britain, Australia and Canada. The four groups want the same thing – an end to the constitutional inequalities inherent in having the Monarch as head of state. While each group campaigns in its own country, the overall republic project, if taken to its logical conclusion, must also include the Commonwealth.
Queen Elizabeth should abdicate her position as Head of the Commonwealth right now. By giving up her position she demonstrates to the Commonwealth that both democracy and equality are the guiding principles of the commonwealth. If this is too hard a task for someone who still believes in the fiction of imperial progress then it falls to her son to demonstrate it. Charles must stop campaigning to become the next head of the commonwealth. There is no longer a role for his family in the Commonwealth’s political structures.
The opinion expressed in this article is that of the author and may or may not coincide with the views of the Republican Movement of New Zealand.”
Category : homepage items, My Commonwealth, The Official Commonwealth
Tags: Empire, monarchy, New Zealand, Queen, Republicanism
Stay Updated : 
RSS 2.0 feed.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Republicans will try anything to bolster their cause – no matter how absurd or contradictory. There is no point to the commonwealth without the heritage of the commonwealth – the British Empire was united under the crown, without the crown there is no unity to the commonwealth. There needs to be changes to the commonwealth, but in exactly the opposite directly to this absurd proposal by Savage.
August 20th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Savage by name, Savage by nature.
So democratically elected (some would say self-deluded) presidents are all anti-Empire, anti-enslavement and anti-imperial, whilst also being pro-democratic and pro-merit. Someone who would never dare prosper at the expense of others – because their political privileges represent a modern and healthy belief (or myth). The myth that equality of opportunity and freedom exist in republics.
For some argue that a privileged president being able to represent the people properly is equally a “historical fiction and cultural myth”. Some would say it is a lie. For one only need to check out the backgrounds and behaviours of recent occupants of The White House to put that to the test. Indeed, it is also a myth to suggest that the majority of people, particularly young people, want a president or want to live in a republic. Opinion polls do not bear that out. Yet another myth. A great myth in the republican facade of human ‘civility’ and ‘progress’.
“Greed and racism are forgotten. Invasions, wars, political oppression and genocide are downplayed. The poverty and inequality it has created are all conveniently ignored.” Savage is talking here about ‘republics’. Surely.
America, Iraq or Afghanistan, anyone?
August 20th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
37 countries in the Commonwealth are already republics. This debate is not, however, about the merits of hereditary leadership or republicanism at the state level. It is about the future of the Commonwealth as an international organisation. It is about whether the Commonwealth needs one person to be Head of the Commonwealth. If so, then how the new head of the commonwealth should be chosen?
August 20th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I think merits of the republican position with regard to particular countries are amplified when it comes to the Commonwealth. If there is little point in a having a hereditary monarchy for modern, health individual democracies, then there’s even less point in having a monarch as the titular Head of an association of many democracies. No matter how much people love Her Maj, having her as head of the Commonwealth sends all the wrong signals and hinders the evolution of a truly modern post-colonial institution.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
The role of the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth is like that of an honorary chairman and as she has little or no influence upon Commonwealth policies (alhough they are hardly effective) or of the republic member states, I dont see what difference it makes if she is or is not the head, atleast this way some people know what the Commonwealth is as they are ‘fans of the Queen’ , the basic point is the commonwealth needs a high profile head of the organisation as it does not have much else to offer politically or policy- wise because it holds limited influence so if not the Queen then it should be someone like Nelson Mandela.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:21 am
I have been following the history of the British Empire and the Commonwealth recently and within the last few months have learned more than ever in my 20 odd years of life.
As someone who is British I do feel a sense of pride that the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth and the Queen still of some countries descended from my forefathers.
At school all we were taught about the Empire was that it was bad, involved slavery, we abolished slavery, World War 2 happened and the Commonwealth and Europe were created. Two to three hundred years of history condensed into a couple of lines.
What really happened was the unfolding of a world order that is still maturing today. What I feel was good about the Empire was that when mistakes were made (and we are talking some big mistakes) Britain and its colonies learned from the mistake and made a better society. Hitler commented that this would be the British Empire’s downfall, but I see it as being part of the evolution of a fair and just society. Empire’s cannot justify themselves in the modern world because of their total control, but common goals, values and respect can be justified universally hence the creation of the Commonwealth and the European Union.
However, in response to the original gentleman’s comment, who would take over? Look at the pathetic way Europe handles itself because no-one can decide who should be its leader or central spokesperson. Its corrupted because it is controlled by power hungry politicians the likes of which can be found in the USA, China, Russia, and the boardrooms of global corporations. The Queen and her heirs are impartial, with conscience and command a respect far deeper than any politician. This is why she should continue because at this moment in time the world does not have a suitable replacement. In time someone may appear that commands the same respect and trust and I do believe that all the Commonwealth will embrace them, but that time is not now.
New Zealand as a republic…why?
My surname is Teasdale and originates from mainly the north east of England. I have done a quick Google of my surname in New Zealand. There are Facebook pages and businesses all with the same name, even spelt the same. In fact there is a Teasdale street in Te Awamutu Waikato. We have a bond that stretches back centuries, our two great countries.
Great Britain recognises New Zealand as a country of its own with its own Parliament the same as Great Britain. We are equal. One of the many lessons the British Empire learned at great cost. If Britain had granted America or Ireland its own Parliament such as yours or Canada’s history would be very different and we could have seen America and Ireland as members of the Commonwealth.
You are proposing change when there is no need for change. Great Britain does not benefit from the Queen being head of the Commonwealth and does not benefit from being the head of New Zealand, or Australia or Canada etc. If they’re still alive ask your great grandfather or one of your friend’s great grandfathers and I think I know what his answer would be.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:46 am
I say absolutely bloody not!
I hail from a realm founded by Englishmen, Massachusetts, one of the United States of America. Though my ancestors were not British, they were even worse: French, the Qu?b?cois who garrisoned that fair land during French rule. When George III took the land 250 years ago, he gave us a good deal, respecting our language, our law, and our faith.
I look at my concitizens today in the world’s banner republic, and I see no traditions. I see a vast horde easily swayed by fear. I see not men but livestock. Republics degenerate into mob rule. Seriously, look at our presidents; I’d not fight or die for any of them over the past 20 years! But for a monarch, a not partisan figure who represents all that is good and honourable about one’s country, I’d gladly go to war!
This is not to say that Britain’s legacy has been completely benign; look at my cousins the Acadians, and the Irish, and the Afrikaners. But nevertheless, a monarch who has a certain idea of his nation ands is willing to defend it is far more honourable than a despot who buys good advertising intending merely to sway to television-watching crowd.
And so from Her Majesty’s wayward child, I am proud to declare, God save the Queen!
August 21st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
The Head of the Commonwealth is not an hereditary position. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the Commonwealth. This conversation thread is not about the merits of republicanism in New Zealand or about the merits of different types of republics. It is about whether the position of Head of Commonwealth is necessary and, if so, how the next Head should be selected. Not all Commonwealth countries are former British colonies. Mozambique was a Portuguese Colony. Tonga was never colonised and still has its own Monarchy. A minority of Commonwealth citizens are of British descent. Can Prince Charles embody a modern and diverse commonwealth? Can any one person?
August 21st, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Anyone can be head of the commonwealth, doesn’t change the reason as to why the commonwealth was founded. At the time of choosing the head of the commonwealth, let individuals express interest and lets discuss who best represents the values and principles of the commonwealth. It is a simple matter as the head of the commonwealth really does not do much.
And if the secretary general can perform the same role then perhaps merge the two positions or we can rest the position in her honor and have her as the last head of the commonwealth.
The organization will then change and see the Secretary general come to the fore front of the organization and lead it according to set guidelines. I think this is good for a modern and diverse commonwealth and it takes nothing away from the British Monarchy.
August 21st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I paraphrase. “If the Secretary General can perform the same role then perhaps merge the two positions. The organization will change. It will be led according to set guidelines.” This is what I fear – it will be like the UN.
The position currently held by Her Majesty The Queen in relation to The Commonwealth is a necessary one. By accepting this premise the following question arises. How should the next ‘Head of The Commonwealth’ be chosen?
The answer is very simple – by birth. In this way the special position of The Head of the Commonwealth becomes a hereditary position.
The hereditary principle is deeply rooted in human history and the human psyche. For it is only natural for a son to inherit what his father or his mother once had. The mass of mankind understands this principle and, has history shows, man likes nothing more than to celebrate this fact and to rejoice in it. Thus our own generation’s inheritance – the existence of a Queen who represents and has inherited “the values and the ideals” of The Commonwealth. A Queen who also has a son. A son who we too could celebrate as he inherits The Commonwealth. Why block this inheritance – only to give the position to a politically motivated creep or some other witless cretin?
In this way The Monarchy could become even more rooted into the history of Commonwealth.
August 21st, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I agree with Mr Welton here. While the Head of the Commonwealth may not legally be a hereditary role, the Monarchy represents the largest portion of the Commonwealth. While it may not represent every nook and cranny, there is no one that represents more than the Monarchy. No Artist, no activist, no Prime Minister or Governor General. There is no one with ties to the past as much as the Monarchy, and the past must be remembered and lessons learned from both the good and bad aspects.
