In their initial press release, the Commonwealth Election Observation Mission, which is being chaired by former Jamaican Foreign Minister Mr K D Knight, said they saw ‘a generally well-administered election day but shortcomings in the pre-election period and incidences of inter-party violence taint election’. Read the full press release here on the Commonwealth Secretariat website.

In an article published in The Times newspaper on 3 February 2010, South Asia correspondent Jeremy Page said that the Sri Lankan election is a rare chance for the Commonwealth to play a leading role on the world stage.

For the first time in two years, the Commonwealth may have a chance to raise concerns about deteriorating political freedom in South Asia’s oldest democracy. If it speaks out, it is sure to upset Sri Lanka and maybe some other Commonwealth members with questionable democratic credentials. If it pulls its punches, however, it risks undermining the Commonwealth’s core principles, and setting a poor precedent for other members.

Read the full article on The Times Online here, and let us know what you think below.

Krishnan Srinivasan, former Deputy Secretary-General (Political) of the Commonwealth, says that although the Commonwealth has made a start in committing to the Harare principles, it is difficult to see where the process will end.

In an article published in The Round Table in October 2003, Krishnan Srinivasan charts the rise of CMAG – the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group – formed in 1995 to monitor adherence to the values of the Harare Declaration.

While the group has met many times over the past years its achievements, even with a limited mandate, are extremely modest. The case of the Solomon Islands, is just one he mentions. Their Prime Minister Bartholomew Ulafa’alu was forced in 2000 to step down at gun-point and had to go through a charade of seeking a vote of confidence when his supporters were forcibly restrained from attending Parliament, yet the country was never suspended.

While the creation of the Group represents a notable development, its work in practice does not justify much optimism that the Commonwealth can become a values-based organisation.

You can read the full article, free of charge, here and feel free to leave any comments below.

Srinivasan, Krishnan, Commonwealth Principles: Compliance or complaisance?, The Round Table, Vol. 92 No. 372, 603-608, October 2003

With Pakistan in almost perpetual crisis, where can the Commonwealth add value? In this interview for the Commonwealth Conversation, Jonathan Paris, a London-based Middle East and Islamic movement specialist, suggests the Trinidad Heads of Government Meeting could push along the India-Pakistan peace process.

Transcript:

I believe that in the organisation of Non-Aligned States there was a meeting in Sharm-El-Sheik, Egypt, between the Prime Minister of India and the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

It was very interesting in that the Prime Minister of India made some very accommodating statements, saying that they would look into accusations that they were stirring up trouble in Pakistani region of Balochistan. It has always been a serious concern of Pakistan, but India has never admitted to having any involvement with rebels.

That caused a lot of stir amongst Indian elites and army officials- but the fact that the Non-Aligned Movement provided a vehicle for the two adversaries, the two leaders, to sit and go further than they would have in their respective capitals is quite an interesting model for the Trinidad conference.

I would encourage any efforts to push along the India-Pakistan peace process – they call it the composite dialogue- it is the one way to realign the nation’s interests, so that India and Pakistan are not fighting each other, and so the United States and Pakistan are not at cross-purposes. One of the problems the United States is facing in Afghanistan is that they cannot get the Pakistan army to see the Taliban as the enemy.

In an interview conducted by the RCS as part of the Commonwealth Conversation, the Kenyan Vice President, Kalonzo Musyoka, has spoken frankly about the need for Commonwealth renewal.

“The Commonwealth is very important to us in Kenya, but it has not been good enough at promoting itself – many people here do not understand what the Commonwealth is, nor how it works.

Kenyans, however, look forward always to the Commonwealth Games.

I have been to meetings of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Cyprus, Scotland and New Zealand and these have all been very valuable. The meetings are very informal and light on protocol – we all get onto the same bus, just like a family. And the leaders have had a unique chance to get to know each other at these gatherings.

The ‘good offices’ of the Secretary General are a vital part of the machinery: when we were in turmoil here after the elections at the end of 2007. The Commonwealth Observer teams could perhaps have been more vocal.

The Commonwealth has the best credentials of any grouping anywhere in the world, but its advocacy role should be more forceful. Many African countries are struggling with poverty, unemployment and shortage of food and medicines, but we don’t hear the voice of the Commonwealth loud enough.

It is a very well-established body but I do feel that it does need a sense of renewal. “

In an article published on Tuesday 20th October 2009, in Caribbean Net News, Maja Daruwala, Executive Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative has called for CMAG reform to be top of the agenda at the Trinidad CHOGM. CMAG is the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group – the Commonwealth watchdog on human rights abuses.

