Although the Commonwealth Conversation came to an official end in March 2010, the work of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) set up to explore options for Commonwealth reform is just beginning in earnest…

Heads of government, meeting in Trinidad & Tobago last November, called for the creation of an EPG partly as a result of the findings of the Conversation.

The Group’s goals are to sharpen the impact, strengthen the networks, and raise the profile of the Commonwealth. They will report to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting which will take place in Perth, Australia in October 2011.

The Group is chaired by former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and includes representatives from Australia, Canada, Guyana, Jamaica, Kiribati, Mozambique, Pakistan, Uganda and the UK. Click here to find out more.

In the past few weeks, we have met with several members of the Group to share what we discovered during the Conversation. However, if there is a particular message or recommendation you would like us to relay to the EPG, post your comment here and we will pass it on!

Alternatively, you can fill in a questionnaire designed by the EPG to gather the opinions of Commonwealth citizens all over the world. Click here to complete their survey.

Derek Ingram, veteran Commonwealth journalist, muses on the association’s finances:

One of the best outcomes of the recent Commonwealth summit in Trinidad was that at long last the leaders agreed to rationalise the organisation’s finances. Many people are under the impression that the Commonwealth costs a lot of money. Nothing could be further from the truth…

For an organisation of 54 countries it is run on a shoestring. It is right that the Commonwealth is a lean operation and, as in many ways, an example to others. On the other hand, to be effective it must have adequate resources for its worldwide activity. This has never been the case – and it still isn’t.

The situation is complicated. The price of membership is a country’s subscription to the Secretariat and that is compulsory. All the other Commonwealth organisations are run on countries’ voluntary pledges. The biggest is the development aid arm, the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation (CFTC). The others are the Commonwealth Youth Programme (CYP), the Commonwealth of Learning (COL), based in Vancouver, and the Commonwealth Media Development Fund (CMDF). The CFTC pledges in 2008-9 totalled £28.1, COL £6.9 m and the CYP £2.7. The Commonwealth Foundation is a separate entity housed with the Secretariat in Marlborough House. Its budget was £3.9 million.

In addition are the 90-odd organisations that make what is now called civil society, some tiny and comparatively new and others like the Royal Commonwealth Society and the Commonwealth Telecommunications Centre that are large and over a century old. In between are substantial bodies such the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Association of Commonwealth Universities, the Commonwealth Games Federation and the Commonwealth Business Council.

For 20 years, a period of considerable inflation, the Secretariat contribution scales were frozen. In 2007-8 the budget still totalled only £14.2 million. One major factor helps to keep this low: Marlborough House is on permanent loan from the Queen and therefore accommodation costs are minimal. Member countries’ payments are on a percentage basis ranging from £4.2 million from the UK to £49,157 from small states like Samoa.

After years of tension and tough argument the freeze on levels of contribtuions has been lifted, and in Trinidad it was agreed that the scale will be reviewed every five years. This makes sense since members’ economies rise and fall. Many smaller countries are no longer in the “developing” category – places like Mauritius, Malta, Cyprus, Singapore, Trinidad, Barbados, Bahamas, and Brunei and can well afford to move up the scale. India, which in recent years has funded a growing number of Commonwealth projects, has paid till now only £474,407 subscription to the Secretariat.

Some countries, India among them, have agreed to raise their contributions considerably – eight by around 25 per cent and a ninth has doubled its money. Some smaller countries will pay a little less, but hopefully will pass on their savings to the CFTC and the CYP. All this is good news, but the long-term aim must be to get a better balance so that there is a much reduced disparity between the old member countries – UK, Canada, Australia – and the rest. This would give it all less of a look of the old British Commonwealth. Alas, under the changes agreed in Trinidad these three will proportionately be giving a little more.

I think of the modern Commonwealth as a happy accident. If it did not exist it would neither be necessary nor perhaps possible to invent it. Not all member-states value Commonwealth membership for the same reasons or to the same extent. But neither of these truisms are a problem.

Following the transition from empire and the end of apartheid, the association is searching for a meaning. The ‘democratic world order’ thought possible with the advent of The End of History, the Washington Consensus and articulated in the Commonwealth via the Harare Principles – has not yet materialised.