If I might quote Burke: “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors. ”
There is also practical reasons that we do not want to make the Head of the Commonwealth just another spot that can be earned.
If I might quote the illustrious Burke again:
“When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people. ”
And a final one from Sir Churchill:
“A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril.”
August 21st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Great quotes Gmatt.
Have you got some more?
We might tame the Savage yet.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:12 pm
It is utterly inconceivable that Charles would be offered the position of Head of the Commonwealth. The times have changed. Monarchies are outnumbered in the Commonwealth 2:1 if one goes by the number of countries in each category. However, monarchists are an even more insignificant minority if one looks at the population of the Commonwealth, which is dominated by India and Nigeria.
Installing Charles as the next Head of the Commonwealth would be so shockingly divurgent from contemporary values among Commonwealth citizens it is simply unthinkable. It won’t happen. It really can’t happen.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
It disappoints me that discussion on such an important topic should be led by the anarchist republican “Savage”. However I must address his principal assertion. This appears to be the the former British Empire was evil, and therefore the present British Sovereign should be punished by being removed from leadership of the Commonwealth. That is unjust, and illogical.
Secondly, the Commonwealth was known (is still known to many) as the British Commonwealth, for a reason. It is, by definition, an association of former members of the British Empire.
If the history of the organisation was completely expunged it would loses its raison d’etre.
If the Commonwealth’s connection to the Crown should be severed because the Empire was evil, should not the organisation itself be abolished – as the vestiges of an evil empire? That would be the logical conclusion to Savage’s argument.
The symbolic leadership of the British Crown is one of the few unifying elements of the organisation, and must remain.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:18 pm
My central argument is that the British Monarchy contradicts (and always has) the fundamental principles of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth exists to encourage democracy and equality in member states. The 1991 Harare Declaration reaffirmed an international commitment to “equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, race, colour, creed or political belief”. Traditional hereditary leadership is still part of many cultures within the commonwealth but it cannot and does not work at the local, state or international level. The Monarchy are an imperial remnant and there is no place for them in the future governance of the Commonwealth. It is no longer really necessary to have a Head of the Commonwealth at all. It makes more sense for the 53 democratically elected leaders of the Commonwealth Governments to define the goals of the organisation and then to appoint or elect a Secretary-General who can lead the Secretariat in that work. Its time for the Commonwealth to get on with achieving its aims. Political and economic equality are the goals. Time to make them happen.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:21 pm
RES PUBLICA:
The population of India was around to choose Her Majesty for the role sixty years ago, so that hardly seems like a valid reason for removing the privilege of heading the Commonwealth from the Her Majesty, or to rule out Charles from the get go.
As paratus pointed out, if it is for anti-Empire reasons, it is only logical to continue and remove all vestiges of the Empire from it, and if that is done it will become just another of these politically correct, feel good organizations. That is not something I would support.
If these other countries do not feel comfortable being part of an organization whose Head is a monarch, they are more than free to leave, and have had that opportunity for the last 60 years.
They can go start their own organization, and many of them have. Not that I would condone them leaving the Commonwealth, but what could I do about it?
If they don’t like the ‘colonial’ aspects they claim to see, then perhaps they should leave the organization entirely instead of trying to tailor it to their own ends.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Excellent points Paratus and Gmatt.
Why does Res Publica assume that people who live in republics want to live in a republic? It is as daft as suggesting that because you live in a republic you do not want to see a British Monarch as Head of The Commonwealth. His logic reversed would mean the following. All republicans in a Monarchy are monarchists.
At least Savage has finally revealed his true colours. He wants to see a leader “regardless of political belief”. This also means that he wants to see someone with a political belief. Why have this cotton when you can have silk?
August 22nd, 2009 at 3:04 am
Monarchists live in a fantasy world in which people gladly accept sexism, racism, nepotism and religious bigotry as “silk.”
Not that long ago they were trying to have members of the royal family appointed as governors-general in places like Canada and New Zealand. There was no way such countries would accept such nonsense, but the monarchists pushed it anyway–just as they are pushing to have Charles succeed his mother.
If Elizabeth lives to be as old as her mother (and I hope she does) Australia will almost certainly be a republic, and quite possibly Canada and New Zealand as well, to say nothing of Barbados, Jamaica etc.
And Charles has indicated that he does not accept the role of an apolitical head of state. He wants to advocate various positions, which will make him even more unacceptable.
It’s ludicrous. It isn’t going to happen. This isn’t 1952.
August 22nd, 2009 at 3:08 am
“Weighing up the positive and negative, the overall achievements were positive. The empire was a good thing.”
Precisely.
“Institutional inequality and a commitment to democracy could only co-exist if elaborate self-delusions were maintained.”
I expect that Mr. Savage would have us sacrifice to Equality and Democracy as if they were inherently good — that is, of value in and of themselves. Mr. Savage speaks of these things as one speaks of pagan idols. Plato’s Ideas. The only contradiction that exists is between the Crown and two imaginary things Mr. Savage has made up. Talk about delusional. If I ever manage to get myself baptised, then sacrificing to pagan idols will be officially against my religion.
The chief benefit of the Empire was trade, and with it, freedom of movement. Since citizenship is traditionally predicated on loyalty to the Crown, HM loyal subjects have a lawful right to travel, live and work anywhere within her possessions, except where expressly prohibited by treaty or ancient tradition. Best to get that going in the loyal parts and let the pagan republics go. If Mr. Savage doesn’t like it he might try Zimbabwe. Lots of pagans out there.
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:05 am
While I respect Mr./Mrs. Savage’s contribution to this open Conversation; I reject his/her republican proposal.
Much of what I would like to argue has already been eloquently presented by other contributers, however I will add that I would whole-heartingly support (although wouldn’t really recommend) a legislative ammendment indeffinately guaranteeing the hereditary succession into the office of Head of The Commonwealth, in order to make a decisive movement in the debate and thus protect the integrity of the Commonwealth tradition.
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:18 am
It is important to remember that an apolitical leader is different from a non-partisan leader. The Monarchy are political in that they occupy a constitutional and therefore political position. In Britain, at the state level, the Monarch remains ‘non-partisan’. As do Heads of State in parliamentary republics (which are different from presidential republics). Governor-Generals in Commonwealth countries are similarly political but non-partisan. At the international level any ‘Head of the Commonwealth’ needs to be seen as ‘non-aligned’ in that they remain impartial between all of the countries in the commonwealth. Lets narrow the conversation down to deal with a specific case study as there are a lot of generalisations flying about. The more specific it gets the more productive the debate. Fiji is currently suspended from the Commonwealth due to a military coup and a government that has suspended democracy. Fiji is in a dispute with New Zealand and Australia over this largely regional matter. Could Queen Elizabeth, the current Head of State of Australia and NZ help to resolve this matter? Would the government and its supporters in Fiji perceive the Monarch as non-aligned?
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 am
The Prince of Wales has never said that he does not accept the role of an apolitical Head Of State. However as The Prince of Wales he wants to advocate various positions. He is free to do this (as anyone is) because The Prince of Wales is not a Constitutional role.
The republican case is, as always, based on a very large set of assumptions. The assumption that people who live in republics do not want to see a Monarch as Head of The Commonwealth. The assumption that Australia, New Zealand and Canada will almost certainly be republics.
I admit that a number of monarchists do live in a fantasy world in which sexism, racism, nepotism and religious bigotry are “silk”. However, yet again, republicans also assume that all monarchists are like that. When will republicans admit that a minority of them also celebrate sexism, racism, nepotism and religious bigotry – particularly amongst their supporters on the political Right.
I increasingly sense that Savage wants to see a very political and partisan Head of The Commonwealth. That would be a disaster. Not just for Commonwealth but also for The Head.
The fact Savage does not know The Queen’s position concerning Fiji rather makes my point, don’t you think? I only hope to God that Savage does not also endorse Democracy – Fiji style. A bullet in the head, anyone?
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
People are claiming that Elizabeth is somehow impartial, and yet she promotes her religion by addressing the mostly non-Christian Commonwealth at Christmas every year. We might as well ask the Pope to be Head of the Commonwealth.
Given her personal interest in perpetuating her family’s franchise, isn’t she in a deep conflict of interest? It was very clever the way Charles managed to crash the CHOG meeting in 2007, but not very well received, eh?
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/26340/Banquet-snub-to-Royals
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Funny how republicans, when they lose the politically impartial argument, then switch over to the impartiality concerning religion.
Republicans claim they respect other peoples beliefs – whether they be religious, secular or political opinions. This idea could extend to a Queen and Her son. Respecting differing opinions also means respecting people who are Christian and not denigrating them. What is it you have against The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost and all that God has done?
I’m not surprised you want to see the Royals gone. So much tolerance from one so tolerant.
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I didn’t “lose” the politically impartial argument. I simply tire of rebutting all the nonsense monarchists spew. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/nov/17/monarchy-prince-charles-king-politics
And exactly how did I “denigrate” Elizabeth and Charles as Christians? I simply pointed out that she uses her position as Head of the Commonwealth to promote her own religion above all others. That is simply a fact.
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
The English speaking world, by tradition, is Christian in it’s outlook. I admit it is not very Christian any longer, from the laws being enacted to the way people are any more, but regardless, it is our heritage.
I would like to see a proposal for anyone who is perfectly impartial in any matter, and anyone who claims they are I would seriously doubt.
