Getting it right about the headship of the Commonwealth
Posted by AlexT - 17/08/09 at 01:08 pm
As British television begins showing a series of films, On Tour with the Queen, to mark the 60th anniversary of today’s Commonwealth it is timely to recall the all-important London Declaration that created the association.
The Declaration was agreed in 1949 at a meeting in Ten Downing Street of leaders of the eight Commonwealth countries which were then independent. It enabled India to remain in membership as a republic, creating the title Head of the Commonwealth and conferring it on King George VI.
Hitherto the head of state of all Commonwealth countries was the British monarch and there was no provision for a republic.
The Commonwealth is hugely misunderstood by its peoples, but nothing causes more confusion than this matter of the Headship, as the results of opinion polls commissioned by the Royal Commonwealth Society in seven member countries have just shown.
The common assumption is that the Headship is vested in the British monarchy. It is not. Under the 1949 declaration it was vested in the person of the King. He was accepted as the symbol of the free association and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.
George V1 died less than three years later. When that happened the Commonwealth still consisted of just the same eight members and on the nod Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth.
In fact Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India pre-empted any discussion by sending Elizabeth a message within hours of her accession in 1952 welcoming Your Majesty as the new Head of the Commonwealth.
Over the years since then the UK could have had four or five monarchs. After all, in the 50 years between Victoria and Elizabeth there were four kings. It turned out that the present Queen has already reigned for 57 years, spanning almost exactly the decolonisation of most of the Empire.
The London Declaration laid nothing down about the duties of the Head of the Commonwealth. He/she is simply the symbol.
The Queen has therefore created her own role and she has done so with enormous success.
Down the decades she has never, publicly at least, put a foot wrong. Conscientiously, she has met, and in many cases got to know very well, most of the presidents and prime ministers of the 53 Commonwealth member countries.
She has travelled to every Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) overseas since 1973, each time holding meetings and hosting functions for the leaders, and then departing as they begin their proceedings. Only since 1997 has she actually begun to address the conference beforehand.
In 1979, before the tense CHOGM in Lusaka, Zambia, that tackled independence for Zimbabwe, Mrs Thatcher advised the Queen not to travel. Aside from the political problems, the rebel government of Southern Rhodesia had been staging cross-border raids on Zambia.
The Queen, however, reminded Thatcher that on Commonwealth matters she took advice from all member governments, not just the British, and to Lusaka she went.
As she toured Zambia she received such a warm reception her presence helped to defuse much of the pre-conference political tension.
So what happens when the Queen dies?
Because of the lack of understanding of the London Declaration it has been generally assumed that Prince Charles will succeed. Yet that does not follow.
The downside would be that if this did happen it could help perpetuate the image of a British Commonwealth, which the organisation must totally throw off if it is to be seen as a truly international body.
When the time comes all Commonwealth countries will need to consult.
Over the years a great many confidential papers will have been written within governments, in Whitehall and in Buckingham Palace, none of which we will be released until long after change has come about.
There may be no satisfactory solution to the problem. If the position of Head of the Commonwealth is to be retained many weeks or even months of consultation will have to take place and that can hardly happen until the vacancy arises.
The possibility of a rotating Head has been floated. The opinion polls showed most people in India as many as 50 per cent – favoured that solution. But rotation could create real problems because it would politicise the position. Occasionally a Mandela figure might be available, but such people are a rarity.
With a secretary-general does the Commonwealth need a Head? Generally, other international organisations do not have such a figure.
Does anyone have any different ideas?
This article was written for the RCS by veteran Commonwealth journalist Derek Ingram.
Category : The Commonwealth's Relevance, The Official Commonwealth
Tags: Commonwealth, Empire, History, London Declaration, Queen, secretary-general
Stay Updated : 
RSS 2.0 feed.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
You yourself has answered your own question.
Therefore:
Long live the Queen, Head of the Commonwealth of Nations!