Today, CMAG must be able to deal quickly and unequivocally with situations of constant threats to human rights values by Commonwealth states and open challenges encapsulated in statements like the latest one by President Jammeh of the Gambia where he is unequivocal in his opposition to the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values when he declares on the eve of his departure to New York for the UN General Assembly meeting:

“I will kill anyone, who wants to destabilize this country. If you think that you can collaborate with so called human rights defenders, and get away with it, you must be living in a dream world. I will kill you, and nothing will come out of it. We are not going to condone people posing as human rights defenders to the detriment of the country. If you are affiliated with any human rights group, be rest assured that your security and personal safety would not be guaranteed by my Government. We are ready to kill saboteurs.”

While CMAG has its share of successes, lately there have instances where it has not lived up to expectations. For example 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 (two year) term contrary to the 1999 Durban Communiqué that limits a country to a maximum of two consecutive terms.

CMAG has also been silent on other parts of the Commonwealth, for instance during the post election violence in Kenya in 2007, when freedom of assembly was curtailed in Malaysia in 2007, and for a long while on the Gambia where many basic human rights are heavily curtailed.

It is worrying to note that the CMAG has by and by interpreted its mandate very narrowly to focus only on the un-constitutional overthrow of governments albeit selectively. While my organisation welcomes the recent suspension of Fiji from the Commonwealth as well as the earlier suspension of Pakistan in 2007, CMAG’s non-action on Bangladesh when there was an army backed government in 2006 has left political activists and civil society organisations monitoring CMAG meetings wondering about its yardsticks.

The Hon. Steven Smith MP, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, tells the Commonwealth Conversation that the association shouldn’t be shy about focussing on its core strength – democracy. Do you agree?

Transcript:

I think the great strength of the Commonwealth is that, historically, it has made governance, democracy and the rule of law its priority and I think that should continue to be its core business and its core strength.

There is nothing wrong with having a long standing history of working for democratic ideals. And the Commonwealth should not be shy about proselytizing that for the future.

Core business has been democracy over the years, and my view is that it should continue. We might want to give it a modern face with a website here and there, but essentially the continuation of core business is what the Commonwealth should be doing.

RCS: Who are you and what are you here for today?

We are a non-partisan and non-political group called Enough is Enough. It?s a campaign group that came together to say Nigerians should take action, not against our government, but with our own people to say Enough is Enough.

When 4 or 5 Nigerians get together they always talk about the problems in our country. ‘But we feel it’s time to come together and say in one voice we have had enough. It’s time for us to take positive action.

RCS: What issues need addressing?

There are a number of issues, but pivotal is corruption. It’s endemic and it has become institutionalised. It is the route cause of all our problems.

We produce so much oil, we have so many resources in our country - but this is not impacting upon the lives of our people.

This is down to a lack of will to tackle this corruption.

RCS: How can this be addressed?

It’s down to a number of things, not just the government alone. The people have to show leadership. And we need the international community to help.

RCS: Which brings us on to the Commonwealth?

The Commonwealth has a role to play. We have had enough of this and we need a uniform standard amongst the member countries of the Commonwealth.

RCS: How do Nigerians view the Commonwealth?

I do not speak for all 140 million Nigerians.

I think the Commonwealth is a very relevant institution, but it needs to define its role to reflect the 21^st century. Some things need to be done.

It is a union of equal nations but the countries and leadership need to share good practice between its members. It needs to be top of the agenda. This is not happening at the moment.

The Commonwealth does not address the issues that concern me in Nigeria.

If you look at it from the point of view of the developed nations, like the UK, Canada and Australia- they need to lead by example and share good practice and say there are certain things we need to take a stand on. But they are not doing this at the moment. To attend Commonwealth gatherings you should have to meet minimum standards of governance embedded within the body politic.

The Commonwealth needs to support grassroots organisations – those fighting for social justice. The Commonwealth should be pro-active- not just an inter-governmental organisation. In Nigeria enough is enough.

An interview with former Australian Prime Minister, The Rt. Hon. John Howard, conducted by the Royal Commonwealth Society as part of the Commonwealth Conversation.

Do you have any thoughts on how the Commonwealth should be re-engaging with Zimbabwe?

I have a strong view about Zimbabwe: I think the Southern African countries let everybody down. They should have caught up with Mugabe years ago and, if they had done so, I think he would have gone a long time ago. But asking how we re-engage with Zimbabwe is truly the wrong question.