Therefore, as I do not believe any one person, besides the Lord Himself, will or has ever live up to the Republican criteria, the weight of tradition is the deciding factor in favour of the Monarchy.
Now, many people also assume that the Head of the Commonwealth must be a office that is filled by someone entirely impartial, why? The best leaders are those who know what they want and where they wish to go with their charges, the Head of the Commonwealth is not a judge in the sense of it being the primary role of the said office.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
So, the Commonwealth is Christian, eh? Why should its four most populous members (none of them majority Christian, all of them at least twice as populous as Britain) remain?
You keep blathering on about Elizabeth’s impartiality while utterly ignoring that Charles is anything but. He has created an impressive record of partiality that will follow him for the rest of his life. Sticking a crown on his head won’t make the Tampon Prince’s baggage disappear.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Welton, you fear that if the positions are merged then the organization will become like the UN.
The UN with all its failures is far more relevant to members of the commonwealth than the commonwealth itself. at least in Africa and Asia.
Let every country decide who leads it and what form of leadership they prefer. But when you have a union of 53 diverse and growing it may not be fair to have the top position as hereditary.
Yes H.M the queen is exceptional and prince Charles might do an equally perfect job but having it tied to a British monarch and yet opening up the membership to countries that have nothing British about them does not make much sense.
I think that in opening up the membership, tradition was broken and with that many other things will have to follow. This discussion of for the future of the commonwealth. lets picture a time when Rwanda, Yemen, and any other countries interested are members. Its only fair that they have a say in who leads them.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Leaving aside generalisations about republicans and monarchists, Murangira has highlighted an important aspect of the modern Commonwealth: The opening of membership to ‘non-empire’ countries. Commonwealth membership is now open to any country that is fully sovereign and that supports (and practices) the principles laid out in the Harare declaration. They must also agree to recognise Queen Elizabeth as the Head of the Commonwealth. This is because she is the existing Head of the Commonwealth. The requirement, if it remained, would be that a country recognise the existing head of the Commonwealth.
I would support Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth. They are already part of the EU (so may not see any benefits) but having another stable European democracy like Ireland in the Commonwealth would be advantageous. I think there is a good case for inviting New Caledonia to join. Voters there will soon decide whether to remain a part of France or become an independent state. They are already part of the Pacific Islands Forum but being part of the Commonwealth may help them. It would certainly strengthen the Commonwealth in the Pacific. Timor-Leste is another contender. Another emerging democracy and another former Portuguese colony so a good link to Mozambique.
I do not think the position ‘Head of the Commonwealth’ is necessary. More prominence should instead be given to the role of Secretary-General.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
RES PUBLICA, I never said Her Majesty was impartial, I instead questioned the reasoning behind the required need for impartiality. I understand it is a useful virtue, but considering no one is entirely impartial, I think too much emphasis is being put on a candidates impartiality.
No, the Commonwealth is not Christian, but the majority of us former British colonies or dependencies, not to mention the British State itself, have been effected by Christianity. I shall not list the benefits, as it would only be counterlisted and so on, as there has been sad instances where it has not lived up to it’s basis and roots, that I cannot and will not deny.
I personally would not be opposed to Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth, not just for the sake of opposing it anyways, it makes sense.
Sadly I wasn’t around, or at least, not in a capacity to debate, when states with no British Heritage were originally allowed into the Commonwealth, but in reply to the point about them having a say, I believe this.
If they wish to join our Commonwealth they should do it on our terms, whatever they may be. They should not expect to have as much of a say as the old members until they prove themselves willing to uphold our standard and embrace the history of the Commonwealth as it is.
While one can invite the stranger in to get out of the rain, one should not have to rearrange his house on the whims of the stranger.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:07 am
I’m very glad this topic has ben raised at last. It is also good to hear from a Republican commentator, as tere is a definite Monarchist dominance here. Myself included.
Like it or not, the Commonwealth is born from the British Empire, and to pretend that the Empire is not the source of the education, infrastructure, and freedom of thought which the Commonwealth now holds as its central principles is just a waste of everyone’s time. If the founding principles of the Commonwealth are to be genuinely approved of, then the Empire must be approved too. The Empire was an organic organisation which evolved from commercial enterprise to British hemogeny to mass-educated, diverse Commonwealth. There was no epiphany where the Empire ended and ‘freedom’ began. This is one of Mr. Savage’s premises and it is cobblers.
It is worth noting that prior to the existence of the Raj, the primary pastime of Muhgal rulers in India was slaughtering their rivals. Since the end of Empire, Slave-trading and Piracy have become profitable career choices again. Empire’s end has been far from beneficial.
But the debatable role of the Monarchy is important, and it is good to see the Republican perspective.
The Monarchy should not ‘automtically’ inherit the role of Head of Commonwealth. I believe in Prince Charles as much on his own individual merit as on his position as heir to the 17 realms (though the latter is of course a factor), and I hope that when the time comes for the next Head of Commonwealth to be chosen, the Secretariat will see him that way as well.
But Murangira is quite right on this score! Again! It should be up to the collected governments of the Commonwealth, Monarchies and Republics, to decide ‘who next?’
But a merged headship/secretariat is not optimal. There was a comment earlier (I apologise to the poster) about a ‘high profile’ head of state. This is vital. Unfortunatley, very few people have heard of the Commonwealth Secretary-General. The Commonwealth will have their work cut out to publicise or popularise a SG who, though likely very capable, would have had a low-profile existence heretofore. You cannot build these things from scratch (the prime, and most valid, argument against Republicanism, but this is irrelevant).
When the time comes, it is up to our collective governments to decide on the next Head of Commonwealth. I believe that the ‘symbolic’ role of a high-profile figurehead is necessary in this world, but that is another debate. I will lobby the British government to support Charles… when the time comes. All of us here should make up our own minds and do the same.
For the record, Monarchy is not an antiquated institution. The supposed religious bigotry of Her Majesty is no more or less real than the religious bigotry of any other head of state – to pretend that Presidents are not elected for religious reasons is to state that Barack Obama could have won the US presidential election if he was a Moslem. I am no Christian, but Her Majesty is and I respect that. I care more for her actions on this plane than her belief in Jehova.
And as a postscript, this thread has seen many intelligent commentators (Monarchist and Republican) lose credibility by directly attacking or insulting individual persons, be they other posters or absent public figures. May I recommend that in future we all consider carfully our words on this site, the 2009 CHOGM will doubtless be reviewing this debate and we wish to present intelligent arguments, not Flaming. referring to HRH as a ‘Tampon Prince’ or generalising about Republican beliefs only harms your own arguments and further entrenches this already partisan debate. Leave it out, please.
Credit to Mr. Savage for sticking his head into the Lion’s den, and competantly defending his arguments without resorting to insults.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I welcome RFlowings comments but he/she has distorted my overall argument. I agree “there is no epiphany where the Empire ended and freedom began”. This is not, however, one of my premises. Read my argument again. I do not argue that the Empire entailed no benefits. Only that many believe the positive and negative aspects have canceled each other out.
I argue that (as in all empires) greed and racism were an inherent part of the British Empire. The myth of innate English and British superiority was used to justify why, despite its purported values, some people were considered more worthy and more equal than others. Maintaining the myths of a benevolent empire has remained necessary in order to cover over the contradictions caused by the existence of so much political oppression within apparently civil commonwealth societies.
The Empire’s values are now giving way to the Commonwealth’s principles (yes, a positive legacy of the British approach to empire) but British hegemony still continues. The imperial mindset remains. Central to this is an unwillingness to see that the Monarchy are symbols of that failed belief in innate superiority. They are the symbols of empire. They are not symbols or advocates of equality. Hereditary leadership based on British, Church of England and male superiority very obviously contradict the Harare declaration. The Monarchy are clinging to power and prestige wherever they can.
All over the Commonwealth the legacy of the empire remains. Poverty, ethnic fighting, inequality, instability. People in colonised countries understand this more clearly. Many of the social problems we are facing have their origins in imperial and colonial policies that sought to privilege the ruling classes of Britain and the ruling elites of the colony. This is clearly evident in Australasia and in the South Pacific.
If the Commonwealth is to overcome these problems it needs to work harder to live up to its fundamental principles. Another British Head of State, another British Aristocrat, at the head of the Commonwealth is not going to strengthen the Commonwealth. It is only going to perpetuate an unhealthy British (and Australian and Canadian and New Zealand) hegemony.
A Secretary-General without a Head of Commonwealth above them will easily raise the profile of the Secretariat. With each new Secretary-General working at the head of the Commonwealth the position will become increasingly prominent and effective.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Murangira: Spiritual tradition was not broken when membership of Commonwealth was opened up. Only physical and legal tradition were altered. If countries join up, they should accept the spiritual Headship of Monarchy.
RFLowings: I’m surprised you view the role of Monarchy in The Commonwealth as “debatable” and that Monarchy “should not” automatically inherit the role of The Head. You claim to be a monarchist but your own beliefs contradict the interests of Monarchy. I therefore view your judgments about me in the same light.
Savage: The Monarchy is The Commonwealth’s spiritual heart. Without this heart it will have no soul. Like most political gatherings.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Welton, the British Monarchy will still be held in high esteem and will always receive the respect and recognition that it deserves.