August 19th, 2009 at 8:07 am
In truth, as impressive a figure and arbiter as Charles, Prince of Wales, is, this is certainly an issue which needs thought. The British Monarchy is an instutution which tends to produce worthwhile heirs and ascendency, but in terms of the People’s Democratic Choice there seems to be limited support for the automatic ascension of a British King.
In truth this is an issue for the Heads of Government to decide on. If the Commonwealth wishes to render the station of Head obsolete then that will be that.
But the role which the Queen has created for the Head of Conmmonwealth is a valuable one without doubt. A similarly respected Mandela (or Charles) figure would retain that utility provided they carried on the good work which the Queen has been engaged in.
But this is an issue which need not be considered just yet. Wishing Her Majesty good health and long life, my support of a future King Charles III as Head of Commonwealth is well documented on this site. My colleagues from across member states must feel free to oppose or support this view as they see fit.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:25 am
I am a believing Catholic Christian, was born in 1952 in Australia and have proud descent from the Saxon Kings and in two lines from Edward 1. I consider the Lancastrians [ Henry 1V et cet ] and the Tudors to be usurpers and have a passionate interest in the slandered reputation of Richard 111, a subject on which I have done much research. I have Richard’s portrait on my wall as well as the martyr Charles 1, judicially murdered by treasonous parliamentarians.
Despite some viewpoints, England has NEVER been a republic. Charles, Prince of Wales, became Charles 11 at the moment of his father’s execution in 1649. I honour 30 January for the execution and September 3 is also on my calendar as the day that male child of a female dog Oliver Cromwell breathed his last.
I detest the word commonwealth with its flavouring of Regicide but it will suffice. To have, however, a Commonwealth without a monarch is ludicrous in my opinion. That said I believe monarchs should rule not just reign and for the proletariat to have power over the Crown is ridiculous.
” A subject and Sovereign are clear different things”.
I sense how the late King George V must have felt when protocol dictated that he had to cordially meet and greet the Soviet Ambassador of the day, one who represented the government that had slaughtered the Romanovs. The King no doubt wished he could spit in his face.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:05 am
There are people like H.M The Queen, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandhi, Nkwame Nkurumah…. whose roles to their communities and the world can not be replicated. Filling the position is not enough.
She without doubt has held the commonwealth together and when she is gone there may be need to have another authority that all members will be GLAD to sit down and listen to. Knowing that such people are hard to come by, I suggest that the authority should be given to the office of the secretary general.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“Occasionally a Mandela figure might be available, but such people are a rarity.”
This is why I support King Charles III and the hereditary principle of The Monarchy.
Little is left to chance with Monarchy and, with some help from God, it naturally creates leaders of stature, knowledge and also wisdom.
Making them readily and frequently available.
Which is a bonus.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
This issue is at the heart of the matter. Whether the position of Head of the Commonwealth is still useful or necessary. The Commonwealth now has 53 heads of government and they meet regularly. The secretariat organises the actual work of the Commonwealth as an organisation. The role of Secretary-General is a position that may need more power and prominence. How would the Secretary-General’s position change if there was no Head of the Commonwealth?
August 21st, 2009 at 1:37 am
The Commonwealth must maintain, in my opinion, some level of connection with the British (or is it Commonwealth?) Royal Family, in order to retain its roots to the Westminster system, English vernacular and ‘Anglo-culture’. The monarchical structure of the position of Head of Commonwealth must be upheld to exempt the office from the political sphere, as well as maintaining the ‘pomp’, ceremony and good old fashioned English grace of monarchy.
I am a monarchist; and believe in the de facto ‘passing down’ of the symbol of Commonwealth unity. If we expect people to take the Commonwealth seriously; they need a figure they can relate too. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is this figure. He is admired for his work all around the world and I have full belief in his competance as Head of The Commonwealth of Nations and as Monarch of its 17 Realms. God Save The King, Head of The Commonwealth to be!