At CHOGMs the Heads of Government review the world situation at length. Their views on world affairs feature prominently in the Communiqués, which invariably record the Commonwealth’s solidarity with Cyprus in its dispute with Turkey and with Belize in rejecting Venezuelan territorial claims, but by convention remain silent about the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.

CMAG – the body set up to deal with serious or persistent violations of the Commonwealth’s fundamental values – may be frustrating, but it takes the Commonwealth a step further than other international organisations. Similarly the Secretary General’s “good offices” are certainly commendable. However, the association has its well recorded limitations. Indeed, non-interference in the internal affairs of its members, even if they flaunt the association’s fundamental values, is very much the hallmark of post-colonial Commonwealth relations.

This leaves us to find the value of the Commonwealth in its ‘framework for informal cooperation between members’ and through ‘the mutual exercise of soft power’. From this point of view, the recent election of a distinguished Indian diplomat to the post of Secretary-General is evidence of the Commonwealth’s profile in the emerging world order.

At a time when India seems set to play a prominent international role, it is not only significant but encouraging that the Indian Government should have regarded the Commonwealth as an appropriate association within which to project its growing influence. This happy accident of history may now have found a new role.

Former Secretary General of the Commonwealth Sir Sonny Ramphal reflects on his time in office (1975-1990)

The Commonwealth Conversation is a global public consultation on the future of the Commonwealth which, so far, has engaged tens of thousands of people worldwide. Emerging findings were published last week ahead of the CHOGM in a report entitled ‘Common What?’. The report called for the Commonwealth to be bold in rebuilding its worryingly low profile, by focusing on three Ps: Principles, Priorities and People.

In the Trinidad & Tobago Affirmation on Commonwealth Values and Principles released yesterday, leaders took note of many of the major findings of the Conversation:

• They recognised the need to ‘enhance the public profile of the organisation’ and underscored ‘the importance of coherence in order to protect the Commonwealth’s image and credibility’.

• They restated the core values and principles of the Commonwealth, recognised the vital role of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) as their custodian, and called on CMAG ‘to explore ways in which it could effectively deal with the full range of serious or persistent violations of such values by member states’.

• They called for the Commonwealth Secretary-General to ‘consolidate and further strengthen ongoing efforts to improve the Secretariat’s governance [and] its responsiveness to changing priorities and needs’.

• They recognised the importance of the people in the Commonwealth and they ‘committed to securing a greater level of coordination and collaboration between all Commonwealth contributors and stake-holders, particularly including governments, civil society, business, the diversity of commonwealth professional and other associations that bring together our citizens, academia and others’.

The full declaration can be downloaded here

Read the Press Release that accompanied the launch of the Commonwealth Conversation Emerging Findings 

The post is written by Sir Peter Marshall, a former Deputy Secretary-General of the Commonwealth.

I would be hard put to say precisely most attracts me about the Commonwealth. But if forced to make a choice, I think I would opt for its chemistry – the way in which people treat one another, a sublime blend of maturity, tolerance, respect, responsibility, commitment and warmth – a recognition of our mutual affinities as well as our common values and interests.

This mixture applies across the board in the governmental and the non-governmental spheres, and, not less important, is the easy and fruitful relations between the two. It extends from top to bottom, with the Head of the Commonwealth setting a shining example.

The way in which we do business is a reflection of this chemistry. In the Agreed Memorandum of 1964, establishing the Commonwealth Secretariat, Commonwealth Prime Ministers reiterated the conviction that “consultation is the life-blood of the Commonweath Association”. They realised at once that the Secretariat could do much to facilitate this. They also expressed their concern that “there should be opportunity for fuller participation by all the member countries in the normal processes of Commonwealth consultation”.

Forty years on, the priorities are the same. It is basically a question of listening and making sure that no-one feels left out. It is a good idea when chairing a meeting to invite contributions, before closing the discussion, from those who have not previously spoken. It helps inspire confidence, and can often yield surprising value added.

Democracy has been neatly, if starkly, described as a system of counting heads instead of breaking them. But “counting” is a many-faceted process, of which voting is by no means the only expression. What you want is agreement.

It is preferable if you can agree on what is to be said or done on the basis of discussion, without actually having to count heads in the literal sense. Indeed if there seems to be no prospect of agreement one has to ask one’s self whether the matter in question is worth pursuing, or whether there is not a better way of achieving the desired result.