At 60 we are looking back at how far we have come and how best we can go forward not just as a union of former British colonies but as a vibrant and 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. That is the modern commonwealth.
We can no longer say we share a language and a heritage.
With all the diversity, we are looking at ways in which we can make the world a better place and keep us in harmony. How can we talk about democracy in Africa if we are not allowed to debate the leadership of the commonwealth? How can the commonwealth promote respect and understanding if we are passing judgment so easily in a friendly dialogue. How can the commonwealth involve itself in matters of governance in Zimbabwe, Uganda, SriLanka, Kenya, Fiji if it fears coming off as an arm of the British Monarchy years after countries became independent?
If we are to move forward and still be relevant then we need to get ready for such changes.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Murangira. Do feel free to call me Neil (as opposed to Welton). It will help to create this respectful dialogue you wish to see.
You are right. The modern Commonwealth is a growing and diverse association of states working to promote democracy and good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law – as well, of course, as seeking to create sustainable environmental, economic and social development. The Commonwealth is also talking about democracy in Africa and how best to improve governance in Zimbabwe and Fiji (to name but a few). I think we agree more than you think we do. Yet, all this is happening now with a Monarch as The Head. Why fix want ain’t broke? Unless of course you are saying that the leaders of these nations are not mature, sensible and also wise enough to work with a politically neutral Monarch. If so, will they work with an elected Head? Perhaps we should get rid of some of these very immature political leaders.
As I said – Monarchy is The Commonwealth?s spiritual heart. Without this heart it will have no soul. Like most political gatherings.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Britain does not run the commonwealth it is for every commonwealth leader to put forward their opinion and they have every right to say that they do not think the Queen should continue as Head of the Commonwealth, therefore they have every right to debate it, so if they believe that Prince Charles should not be Head of the Commonwealth then they have every right to say so, HM The Queen cannot overrule that, an example is the rumor that allowing a Catholic to take the British throne will be discussed at CHOGM the queen cannot object to that, her role can be compared to that of an honorary chair person, many leaders such as Mugabe of Zimbabwe did not shun the Commonwealth because its headed by the queen but because he believed the Commonwealth does not understand the problems of Africa because it promotes what some judge as ‘Western values’ that will not change whether the queen or anyone else is the head.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Don’t blame The Queen for modern Western values – she might not like them Herself.
You have the right to say anything that you like – just don’t expect anyone to agree.
I also sense your sympathy for Mugabe. A Mugabe supporter opposing Monarchy. Please post more – you will make my case for me.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
No no no Neil, i dont support Mugabe at all, what I am trying to argue is that I dont think the queen being head of the Commonwealth makes a bad difference i dont see it being the reason for why Mugabe or anyone else wld distance themselves from the Commonwealth, I am actually in support of her being the head and what I am trying to explain is that she is there because other Heads of Government do not have a problemw ith it and they do have the right to object if they wished
August 24th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Savage: I’d contest the idea that the Monarchy is a remnant of Colonial power. (I’ll leave out the historical argument, interesting though it is my response would be a lengthy distraction so we’ll leave it for another topic. I retract ‘Cobblers’, but be aware that inflammatory language in your article does a good job of disguising your neutral view of colonialism. I’ll say no more about it.)
Her Majesty has distanced herself from the British Empire on numerous occassions and her actions since her succession simply cannot be described as favouring a British Hemogeny (Let’s recall the Lusaka conference – an occasion where decolonisation resulted in disaster. The means do not justify the end). I don’t know what media coverage there is in NZ but in Britain HM makes every effort to represent and liase with every religion, race and class equally.
The Institution of the British Monarchy is an evolving one. It will continue to evolve under King Charles and a future King William. Far from being stuck in a neurotic aristocratic unreality, HM the Queen, and TRH the Princes of Wales make a genuine effort to move with the times. This is the fundamental difference between a theoretical view of ‘old monarchy’ and the evidence-based view of the British Monarchy in practice. As it exists today.
I have no need to prove my Monarchist credentials to Mr. Welton or anyone else. I believe that the next head of Commonwealth should be selected fairly from the appropriate candidates! Of which a future King Charles would be one! I do not choose to follow the blind argument of advocacy because I would not wish to overrule a democratic choice of figurehead. I hope, and will do my best to ensure, that the vote goes to Charles. But I refuse to stonewall the opposition.
Her Majesty and the Monarchy are not negative influences on the Commonwealth. The stable nature of their position ensures that there are no upheavals or infighting. It is Her Majesty’s job to be that stable figurehead. By no means should she abdicate her power, but Murangira and sam3 are right to leave it up to a future electoral process as to who comes next.
“A King’s lot: To do good and be damned”.
…nobody puts it better than Marcus.
Her Majesty causes no harm, and does a lot of good in her current position. Charles will do the same. To some in the post-colonial world they are symbols of a hated Empire, but those views are opinions, not facts. I believe the stablility the Monarchy has given to the organisation speaks for itself. As does the continuing support for her on this site and beyond.
August 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I would agree that everyone should be able to have their say, as it is our inherited right, and as the Head of the Commonwealth is now, rightly or wrongly, elected in one form or another, then we should all have our opinions, which is far better than having no opinions at all which would be a very dull world.
This being said, I would support something of the sort whereby the Monarch is automatically the Head of the Commonwealth, but this is hardly in opposition to any sort of freedom of speech.
There is a quote that pertains nicely too the situation and describes my view beautifully.
“Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilization.” – WSC
I would say this would apply to those whom I disagree with, I may not ever agree with them on any single point, but it is their right to say it.
There is one thing I would like to thank you all for – So far this discussion has been remarkably civil even if it has not been perfect. I have been in too many arguments and debates (of a sort) that have degenerated into extremely frustrating experiences, and I am glad this has not, even with the tremendous issues being discussed.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I have downloaded, printed, and read the Singapore, Lusaka, Harare, and Langkawi documents. These appear to have been written by a second year Sociology student at a state-run university. Maybe “wymyn’s studies”. Who knows.
These documents are insupportable. They are riddled with neo-Platonism and Hegelian idolatry. These are profoundly destructive errors. It seems the UN isn’t the only Communist polity which Canada would be better off without.
Queen or no Queen: If this is the Commonwealth, it’s not worth having. I suspect we’d be better off doing what should have been done decades ago, and leaving the Communist republics to their own association and continuing the work of the Imperial Conferences within the loyal sixteen.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
The Monarchy, is a constitutional position. It is currently occupied by the House of Windsor.
The position of the Head of the Commonwealth is currently held by Britain’s head of the State. She is also a ceremonial head of state in 15 Commonwealth realms. When she dies or is unable to fulfill the office (likely to happen within the next ten years) a new head of state will be elected by Commonwealth heads of government.
Charles is one candidate but opinion on his merits is divided. The Commonwealth is very diverse and opposition to him assuming the position will be strong. He will, by that stage, be Britain’s new head of state and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The only fair way to decide the new Head of the Commonwealth will be an election process (as already happens). To claim that it is easier to avoid this debate and discussion by having an hereditary position denies the strong opposition to his (or any other candidate’s) appointment and ignores the importance of the overall process. A new consensus will have to be reached.
To argue the “The Monarchy is The Commonwealth?s spiritual heart. Without this heart it will have no soul” is not that productive. For the argument to make sense you need to explain the various religious and spiritual aspects of your support for the Monarchy. While I am sure you can do this, it can’t be persuasive unless the rest of the Commonwealth share your beliefs. To you the British Monarchy is the Commonwealth’s spiritual heart”. To me they are the Commonwealth’s most obvious (and most easily resolved) political contradiction. To others they are a symbol of Christian and European cultural hegemony (using Gramsci’s definition of hegemony).
The size of all the disagreement makes an election process necessary. The other option is to just end the position altogether. Let the election of the Secretary-General’s position be the place where a new consensus is reached every five years.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:57 am
[...] This post was Twitted by lekanoshunkoya [...]
August 25th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I’m in consesnsus with Savage here. There should be an election process for the Headship of the Commonwealth. Were HM to be the head of all member states, (and HRH to be so) Then it would be a different matter, but as it is there is opposition to a Monarchical succession and it is our duty, as Monarchists, to argue and persuade for the future of the Monarchy within the Commonwealth. I would hesitate to advocate a constitutional agreement to ensure the place of the Monarchy. That could alienate elements we wish to engage.
Said election should not be a Commonwealth-wide referendum or anything of that kind. The smallest member states’ opininons would count for nothing, as would those of any country other than India. Rather, there should be a national voting process as exists in the UN… without the deadstop of a veto system.
I do believe this is the best way to reach a consensus for another generation. The Commonwealth would not take Charles as head were he a raving psychopath, so Monarchical succession for its own sake is a silly principle to be working with.
Unfortunately, there is not enough consensus on the role and worth of the monarchy in the world today. That’s just a fact. Consequently, we have to argue it out on a daily basis in the open, not allow old wounds to fester.
The Commonwealth’s headship has always been an ad-hoc, loosely defined role. The best heads of state work in this way, so let’s keep it like that.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:29 am
In order for the Commonwealth to be taken seriously as a modern, progressive organisation it must cut its historical ties with the British Monarchy. Obviously as the head of state of a Commonwealth member country or countries, the Queen (or future King) may have a role to play but the idea that the Commonwealth even needs a figurehead of this nature is anachronistic at best and at worst a continuation of the imperial project.