August 21st, 2009 at 3:52 am
Perhaps the position of Secretary-General and ‘Head of the Commonwealth’ could be merged. Since the monarch is seldom active in day-to-day politics, putting the monarch in charge of the Commonwealth would give them a new purpose. Selling the idea to the peoples of the Commonwealth would be tough, though–especially those who live in republics and who want the monarchy disassembled. I’m not sure how that would work, or if it would for that matter.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Savage is right. The issue at the heart of the matter is as follows. Is the position of The Head of the Commonwealth still necessary?
It is obvious from the debate that the answer is yes. This leads to the next question. How should the next Head be selected or Chosen?
Birth is a good way. Throughout the history of man, God has often worked or communicated to us through birth. Dare I mention John The Baptist or Jesus Christ? Obviously, if you don’t believe in God or a god, this isn’t going to wash. So here is another argument, it is equally convincing and quite powerful too. Birth gives us a Head who is wise, non-partisan and apolitical – trained from birth for His honoured place. Quite unlike most of these pig-ignorant morons and semi-literate buffoons who masquerade as modern politicians.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 am
Given that the largest religious group in the Commonwealth are Hindus, perhaps we could invite an Indian royal to be the next Head of the Commonwealth. Afterall, over half of the population of the Commonwealth lives in India. Britain is a distant fifth, with less than half the population of Bangladesh, Nigeria or Pakistan.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Excellent – you accept Royal Governance.
We are indeed making progress.
I only need now to convince you on tradition.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I can’t see the point of the Commonwealth at all. The sixteen loyal realms have good reasons for sticking together. The rest appear to be Communist republics. It will be difficult enough dealing with the Hegelian “fifth column” at home, especially now they’ve managed to debase the money to pretty much zero. Why should any of us care about the others, who are all foreigners?
The Queen is already head of state. Where is the need for the Commonwealth, with all its idolatrous republicans? Is it not they who have actively discouraged the proper political and trade union of the realms and halted the better governance which might have come from the Imperial Conference in ’31? The republics wanted out and they’re gone — some of them to the most horrific Communist dictatorships the 20th century has had to offer. So why are they still hanging around trying to foist their Hegelian idolatry on the rest of us?
August 24th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Neil Welton is clearly not a fan of “these pig-ignorant morons and semi-literate buffoons who masquerade as modern politicians”. I am wondering which of the 53 Commonwealth Heads of Government due to meet in Port of Spain in November would he place in these categories?
There is a lot of cynicism about ‘politicians’ and parliamentarians. They are an easy target. Generalisations and stereotypes abound. While it may be that Westminster based parliaments encourage this perception (another debate entirely) I think the actual issue to deal with is the belief that the British Monarchy is apolitical and non-aligned.
As I have mentioned elsewhere there is a difference between a person being apolitical and the obligation of an office to be impartial or non-aligned.
The Head of Commonwealth is not an hereditary position. The decision on keeping it and on who will fill the role will, by necessity, be a political process. Prince Charles is already campaigning on a ticket of impartiality and traditional British leadership. The fact is, no international leadership position is ‘apolitical’. The Monarchy and the position of head of state are political offices.
Kamalesh Sharma is not that well known in Commonwealth countries but he should be. The process for electing the Secretary-General is in place so it makes sense to build on that tradition. Every person in the Commonwealth should be more aware of the office, of its responsibilities and the selection process for the Secretary-General should become more prominent. Keeping a ‘Head of the Commonwealth’ above the role is unnecessary and detracts from the work at hand.
Sharma was a former Indian diplomat. His predecessor, Don McKinnon was a former deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. There are plenty of people with the experience and skills necessary to run the secretariat. Some of them used to be parliamentarians. That doesn’t make them unworthy. Working to improve political culture so that better parliamentarians are elected in all member states is part of the Commonwealth’s aims. Who better to lead that work then people already respected in that field.