I think we have just ended up with the worst of all worlds in Zimbabwe. We have an apparent solution that is no solution at all. That’s probably not the view of the majority of countries now, but it’s my view. I was very directly involved in this and nothing has changed my opinion. I think the failure of the Southern African countries to stand up to him was very bad indeed.

There should have been greater strength shown by the Southern African countries and the fact that they didn’t is the major reason why we have this appalling outcome where Mugabe is still there and there’s the pretence of a power sharing arrangement. I don’t have a lot of faith in it and nor does the rest of the world. And unless the rest of the world has faith in it you?re going to have a great deal of difficulty.

Do you think something similar is going on with Fiji?

No, I think Fiji is a bit different. People are actually doing things with Fiji. Fiji is in no way near the condition Zimbabwe is and the rate of decline in living standards has not been as precipitous. It’s got worse but it?s not precipitous the way it has been in Zimbabwe.

You didn’t have Commonwealth observers reporting corrupt election practices [in Zimbabwe]. Both African and European Commonwealth groups are doing that in Fiji. I think the Commonwealth is doing what it can in Fiji and an active role for the Secretary General in that would be very good.

In a way, many people say that the Commonwealth’s handling of Zimbabwe really chipped away at its moral authority because here was an association that was supposed to be about democratic values ?

Yes, but at the end of the day nobody could do anything about it without the lead being taken by the Southern African countries, otherwise the colonial card would have been played. Australia and Canada and New Zealand and Great Britain could have a strong view, but it was very easy to say ‘well that’s the old white Commonwealth pushing us around’ and the responsibility really rested with the Southern African countries. I don’t think they came to the crease.

President Nasheed of the Maldives thinks the Commonwealth should be procatively encouraging democracy and redefining international relations in respect to climate change.

Q: What are the Commonwealth’s core strengths?

Nasheed: Its members, its people, its vision, its beliefs, and?especially the wealth of experience it has from a number of cultures and traditions. The Commonwealth understands how the international community may be able to deal with a certain set of problems or an issue in the international arena more than any other institution. Now I don’t want to mention other institutions, but some of the other institutions have done very silly things in trying to settle issues and coming up with solutions for problems. So its people.

Q: What key issues do you think the Commonwealth should be focusing on?

Nasheed: Democracy and climate change. Now I think both of these things are very interrelated and linked. Democracy, human rights and climate change are all linked. Without good governance we can not have the kinds of adaptation programmes, neither can we have the kinds of mitigation programmes, that we want. So it is very important to have a structure that delivers consultation: and multiparty democracy seems to be the only thing around. And it works – it is working in the Maldives.

So the Commonwealth should focus very much on proactively encouraging democracy. They could do more in that, not just simply after the fall of a regime or when a regime is toppled. After having said this, I do understand and I do realise how sophisticatedly the Commonwealth has been dealing with a number of issues, especially in the case of the Maldives. Their engagement was, at times when we were in the opposition, frustrating. At times we thought they were not doing much, but I think their methods of engagement have yielded good results, they should keep at it.

Q: 2009 is the 60th anniversary year of the Commonwealth. How would you like to see the Commonwealth evolve in the coming years?

Nasheed: Well, I think CMAG (Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group) should become more of a body that encourages good governance, and that countries should be brought to CMAG if they don’t behave well. They should also encourage development of the judiciary and development of institutions that enhance democracy.

In climate change I think it would be good if the Commonwealth ‘would’ encourage more carbon neutral policies, and encourage governments to become carbon neutral. We see climate change as a security issue, as a human rights issue, as a justice issue, more than an environmental issue. So we should really redefine international relations, and I think the Commonwealth can be at the forefront of redefining international relations in respect to climate change.

Do you agree with the President? Should the Commonwealth be focusing its efforts on democracy and climate change? Let us know what you think by commenting below.

Sir Paul Reeves, the Commonwealth Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Fiji, says that the suspension of Fiji from the Commonwealth does not mean the expulsion of her people. In an interview just prior to his visit to Fiji on 8-9 September 2009, Sir Paul, who is the former Governor-General of New Zealand, said that he hopes the Commonwealth can continue to offer assistance in restoring democratic governance in Fiji.

In wide ranging other remarks, he said that he thinks that?conflict resolution, support for small states, and climate change should be the Commonwealth’s focus?for the 21st century. What do you think about what Sir Paul said? Let us know by leaving a comment below…