August 28th, 2009 at 5:01 am
There’s no room for a hereditary figurehead, by convention if not by rule, in an organization dedicated to democracy and equality.
Regardless of what they decide they need to formalize the selection process and the terms of the position.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Firstly, this article is an attempt to use the wider Commonwealth as part of a domestic (New Zealand in this case) political dispute (republic v monarchy). The author and most supporters on here are all from countries with the Queen as head of state who are trying to further their domestic wish for a republic by removing the Queen’s commonwealth role as they know this would enhance their arguments for a republic if the Queen was reduced in global status and therefore more narrowly seen as British. Their arguments have less attraction for Commonwealth citizens who live in republics who elect their own head of state (mostly, 5 have Kings) because the Queen as head of the commonwealth is a historic symbol that does not affect their own idea of nationhood as happens in the remaining Commonwealth Realms like New Zealand.
If we did replace the Queen, who with? Nelson Mandela is the obvious answer. But then who? Would Africans accept a European? Would anyone accept a Briton? Would India accept a Pakistani? Would Australia, New Zealand and Canada accept an African President with a dodgy human rights record? Would the Commonwealth accept the fallout if they blocked an African President? We would end up with a succession of big arguments followed by the appointment of obscure Presidents from small countries that dont upset anyone. When they attended events noone would care. Dont believe me? Look at who gets the role UN Secretary General and President of the European Commission.
The Queen followed by Prince Charles has the major advantage of removing all these political issues from the selection of a symbolic head. Yes, it is historical, and it is also not democratic in the sense that it is the result of a direct election. But it works. I say stick with it.
August 29th, 2009 at 2:19 am
I agree that choosing a Head of Commonwealth may prove too difficult given the diversity of political opinions and the conflicting aspects of regional and national self-interest. That is not however a strong reason to choose Charles as the next Head.
Its an argument for one of three things, removing the role altogether, choosing a non-controversial figure, or appointing several symbolic leaders.
Charles can never be politically neutral and he won’t ‘work’ as a Commonwealth symbol. He is at the heart of the republic debates happening in six of the 16 realms. Britain, Canada, Australia, Jamaica, Barbados and New Zealand.
He is a symbol of British hegemony and empire and is therefore at the heart of debates around colonialism and British Empire happening all over the Commonwealth. He is a controversial figure.
We only need a ‘prestigious’ Head of Commonwealth if the Commonwealth is about being prestigious. If its about achieving tangible results that make a difference then we need to empower the Secretary-General and the Secretariat to get on the job.
If there is a symbolic leader then why not have several symbolic leaders. Other Constitutional Monarchs? Sub-National Monarchs (eg Zulu or Maori King) Former Heads of State. Seven Heads of the Commonwealth?
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
All of this comes down to a deep rooted jealousy (although no one will ever admit it) that you find in a large portion of that public that angers them to know that one person can have more power, influence and history than themselves as a birth right.
However, you will not find any individual that is more loyal and emotionally connected to the commonwealth than the Queen and her family.
She, and the institution, cannot, unlike republic counterparts, be bribed by money, threats and influence because there is no one in a higher position to do so. She shall always represent a strong, respected view that she believes in and cannot be swayed to please people for the sake of a vote.
This is a position that a democratically elected head of state can never compete with, because they cannot remain impartial and true to their word as history has shown.
September 4th, 2009 at 4:20 am
This argument is common. It is also deeply flawed. It is an ad hominem argument in that it tries to equate an individual’s criticism with the Monarchy with class and status ‘envy’. Inferring that opponents of the Monarchy are driven by petty emotions and so therefore their argument is not worth listening to. It fails to address the strong philosophical and practical arguments against hereditary leadership.
It also confuses support for a republic at the state level with the issue of the Commonwealth which, as we all know, is an international organisation with a non- hereditary leader.
Impling that all republics are beset with corruption is simplistic. Corruption is about democratic history and economic stability not about constitutional status. Of the top ten countries in the world (the least corrupt) five are monarchies and five are parliamentary republics.
Not all democratically elected Heads of state are former politicians and not all politicians are corrupt liars. The royal family are not apolitical. They are impartial in that they have no real power (and so never get to make any actual decisions) but they are certainly not neutral.
September 5th, 2009 at 9:57 am
The commonwealth was founded around the royal family as the core, the binding force between the countries. The royal family act as an independent entity that help keep the focus of the commonwealth and who are above the usual political bickering of an elected head.
Its also important to remember that the royal family are not just British, but that the monarch is head of state of many of the commonwealth nations and so it is entirely fitting that the monarch is head of the commonwealth. Savage must find it hard to accept the truth that he has the support of the minority.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:36 am
This person is restating arguments I have already commented on in the discussion above so I won’t repeat myself. They have added nothing new to the discussion.
Their views are, however, a good example of monarchist ideology. Statements about the Monarchy that are often just empty platitudes. ‘Everyone loves the Queen’. ‘The Monarchy are above politics’, ‘The Commonwealth can’t exist without the Monarchy’, ‘Britain is at the centre of the Commonwealth etc. These ‘facts’ seems so self-evident to followers of the Monarchy they are often unable to expand their arguments beyond them.
The fact that I even point to the existence of a ‘monarchist ideology’ will upset those who have never really questioned why they believe what they believe.
Everyone has an ideology. The trouble is that many fail to recognise their own viewpoint as ideologically constructed.
Not having Prince Charles as the next Head of the Commonwealth is a great opportunity for the Commonwealth to move beyond its imperial origins. A Head of the Commonwealth like Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize winner from Bangladesh, is one example of a leader who better represents the Commonwealth’s cultural diversity and who better understands the social problems it must address.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:33 am
Kim Jong-il is also free from being “swayed to please people for the sake of a vote”.
Were the Queen to wield any power you’d find that line of argument as a desirable politically arrangement loses steam real fast. As it is she’s free from making any real decisions. It’s easy to be popular when you need only show up and wave and, to her credit, keep your mouth shut.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Why should Queen Elizabeth II be Head of the Commonwealth, heres some of the top reasons why:
1. Her Majesty is the only person who is Head of State of more than one Commonwealth country, 16 in fact.
2. The Commonwealth is symbolized by The Queen better than any politician, only few other persons in the Commonwealth, such as Nelson Mandela, can even come close to be compared with the The Queen.
3. Queen Elizabeth II was CHOSEN and I repeat CHOSEN, by ALL the leaders of the Commonwealth at the time of the 1st Head of the Commonwealth’s (King George VI) death. She did not inherit the position.
Also, in case some here don’t know, New Zealand (being a country with Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State; Her Majesty is Queen of New Zealand) has a MAJORITY support for it’s monarchy. The PEOPLE of New Zealand prefer the Queen over any power grabbing greedy politician, most politicians being so.
If Prince Charles wins the support of the Commonwealth leaders, and it is likely it will happen, well too bad for Savage (er, appropriate name by the way), Prince Charles shall become the next Head of the Commonwealth (assuming he is not outlived by Her Majesty the Queen).
Also, I live in a republic the Commonwealth, I know how horrible they are, republics are useless, boring, and stuffed with evil politicians looking to gain power, and not care for the country at all, because they can in a republic. I can always look up and admire the nations which have The Queen as Head of State, several of them the top democracies in the world. To add: 7 out of the top 10 democracies in the world are Constitutional Monarchies, hmm…
While the Queen is Head of the Commonwealth, you can actually feel patriotic to it, you can’t to something like the United Nations.
The Queen shall, now and for a long time to come, be Head of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Long live the Queen, Head of the Commonwealth!
September 13th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I believe that having the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth is a good thing for democracy and freedom and other such principles to which the Commonwealth subscribes. Having a non-partisan and non-political Head of State and Head of Commonwealth is inherrently important to the impartial and democratic process of the Commonwealth Organisation as Her Majesty looks after the best interests of the Organisation without any particular political ideology. If there were an elected head of the commonwealth it would likely be an elected leader from one of the Commonwealth memeber states, but this would politicise the position and cause division. Said political leader would also end up using the majority of his or her time in campaiging for re-election and then there will be almighty presidential-style elections and this would waste valuable resources such as time and money that could be spent on far far more important projects such as poverty reduction, education and development. Surely the Republican Movement would agree that this would be a far better investment of such money and time.
The monarchy is especially important because it unifies the Commonwealth as indeed it does those states who retain the Queen as their Head of State. If the Commonwealth were to elect a Head then we would be stuck with someone who was principally guided by his or her own party political affiliations, and those political ideologies would have potentially disasterous affects upon the nature of democracy and freedom within the Commonwealth. Heaven forbid we end up with an extreemist Head of the Commonwealth- That would be worse than the time of Oliver Cromwell, and look how that ended.
This is not to say that we should ignor the injustices of the past. Indeed they need to be recognised and put right, but I firmly believe that the Monarch as the Head of the Commonwealth is in a very powerful place to achieve such aims, far more so than a political leader whose political affiliations will not necessarily be agreed with. Perhaps we should not “throw the baby out with the bath water” but use this incredible organisation for the good of man kind, particularly those within the Commonwealth itself.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:51 am
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm
September 19th, 2009 at 12:52 am
I would love to say that I have never seen such an unfortunate collection of questionable assumptions and political posturing tarted up as objective truths before in my life, but alas I have seen far too many from groups such as the esteemed author’s.