It makes sense for Queen Elizabeth to step down in 2013 just before the next Secretary-General’s term of office begins. Acknowledge that hereditary leadership at the Commonwealth level is a contradiction and let the democratic selection process come to the fore.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Savage asks which of the 53 Commonwealth Heads of Government (due to meet in Port of Spain in November) would I place in the “pig-ignorant morons and semi-literate buffoons” category. Do you really want to know? Take your pick. Anyway, why ask me? Just ask the politicians attending. You know they all love each other really – as well as themselves. Smiles above the table, whilst kicking each other underneath, competing for that top job.
That’s why you need someone neutral as Head. Someone chosen by birth and not be election. Someone not bought, corrupted and/or bribed.
If politicians can’t work with a Monarch, how will they be able to work with an elected politician? Unless of course they are on to good oil, gas and arms contracts which are hidden from the public. Some very unkind person could say The Commonwealth would end up like America – United States of Corruption.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Savage does raise the issue of media coverage in the Commonwealth. The whole thing has been rather ably described as a ‘public relations disaster’. This is true.
I would welcome a more participatory approach to selecting the Secretary-general, although direct election seems rather insane.
As for politicians… they are no more or less easy to snipe at than the monarchy. However duplicitous heads of government are (and must be) to do their jobs right, the argument for keeping them in a position of governance (and governance alone) is identical to the argument for Constitutional Monarchy at a national level. These are ideologies applied, not nutral evaluations.
Answer me this: Why, in TANGIBLE terms, would it be any better for the Monarchy to step down (or stay up)? I can think of a few…
August 24th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I didn’t mean direct election. The Secretary-General is currently elected by Commonwealth Heads of Government. As no one candidate is ever agreeable to all the only fair way to decide is with a voting system. In the Commonwealth’s case a series of indicative votes and consultation among the leaders. A candidate must have majority support to be chosen. Consensus is reached.
Clearly, not everyone likes the Monarchy, as either a constitutional and ceremonial office, and the Royal Family who currently occupy that office, have very mixed levels of support. This is the case in all of the 16 Commonwealth realms and it is the case throughout the Commonwealth.
The hereditary nature of the office contradicts the principles of the Commonwealth. It is undemocratic and very large numbers disagree fundamentally with it. The only fair way to choose a leader when there are strong disagreements (and such strong dislike by some of the Windsors and the Monarchy) is for a system of election and selection to be decided upon.
At the state level, removing the Monarchy will improve democracy and remove the contradictions. It is a fairer system. It will (if desired) create an office of head of state that actually gets involved where necessary in constitutional disputes. The Monarch’s political powers are actually quite vague and the Monarch has not actually stopped passage of any bill anywhere since 1708.
At the Commonwealth level Charles can, if he wishes, continue campaigning to be chosen by the Commonwealth heads of Government. I say he shouldn’t even put his name forward. It is time to acknowledge that the contradictions inherent in the Monarchy are antithetical to a modern Commonwealth. By campaigning he focuses the Commonwealth’s attention on the role of the Monarchy and the position of Britain within the Commonwealth. Either way the decision on the next head of the Commonwealth will help the Commonwealth decide what its values really are.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
In the Monarchy, all of our 16 realms are priviliged to have a head of state who does not intervene in the issues of governance. In my experience, a Head of State who is not Head of Government causes division and instability whenever they speak out of turn. In Palestine the Fatah Presidency and the Hamas government’s disagreements have resulted in a deal of unnecessary bloodshed. While I don’t assert that this would occur in any Parliamentary Republic-modelled system, the divisions would occur and what the fallout would be… well, it’s on you. I consider that it really would be fatal for any Head of the Commonwealth to challenge the principles of the Secretariat.
But the argument for merging is still invalid… we need an ambassador who transcends policy and politics. A King (or other such high-profile figure) approved by, as you state, the collected governments, would be appropriate for this. If the consensus is that he or she is fit to represent the Commonwealth, then that is a stamp of approval on a candidate’s personakl opinions as well.