If the institution of the “Empire” was so bad, then why did almost all nations, upon independance, request to stay in the Commonwealth? Why are they there to this day? Based upon what the author says, perhaps we should dismantle this relic of a “bad Empire”. Perhaps he is allowing his “septre envy” and dislike of the instituion of Monarchy to influence his opinions on the Commonwealth and the effectiveness of its institutions and current constitutional arrangements.
For the record, except for Newfoundland and most possessions added before the advent of Robert Walpole, the government, and Foreign and Imperial policy of the British nation, has been in the hands of the politicians in the Palace of Westminster. Furthermore, after the Cival War of the 1600′s the real power of the land was the elected House of Commons.
The real story of “Empire” was how the emerging capitalist and proto capitalist interests of Britain hi-jacked Westminster, the government and brought along the Monarchy for the ride in their global expansion plans. The role of the Manchester Liberals was especially apparent during the wars over the China trade and the establishment of Hong Kong.
Simply put, the Empire was a creation of the politicans and the capitalists of the day, not the Sovereign. That Queen Victoria was reluctantly persuaded to accept the crown Disreali offered her as Empress of India is a known fact (more in the styling than terriories perhaps!), but to pretend that the monarchy was in any way behind this expansion of empire is not only nonsense but it does play hard and loose with the facts.
If the author wishes to dislike the instituiton of Monarchy and peacefully adjitate for its demise, he allowed, under our very liberal system of free speech. This and our democratic principles are hallmarks of what we believe in in the Commonwealth. These freedoms are guranteed under the English Constitution by the person of the Soverign who acts as a constitutional check and balance upon a group of rapacious and often times corrupt politicians. Perhaps if the author’s plans come to fruition, maybe our freedoms will not be as well guaranteed in the realm territories as they are now by our constitutional monarchy.
The person of the sovereign and the institution of the Monarchy is the only link between the “old” and “new” Commonwealth. It is the only tangible symbol which holds this group together. The deal in 1949 was that in exchange for allowing Republican governments into the Commonwealth that these governments and their successors would recognize King George VI his heirs and successors as the heads of the Commonwealth.
In an institution which sees many of its members with a Monarchy (Malaysia and its Sultans and Kings) and even republics which have Kings, Princes and heritary Chiefs (Nigeria) having the Queen as the “Chief of Chiefs” makes great sense.
Replacing the Queen as head of the Commonwealth is fraught with difficulties. The head of the Secretariat is the “Commonwealth’s chief Bureaucrat” and not much more. Like most organizational “Emperors” this person presides over their little fiefdom and is really charged with looking after it and its interests, not really the Commonwealth as a whole (they can certainly be brought to their knees when the next round of budget contributions is sought as if sovereign governments don’t like what they are saying, they can simply withhold funding and thereby bring the “Emperor” to heel).
The heads of government conference and the heads of government themselves, are who are in charge of the Commonwealth. This is not the UN General assembly. Someone has to be the referee or the apex of the pyramid.
Appointing some “distinguished Commonwealth Personage” to be the “boss person” is also not on. Besides Nelson Mandella the most distinguished person in the Commonwealth is probably Lady Thatcher, and that is not an appointment which would be met with great peels of joy. Often there wouldn’t be a person of event their stature around to appoint.
This “distinguished” person would be chosen by some convoluted political process which would invariably see a great deal of horse trading and tooing and froing going on. The result would either be some non-entity, whom no one has heard of before becoming the boss, or one would see the appointment of someone who would be quite unacceptable to others.
Looking at the problems in Kenya with their new constitution (a process which makes Canada’s perenial blood sport of constitution creation seem rather lame!), with the expense scandal in Britain, with the corruption in the UN, with the complete failure of Europe’s political classes in either delivering a sound political entity for the members of the EU to unite around or a sound alternative to it, it strikes me as absurd that anyone would wish to add more politics into the mix.
One of the great aspects to our current arrangements is that the Queen is not elected, is not a member of any party and has been there for a long time and can be the Commonwealth’s chief ambassador and cheer leader. She is respected and admired by statesmen throughout the Commonwealth. Why mess with a good thing?
The personage of the Sovereign best guarantees the Commonwealth today, has wonderful links with the Commonwealth of the past and presents us with the best chance for a dynamic and wonderful Commonwealth of the future. God bless H.M. the Queen, best wishes to H.M. the Prince of Wales in becoming the next head, and I am looking forward in the distant future to H.R.H. Prince William “The People’s Prince” when he becomes the head!
September 20th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I find Mr Savage’s reasoning both clear and concise. In Australia one has a Constitution which is an act of UK parliament. From this derives the election of government and other public offices. Now here is the crunch..Australia is supposedly a sovereign country…why then do the politicians, judges and other public officers swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen? Isnt that treason?…for want of a better word. No offence to the Queen but it is about time people start being responsible and not rely on a well heeled english gentry to think for them
September 20th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
unless one understands the British Empire was merely a collective group of well heeled fellow humans who really believed it was their inherent right to impose through might their right on the indigenous peoples of the world. Today you have this situation where the original landlords of Australia being totally alienated from their land through this misconception that the Commonwealth is a benefit for them and if they dont live according to the accepted perceptions of the setllers and their offspring they deserve to be where they are…how sad when we believe the only way forward is believing a little old english lady will sort out our issues for us…we have to learn to think and understand for ourselves
September 20th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
The Queen has no more constitutional status in the majority of Commonwealth countries like India or Malaysia than she does in the US or Japan. The only difference is the flag she flies when she visits – her Personal Flag instead of the Royal Standard. How many people notice – or care if they did? Yes, it’s an anachronism, but no more than calling embassies ‘High Commissions’.
The Queen’s position as Head of the Commonwealth is a totally separate matter from her constitutional position in countries like Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. The Australian Republican Movement didn’t mix the two issues up ten years ago, and doesn’t now – its New Zealand counterpart should do the same.
However, the Commonwealth is an association that has had its day, with or without a British monarch as its head.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I think the most interesting part of this debate is the link between the Commonwealth and empire.
Forget the Queen as an institution… thats a distraction. Its Empire and viewing imperialism as something to be proud of that makes the Commonwealth so outdated.
September 27th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Is the Commonwealth about people or politics?
This website suggests and current popular belief is that the Commonwealth of today is about people and what people united can do for each other. As the sites tag line says ?The largest, global dialogue ever undertaken between the peoples of the Commonwealth about their association… Two billion people. 53 countries.?
Many want to say that the Monarchy is getting in the way of this, but lets imagine for a moment a Commonwealth without a Monarch as its Head. Or lets just think back to a time that almost all agree was a very dark period. The rule of the British Empire. Being an Empire it was founded and grew on political ideologies. Not the least of which was a sort of capture the flag approach to people and power. The bureaucrats and business men in London concocted any scheme they could in order to expand their strangle hold, their monopoly on at least a quarter of mankind. When the Empire began to die and chaos was ensuing, some forward thinkers decided to dismantle the entire beast and change the dangerous political, hierarchical, Brit-centric union into a union of people, an equal playing field, a forum for agreement and more importantly disagreement. What holds this together is people, not politics. Going back to politics is going back to Empire.
Perhaps this is what some want. To breath life into the corpse of a dead Empire, to arise and lead. Head of the Commonwealth: What a job, what a position, what a flag to capture, to be in control (real elected, political control) of two billion people. Can you imagine the squabbling, infighting, pettiness and corruption that would go hand in hand with such a system? Where does the person come from? What colour will her/his skin be? How will the process of choosing this person be fair? How will people in each country feel about it? Could they ever agree? Would they be allowed to disagree? What if some did and others didn’t, leaving the Commonwealth citing personal differences?
When the architects of todays Commonwealth thought things through they were living under heavy political control and feeling a disgust for it. And so the Head or symbol of the Commonwealth has no political control or influence and yet is widely understood to be a figure of strength, faithfulness and continuity. Her Ministers from the 15 sovereign countries of which she is monarch have no more input into the workings of the Commonwealth than the Ministers of republics such as South Africa or the worlds most populous democracy, India (who would not submit to a King or Queen).
The real consequences of an elected Head of the Commonwealth will be the sad and unintended ones. Good hearts wanting to rid the world of a hierarchy that only exists in their minds will only create a new hierarchy. One that could be even worse than the Empire that died 60 years ago.
This is not to say that to question an institution is wrong. Questioning outmoded institutions is how the Commonwealth came about. Who doesn’t want to keep what works and throw the garbage out? But lets be honest about what is worth saving and what is garbage. Is the Crown as Head of the Commonwealth causing division? Is it making the Commonwealth unattractive to potential member states? Or is it that some well meaning people have a dislike for an institution on which they have not educated themselves? It seems that the latter can only be true since the former is not. The Crown does not cause division, it brings unity and stability, this stability is what keeps old members and attracts new ones. Countries who are republics, who have never been ruled by the British Empire, are interested in joining and have in the past become members of the Commonwealth.
Instead of picking apart one of the things that works about the Commonwealth and potentially destroying it all together, keep the Commonwealth successful. Keep the Commonwealth about its people and what they can do for one another. What the Commonwealth can do to better the world and all living things on it. Keep the Commonwealth about people not politics.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Kindly look at this statement…”The Head of the Commonwealth is the ceremonial head of the Commonwealth of Nations, an intergovernmental organisation which currently comprises 53 sovereign states”.–source from the roles and resp. of head of the commonwealth. Since it is clear that the post is more of ceremonial in nature representing legacy and heritage, i think, it does’t matter who ever be in this. but most appropiately by some one who represents the whole. And british monarchy suits this appropiately. –”The king is dead, Long live the king”
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
The reason why New Zealand, Australia, Canada, etc have such stable governments is because of the monarchy. Each country is led by three heads of state, each with limited powers; the prime minister, the governor general and the Queen.
Each role has limited power over the country and that’s why their power doesn’t corrupt or have too much influence.
Compare to dictatorships, presidencies and absolute monarchies, where one person has plenty of control and their country is at mercy of one individual’s whims.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Nonsense Cameron. To claim that the stability of New Zealand’s government is based on an institution with little constitutional connections to New Zealand is simply offensive to New Zealanders.
Your regurgitation of the Monarchist League’s ridiculous claim that New Zealand has a “team of three” is laughable.
For starters, the Queen’s constitutional role with respect to New Zealand is now little more than rubber-stamping (and make no mistake, that is the process – the Queen said so herself to Sir Robert Menzies) the Prime Minister’s nominee for Governor-General. Hardly “team work”. Secondly, the Governor-General is constitutionally bound to always act on the Prime Minister’s advice – this is further re-enforced by the fact the Governor-General can be dismissed by the Prime Minister at anytime (as has happened elsewhere in the Commonwealth before).
Under the monarchy, the Prime Minister is all powerful. The monarchy only denies power to the people, not politicians.
Further, stability in any political system often has little to do with its structure. New Zealand has had a parliamentary democracy for almost 160 years now; our institutions of democracy were beget to us by Westminster, not Buckingham Palace.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Well..
Greed – Empires were somewhat ‘the thing’ back then. Britain and France etc took land that wasn’t currently being used to its full potential and used it to its full potential. Building the land into a thriving nation, before giving independence.
Racism – The British Empire, and others for that matter, were not out to be racist, it’s just generally what soldiers etc were led to be, and also again it was somewhat of ‘the thing’ back then.
Overall, the British Empire helped considerably in shaping the world today. And, if you look at it as an organisation, it continues to help the world today in the form of the Commonwealth of Nations. The British Empire is/was a great thing, as the Commonwealth is. We should be proud of the historic links, and not afraid to show them.
October 9th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
erm, Lewis Holden, how can it be an insult to New Zealanders when the majority of New Zealanders support the monarchy?
Also, remember, 70% or more of all the top ten democracies in the world always turn out to be Constitutional monarchies.
October 9th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Historically speaking,UK always was goverened and led by queens and kings.It also for some time took the function of empire, traditionally speaking the world still requires such stereotypes to achieve certain level of sustainable palance in world’s political power and foreign affairs as well .Queen elizabeth has always been head leader of the commonwealth since her personality and her being of monarchy played major role in helping her to be the right person for that position.Traditionaly speaking that important role, commonwealth head,still has function internationally.However,if anyone else might take that role she or he has to be well prepared and qualified to deal with not only world affairs but also commonwealth affairs
October 10th, 2009 at 8:30 am
To the NZ Republican Movement’s Leader I say one thing – Why would you want to rid the association of the one great things that has kept it together over 60 tumultuous years?
October 12th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
If the apparently ‘widely beloved’ Queen Elizabeth II can inspire so many people to hold such poisonous sentiments about her person, then surely, her role -titular or not- as Head of the Commonwealth is worth debating.
All kudos to the noble Savage (even the Empire could not break you) for putting his head on the block and raising this centrally-divisive issue. I don’t know how many old-school empire builders were attacking him on these posts- seems like there are many. And, not very many like Murangira who view the problem in the way that the majority of young, educated, professionals from around the Commonwealth view anachronisms like monarchies and empires, wherever they may exist.
I can only sum it up in one way: many of us(and I’m a 29 year-old Indian citizen, educated in India and the UK and working as a journalist in Uganda) don’t care who is the figurehead of the Commonwealth. We care about development and real political change in this organisation. As it is, Commonwealth membership gives the vast majority of its citizens almost no benefits, quite unlike EU membership with its defined roles and responsibilities. What we do care about is transparent, accountable and democratic processes from our own leaders, and can expect no less from the Commonwealth and its largely opaque leadership.
Moreover, you would have to be quite out of touch with reality to imagine that we citizens of the Commonwealth should hearken for the brutal and constipated notions of existence that the British Empire imposed on its colonies. Where it placed road and rail infrastructure, it hauled out mineral resources and dumped cheap cotton goods from Manchester, or opium. Many of Europe’s current trade deals with African and Pacific nations have more than passing parallels with that past dynamic. Again, where schools to teach English were established, they churned out mimic men of Empire. When those men organised themselves, took what was in their own history and mixed it with the nationalist, anti-monarchist sentiments that swept Europe, they revolted, and Britain responded with concentration camps, bullets and boots. Alas, the royal family, unwittingly or otherwise, presided over this reign of blood.
Ergo, an outmoded monarchy may certainly have its place in the outmoded institution that many on these pages would love to see the Commonwealth sink into, in perpetuity. But for those of us who expect more, agitate and work for more, and believe in a robust and relevant Commonwealth, we say: we’re waiting for a certain generation and its mindset to die its natural death. To try and fight it, is to divert precious intellectual and financial resources from far more pressing matters.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:43 am
I am of a irish-french catholic background, 2 cultures that have not been very big fans of the British empire, but the way I see it is that without the british empire I would not be living in a nation as beautiful as canada, and for that I will always stand up for the commonwealth.
Yes british imperialism caused great suffering and tradgedy but we need accept that and move on with our lives, the commonwealth of today and our monarch queen elizabeth the 2nd are in no way imperialistic, I am glad I have a queen and a governer general that makes sure my country always has a stable government, and I am glad my country is part of the greatest orginization of the world, the commonwealth of nations.
Don’t take savage or any of these republicans seriously, they are ignorant of the past and only wish to continue hating and spreading spite and bitterness.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Living in New Zealand, we don’t really care that our head of state will permanently be a wealthy white person (probably a man) who is protestant and will live in England. Does it really matter what religion, gender or race our leader is? The republicans here who disregard the monarch on race, faith and gender obviously aren’t really interested in the future o’f the Commonwealth. So far the monarchy has been doing a great job in leading New Zealand, why change something that works very well?
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
What ”leadership” does the monarchy actually provide New Zealand Cameron? If you could answer that question without watering on about values or that the Queen is a nice old lady much like anyone’s Grandmother, I’ll be very surprised. The truth is that the monarchy isn’t and doesn’t ”work” for New Zealand. Our Parliamentary system does.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:33 am
”Does it really matter what religion, gender or race our leader is?” In the single case, no. In perpetuity, yes. What does matter is that all other races are excluded in practice and Catholics are excluded in law from becoming head of state.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Savage seems to be going back to a ‘dead’ issue. If there is any problem in the Commonwealth today, it is definitely not one of Monarchy!!!
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
Looking at the state of some other former empires, we could all be doing a lot worse. God Save The Queen and Long Live our great family of Commonwealth nations!
November 4th, 2009 at 1:17 am
I don’t see any problem with her Majesty been the head of the commonwealth. I view her position as advisory, ceremonial and impartial. Her personality commands respect and she is a uniting force for the organization. Infact, the Queen is the symbol of the free association of commonwealth states. Opening the commonwealth chair to politicians would lead to in-fighting among members and possible polarization of the organization.
What is common among commonwealth apart from the historical and symbolic affilation to the crown..? some memebers are developed with spectacular GDP and living standards while others wallow in runaway inflation and endemic poverty. The policy of economic co-operation is not functioning properly.
The problem of the commonwealth is not that of monarchy or the Queen as head but that of relevance in the evolving political and economic order.
Instead of dessipating energy on the Queen’s ceremonial position, i think we should be fashioning out ways to address more pressing issues.
The “crown fits the Queen”!.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:42 am
The Secretary General should be made Head of the Commonwealth and should be given a new title of ‘President of the Commonwealth’. There should also be a permanent Commonwealth Council made up of representatives from the member nations which decides on policies and debates issues. This will modernise the Commonwealth and make it more relevant.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
We dont have any problem if the Queen of England is no longer the head of the Commonwealth.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
There is no such person as the Queen of England. Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom, plus 15 other countries. Queen of Britain is more accurate – there has not been a Queen of England since Queen Anne.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Good day all,
It has become interesting to read 80 comments all at once within 30 minutes!!! The Queen of Britain, shares heritage with all of the Commonwealth countries.
She will remain the head for as long as necessary. I wonder why she has to abdicate and distort a fine opportunity to deliver uncontaminated history content to the Commonwealth.
The problem with her abdication, will not stop at that, but think 30 years from now, when some kids will suddenly ask, ‘what er…duh…is the commonwealth?’