Perhaps you do think Charles shouldn’t put his name forward, Savage, but that’s his call and not yours. The Commonwealth has no right to prevent anyone in the frame from campaigning. Charles IS in the frame, and a good thing too. You must lobby the government of New Zealand as you see fit when the day comes.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:43 am
Why is it a privilege to have a head of state that does not do anything? In a functioning parliamentary republic that is what a head of state is ideally supposed to do: step in and safeguard constitutional law. Ireland, Finland or Iceland are examples. Palestine is no example at all.
That aside, you have a point and one I agree with. If the Head of Commonwealth position were to remain ‘above’ the Secretary-General it would primarily be as some sort of high profile ‘Ambassador’.
Except, who is he or she an Ambassador to? The Commonwealth is focused inwards not outwards. Member states don’t need an ambassador from Commonwealth Headquarters if the Secretary-General is already in such a role.
While a symbolic ‘ambassador’ could travel widely (while the Secretary-General gets on with work) they would still have to be able to talk directly and specifically about the problems each country faces.
How does an ambassador who ‘transcends policy and politics’ deal with actual political, problems? How, for example, does a symbolic Head of State comment on specific ethnic conflicts within a realm when to do so is to become involved politically? Something they Charles has said he doesn’t want to do (in the case of New Zealand). Are they there as a neutral mediator?
Why do you think that a Monarch can transcend policy and politics? When there is so much debate in so many countries about getting rid of the Monarchy? Charles is not politically neutral to the 60% of Australians and the 30% of Brits who want a republic. The Monarchy are not universally liked and are divisive figures because they have no democratic mandate within each country (and are symbols of a suffocating and in some cases a genocidal British colonialism )
Charles of course has a right to apply for any such position. Except the Monarchy blatantly contradicts the principles of the Commonwealth. That is the key issue. That the Monarchy and Charles derive their prestige and power from entrenched institutional inequality. How can Commonwealth condone this contradiction? I would argue that any ‘candidates’ need to demonstrate a commitment to the fundamental principles of the Commonwealth. For Charles this means no more primogeniture. No more being Protector of the Church of England. No more hereditary reserve powers and privileges.
Pragmatically I think it will be easier to just get rid of the position. A group of Commonwealth ‘Commissioners’ who are not divisive figures and who can promote human rights in the Commonwealth would be more effective. The commonwealth does not need one person to symbolise ‘unity’ and I don’t think one person can. That the Commonwealth exists is indicative of an international agreement. It exists primarily as an agreement to recognise diversity and to co-operate despite that diversity.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
The main argument in favour of the ‘class inequality’ which the Monarchy allegedly represents is that it is inequality in its most innocuous form.
Humans create heirarchies wherever we go. It is naturally-ingrained behaviour, and comes from our ape days where there was a clear ‘leader of the pack’ from whom command deferred. Even nowadays communities of Chimps, Monkeys and Gorillas have dominant dynasties and groups who take the pick of a jungle’s harvest.
However, human dynasties have undergone a sea-change in the last hundred years. From being hereditary institutions where a monarch had both powers over and duties towards their subjects, they have become political entities. These dynasties (in America most extant – the Bushes and recently bereaved Kennedys) have just as much power and wealth inequality as the monarchs of old, and have a similar monopoly on power. Had Barack Obama had a modest personal income, he could never have become President.
In the end, Monarchs are a notional higher class. That is an inequality. But this inequality has no effect on the real world – only in the minds of individuals. One of the side-effects of the excellent quality of education availible in Commonwealth states (and dating from the days of Empire) is that a particularly tenacious form of crypto-Marxism dictates the political views of the middle classes. As a result, individuals are both viewed in terms of and evaluated by their class – including the Monarchy.
As far as I am concerned, the fact that the Monarchy live in luxury is of no importance to me. I do have to pay less tax to maintain them (no Presidential pensions or expenses required) and the actions of the Royal Family are still a good example to the ordinary citizen such as myself.
The argument that the Monarchy causes inequality is a lazy Marxist generalisation with no foundation in reality. Inequality exists, usually in far more pernicious forms, outside of a Monarchical structure. The British Monarchy has never demonstated any attempt to abuse their position to favour races or religions, or destabilise political systems. I am content for the family to stay on top. The fact that they serve no visible political function is actually a comfort. Noone in their right mind can feel alienated by the Monarchy unless it is due to jealousy.
The Commonwealth is in favour of equality. Fine, but humanity is inherently unequal. Destroying Monarchical institutions does not, and never has, actually ended inequality among ordinary people, so getting rid of the Monarchy serves no function. There would be no actual Commonwealth policy change if the Monarchy were knocked off their pedestal, so why bother?
Abolishing the Headship is a possibility. Its primary function is, as you say, to unify, and if the Commonwealth leaders do not want to replace the Queen with a King, then it would probably be better to do away with the position in favour of ‘Commissioners’. That would be the pragmatic course.
But if Charles is approved when the time comes, then it is a sign that there is still goodwill towards the Monarchy and the traditions of the Commonwealth. And we won’t know one way or the other until that day.
I think this debate over the Monarchy’s role has become an irrelevance. It has highlighted the obvious intellectual defeciencies in the debate – the assertions of Monarchists and Republicans are both un-disprovable, and boil down in the end to opinion and aesthetic choice. 60% in Australia and 30% in Britain are easy figures to throw around but I have absolutely no doubt that the majority in both countries don’t care one way or the other who is the Head of State.
Monarchy is an excuse to wave flags and walk up and down in a decent suit. That’s their function in my life and in the lives of many others. You have to vote for a President, and if the other guy wins then the flags and suit go back in the cupboard for another four-to-five years. As a result it’s a logical (and entirely aesthetic) choice for me to keep the Monarchy.
As far as the Commonwealth is concerned, therefore, the Monarchy’s primary function therein would be to keep the old post-Imperial traditions going. You can call the Empire ‘genocidal’ until you’re blue in the face but divorcing yourself from history often has quite unpleasant effects, especially in countries like South Africa, where the wonderful, glorious, and entirely new post-Apartheid South Africa now has more ethnic violence, unemployment and crime as a direct result of trying to force equality on the population. If Mandela had know what damage even the minimum wage bill (which has resulted in colossal unemployment) would cause among the African population he’d have become a Cambridge professor, not a Freedom Fighter.
I daresay there is a similar risk in Australia, where ethnic tensions are still unresolved. I can’t speak for New Zealand.
Equality is a dangerous concept to make one’s god, especially when it demands that you go around smashing up the fine china. If the Monarchy do no harm, and their position in the Commonwealth has no tangible effect except the odd parade, then keep them! Everyone should have a parade once in a while.
Removing the Monarchy would be a futile and utterly meaningless gesture. The inequality of the Commonwealth is in the slums of Dehli or the townships of Mpumulanga, not in Buckingham Palace.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Excellent Lowings, I see you have finally decided to argue for The Monarchy. About time. I agree with everything you have written except for the following which, sadly, completely undermines all that you have written. “Abolishing the Headship is a possibility.” No Headship – No Monarchy.
August 28th, 2009 at 5:12 am
“Birth is a good way”…except for the fact that in this case it produces a white, christian (but not catholic) from Britain each and every time. And despite the last half century it favours boys over girls.