Then Mr Savage will say ‘don’t ask me…?’ hehehehehe, History is sometimes, the only thing that keeps this earth together, and otherwise the power [to the Queen] that comes with history, will be absent, and the world would be chaotic , in the least.Thanks.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“Self-delusion” – that looks like self diagnosis reading this aggressive rant.
Why don’t you just grow up and stop blaming other people for your problems.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Man in a shed, not at me i suppose, but if it was, what is aggressive about the rant? what was? do you even know any english at all? do you even have an idea what self delusion is…as your contribution is so off the wall, with no reference to history, or what was reviewed earlier, i am offering you a decent accommodation as soon as you contact me,so that you would not be deluded into thinking you ever went to med school lest you assume you know the meaning of what you wrote…?hehehehe
but if you meant, mr savage was self deluded, or a man in the shed, then what is your name? maybe there is some english language that is not universal, man in the shed.
the Queen will remain a historical reference to all commonwealth zones, to include other treaty areas, so grow up accept the truth, and move out of your banana leaf shed. To ask her to abdicate is going to distort history, period. what english do you not understand, or ‘oversit’? lol!!!!
November 16th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I do not see what damage the Queen has done to the Commonwealth that she should be ousted.
As has been rightly pointed out she remains the only or at least the principal link between all the members. Furthermore her position can maintain a thread of continuity which would be otherwise lacking.
What the Commonwelth lacks is a common,or at least harmonised, approach to major international issues such as climate change, financial and fiscal reforms, and disarmament.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
What is commonwealth ….some club ?…
Coomonwealth is getting senile … we dont know it anymore …it is more like a white and black TV or more graciously the CRT Monitor….the latest place you can find it , is in Histroy
November 17th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
hunh/ at manon the mountain…it starts…hunh grunt…
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
God save the Queen! God save the Commonwealth!
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
What Savage and his fellow republicans fail to realise is what the Crown symbolises, its Ideal, which is as strong as that of any belief if it was not for the power hungry “political” clases. It is not a symbol of Imperial power, that is but a use of it, but a contract between the State and the Individual. It is the Rule of Law, and the Protector of all its subjects.
The greatest gift of have the Crown as head of the Commonwealth, is that which insults or seeks harm upon that which is behoves the Crown, does this same act upon the Crown. It is as one and the same. The Monarch is just the person who has to live up to this.
The Crown is in the best place to support the Commonwealth, and is almost the diplomat supreme. You question whether Fiji would listen to the Queen, would it dare not? Though another vote would be worth while when the present Monarchs time comes, as it is one that effects its future.
That the Commonwealth has not yet become closer in terms of global policy is one to put to the national leaders who decide these things, not the figurehead whos job it is just to preside matters. Cant blame the ref in neither side can arrange a game of football.
I to would love Her Majesty to step down from her role, she does not have the foresight or strength that her position requires in this age. Twice in this decade she has missed the opportunity to do what was right by her peoples, twice the ambitions of the greedy and the self interested have gone unabated. Time for King Charles, noted for his charitable works and ambition to be “defender of the faiths” to lead. (Even if he has quite an imagination)
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:50 am
@ lewis Holden – re: NZ The truth is that the monarchy isn’t and doesn’t ”work” for New Zealand. Our Parliamentary system does.
Agree with you in that our inherited Westminster parliamentary system works well. It developed in conjunction with the monarch and the interplay between all its branches. We have our monarchy to thank for the stability that has developed. Why should NZ remove one of the key components of its successful system. It aint broke and furthermore, our monarchy works VERY WELL for NZ!
December 26th, 2009 at 1:55 am
At least for the following reason, the Queen should abdicate her position as Head of the Commonwealth:
CMAG needs to be reviewed and strengthened By Maja Daruwala, Executive Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 20 October 2009:
”…. An issue for the CoW – flagged several times by many NGOs in the Commonwealth and repeatedly by the the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative – has been the need to strengthen the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) which presently consists of rotating Foreign Ministers of Ghana, Malaysia, Namibia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, St Lucia, Uganda and United Kingdom.
CMAG is the watchdog body of the Commonwealth. … in the case of Sri Lanka, reports of large scale civilian deaths, impunity and stifling of human rights in Sri Lanka continued to emerge throughout 2008 and 2009 but CMAG has refused to put Sri Lanka in its agenda. The additional irony is that Sri Lanka itself continues to serve as a member of CMAG during this period for a third consecutive term contrary to the 1999 Durban Communiqué that limits a country to a maximum of two consecutive terms. ….”
Commonwealth is undemocratic!
December 26th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Someone has already stated this somewhere else:
we urgently need effective intergovernmental organisations. National regional and international organisatons of a large variety have been forming and it is all too crowded out there. For bystanders and oppressors it’s alright. But the oppressed are terribly itching to see intergovernmental bodies much more effective so that they can get justice denied to them by their own governments.
We cannot afford to have organisations for nostalgic purposes.
December 31st, 2009 at 6:04 am
“The point to be made is that the Queen is Our Monarch and likely she and her successors will be all that will be available in that line of work. Our ruler only does what we say and only says what we asked be said, and goes where we tell her to go……But for all those who don’t want the Queen there are easily as many who don’t want a President and even more who certainly would not want one if they knew who it would be. As you can readily see, I have given more thought to this subject than most and I have reached my own conclusion. God save the Queen.”
Dalton Camp, political columnist, August 23, 1994
March 8th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Their are certain benefits to allowing Queen Elizabeth II to continue as Head of the Commonwealth and granting the position to Prince Charles after her reign. Queen Elizabeth was the Head of State of most of the founding members of the Commonwealth of Nations and had already been trained and educated for the role that was expected in a multi-cultural and international context. Prince Charles has already had decades of experience on the world stage promoting democratic participation, civic involvement, religious tolerance and environmental sustainability. Even before those ideas became widely popular.
The reality is that monarchies are no more inherently anti-democratic than republics are inherently democratic. Libya, North Korea, and Congo are republics but not democracies, while Sweden, Japan and Spain are monarchies yet simultaneously democracies.
The structure in this case is not as important as the values that the Head of the Commonwealth must promote.
Having the Head of State of the 16 “Commonwealth Realms” (all of which are democracies and constitutional monarchies) promotes simultaneously respect for tradition and cultural experience as well as the values of the modern Commonwealth of Nations. Democracy, Human Rights, Good Governance, the Rule of Law, Individual & Collective Freedom, Egalitarianism and World Peace.
Queen Elizabeth II should continue as Head of the Commonwealth of Nations and Prince Charles should succeed her in due time.
March 9th, 2010 at 12:29 am
NO NO NO!
I can assure you that without this woman, this organization would not have survived at all. Remember, the Commonwealth almost broke because of the South Africa apartheid and most Commonwealth leaders were against Thatcher’s policies. Who saved the day? Who came in the middle and saved this organization? The answer is: THE QUEEN!!!
March 21st, 2010 at 10:12 am
@The real story of “Empire” was how the emerging capitalist and proto capitalist interests of Britain hi-jacked Westminster, the government and brought along the Monarchy for the ride in their global expansion plans. The role of the Manchester Liberals was especially apparent during the wars over the China trade and the establishment of Hong Kong.
Simply put, the Empire was a creation of the politicans and the capitalists of the day, not the Sovereign. That Queen Victoria was reluctantly persuaded to accept the crown Disreali offered her as Empress of India is a known fact (more in the styling than terriories perhaps!), but to pretend that the monarchy was in any way behind this expansion of empire is not only nonsense but it does play hard and loose with the facts.
mmm. the monarchy and the bankers always were and continue to be good mates in the creation of empire. The Bank of International Settlements is nowadays trying to clean up it’s image “oh no we didn’t have anything to do with financing both sides during world war 2 dearie!” Fact is the british empire working the old, law commerce and government trick graciously overseen by monarchy giving it respectability has led us seemlessly from chattle slavery to debt slavery. Wake up people and stop condoning your own slavery!!
March 21st, 2010 at 12:38 pm
The Queen has not political power of the Commonwealth: she exists as a symbolic head. In the recent Commonwealth celebrations the only press interest in the UK was the colour of her dress. It is hard to think of someone who would carry the same symbolism as she does. Also a pointer: Queen Elizabeth II did not create the British Empire! Blaming the reigning monarch for her ancestor’s mistakes and greed is ridiculous. It is also worth saying that the Queen is indeed almost universally adored, jsut look at her visits to Commonwealth countries: she is received with twice the adoration shown at home in the UK.
June 24th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Some of these writers may have the correct idea when it comes to the respect and adoration for the symbolism carried by the throne. The capacity to differentiate the past sins of the British Empire started with the person sitting on the same throne of which the Queen has inherited, today. Calling on the Queen to make up for the past sins of her ancestry is a noble thing on her part. The question of loyalty to the throne is in question. How can the sovereign members of the Commonwealth look to England for an apology for those sins created in the past that have many people bitter against England today? many countries have gotten to republican status and maintain respect for the crown out of habit more than genuine love for England.
What we need now is to share our responsibility for those past sins that we tend to perpetuate today. We need to remove barriers placed among our social groups that prevent others from entry. We need to become more Commonwealth. having done this we need to learn what England has taught us and help our weaker brothers and sisters in their governance. Increase a love for virtues and values. Honor and principles can be the mainstay of our institutions. We can go a long way with all these lessons from England, but hte healing has to begin now.