While that may seem completely acceptable if you’re a white, christian born in Britain, or some subset thereof, it’s not exactly a great symbol for a “home to two billion citizens of all faiths and ethnicities”.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
May I remind everyone that Her Majesty the Queen was CHOSEN by the Commonwealth leaders of the time to become Head of the Commonwealth on the death of the previous Head. She DID NOT inherit the position.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
IMHO, it wd be a worthwhile position for a previous sec.gen. (and God save the Queen, long may she reign). It wd be for the CHOG to reconfirm their choice every couple of years, but it could be a position of some influence if the job description includes access to the Sec Gen in the same sort of way the Sec Gen has access to heads of gov. Actually, I imagine, if he or she is doing the job of Head of the Commonwealth well, the advice of this symbol will actively be sought by his successor in the Sec Gen’s seat. And the Head of the Commonwealth will become a stabilising factor in the traditions of the association.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
SORRY, THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE PREVIOUS posting shd have been:
And the Head of the Commonwealth will REMAIN a stabilising factor in the traditions of the association.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I’m pro royal, but some of the heady high-monarchist ramblings here are embarrassing even for me.
There can only be one answer to this issue;
Ascertain what it is that the majority of Commonwealth nations want, and enact it.
Anything else misses the point entirely.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I feel that the current queen should remain head of the Commonwealth until she dies. That was the agreement that was made and agreed upon, even though a long time ago. However, I think that in the future the Commonwealth of Nations needs to focus more on a head in the Secretary-General position who can provide leadership in a way that helps the Commonwealth get its business and programmes agreed and delivering. This person should be the main representative of the Commonwealth of Nations as a body and should be work-man-like in their approach.
I do think the Commonwealth of Nations needs a figure head, but the head in the future should not be as it is now where they are so limited in what they can publically say and passive to the point of unnoticed. I am from the UK and for the UK the regining monarch as head of state is fantastic in my view because I find all our politicians very tedious and she is some welcome relief. Although our politicians are still vital for being democratically elected and responsible to the electorate they have taken political representation to an extreme degree and I do not fancy having a presidential election and more politics to go through in the UK. My analogy is: I like football, but I do not want my team to play everyday as I will be overloaded and less likely to enjoy it! But in the case of the commonwealth this is not good enough and the head should be able to offer opinions to the Commonwealth of Nations, even if political. The current head of the commonwealth cannot publically offer views as she will be seen as interfering in politics in those countries, such as the UK, where she is head of state. Therefore, I propose that a rotational head of state be considered, but their role should be one of *promoting the cultures and peoples of the nation they represent*. I suggest that it should NOT be member of a current national government or a current head of state, but a figure selected by the democratically elected parliament of the individual country. This would help emphasise the importance of parliaments rather than politicians. The term should be about 6 months in length for each country, but be organised well in advance for good impact. The only countries in the Commonwealth that should not be allowed to hold this position are those who are undersuspension from it. However, if/when they are readmitted they should be allowed to join the circuit. I know it is not very imaginative, but I think it would make the whole Commonwealth more interesting for the people.
To those above who are posting large ramblings about monarchs, etc I would like to say in response: I think we have to be realistic about what the commonwealth members will have to one day sit down and agree upon. If you intend to contribute, and therefore make a difference, to the commonwealth conversation please provide some constructive proposal or preference in your posting.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
It does not ‘perpetuate the image of a British Commonwealth’. What about the 15 other Commonwealth realms.
Having someone that is head of the Commonwealth and not the next monarch will simply ruin the history, tradition and what people like about the Commonwealth.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
If the commonwealth tries to appeal on the basis of history and tradition alone it will become irrelevant and disappear. I am under no misconception about the origins of the commonwealth (the British Empire) and if people wish to celebrate this history then I have no problem with such enthusiasm. However, is the best way of acknowledging the history and tradition to have a monarch as head of the commonwealth of nations that strive for democracy? I value the commonwealth for what it does and can do, not what it once was. If the commonwealth of nations is to continue it must make a real difference to peoples lives (economically, socially, environmentally) not just give them a history lesson.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:31 am
The head of the commonwealth is really just a symbolic role, The Windsor monarch is just that in the 15 commonwealth realms, so I see no reason the future windsor monarch cannot assume the role of head of the commonwealth.
Perhaps there should be a rotating president of the commonwealth or something like that.