In the consensus approach, every one in effect has a veto. But like other deterrents, the veto suffers if it is used.

Long live the Commonwealth!

After an intense few weeks, we are delighted to publish the emerging findings of the Commonwealth Conversation. In this report we say that the Commonwealth must be bold to halt its declining profile, and to do this must focus on three Ps: Principles, Priorities and People. You can download Common What? here, and see the full press release below.

Commonwealth must be bold to halt declining profile

As world leaders gather for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), a new global public consultation shows that the association risks fading into irrelevance unless leaders take bold action.

Conducted to mark the association’s 60^th anniversary, The Commonwealth Conversation has so far engaged tens of thousands of people across almost all of its 53 member states via online and offline activities.

The emerging findings of the Conversation are published today by the Royal Commonwealth Society in a report entitled “Common What?”.

The report presents evidence that the Commonwealth has a worryingly low profile amongst the public and many policymakers. Less than one third of people in the Commonwealth could name anything the association does and the majority of those could cite only the Commonwealth Games. Many policymakers who took part in the consultation struggled to identify any area in which the Commonwealth clearly and distinctively adds value. Those working within Commonwealth organisations seem frustrated that the association is being neglected by member governments and lacks an ambitious vision for its future.

Research for the Conversation suggests that the Commonwealth is more often valued by Anglophiles and those who are nostalgic for an imperial past, than those committed to the internationalist values of the association. The report suggests that rebuilding the Commonwealth’s profile is a critical and urgent challenge. It recommends a renewed focus on:

1. Principles. There is widespread confusion about what the Commonwealth stands for today. Adherence to the values it purports to uphold is patchy at best. Its principles must be re-articulated in a way that captures public imagination, clearly distinguishes the Commonwealth from other international bodies, and directly informs its work in meaningful ways.
2. Priorities. While the Commonwealth does good work in many areas, it is seen as spreading itself too thinly, diluting its impact and identity. There are consistent calls for it to focus on where it can add value in a crowded international marketplace of organisations. The Commonwealth must identify and deploy its unique strengths if it is to thrive in the 21^st century.
3. People. The Commonwealth’s network of civil society organisations is unparalleled. Yet, many of these bodies urgently need to engage a younger generation or risk dying out. They must become more innovative, more coordinated and better-resourced.

Dr Danny Sriskandarajah, Director of the Royal Commonwealth Society, said: “This is a wake up call for the Commonwealth. After 60 years of fantastic work, the Commonwealth has to choose between quietly retiring or boldly revitalising itself for the 21^st century. Leaders meeting in Trinidad this week need to do more than issue long communiqués. They need to convince a new generation unfamiliar with the Commonwealth that this association can tackle global challenges in a meaningful way.”

Among thousands of contributions to the Conversation, the following said:

Rt Hon. Malcom Fraser, former Prime Minister of Australia: “If the Commonwealth is to survive as an effective organisation, it should not be shy and retiring.”

Dame Kelly Holmes, President of Commonwealth Games England: “I think the Commonwealth isn’t known that much to the younger generation. We need to talk about the Commonwealth in a more positive light.”

Imran Khan, Pakistani cricketer and politician: “[The Commonwealth] is a historical thing but I don’t know if it is of any direct benefit to Pakistan. It should be more of an effective forum.”

H.E. Kalonzo Musyoka, Vice President of Kenya: “We don’t hear the voice of the Commonwealth loud enough. It is a very well established body but I do feel that it needs a sense of renewal.”

Notes to Editors

Commonwealth Conversation: On 20 July 2009, the RCS launched the ‘Commonwealth Conversation’, the largest-ever public consultation on the future of the Commonwealth. The centrepiece of the Commonwealth Conversation is an open, interactive website to host discussions and invite ideas. (www.thecommonwealthconversation.org) The Conversation has also involved:

• Nationally representative opinion polls in 7 Commonwealth countries with a combined sample of 6,200
• Over 30,000 visits to the website from almost all Commonwealth countries (and 100+ other countries)
• 1,500+ comments via the website, email and post
• Surveys of more than 1,250 people, including key opinion leaders, in over 40 countries
• Almost 70 events in 21 Commonwealth countries across all regions involving some 2,600 people
• Extensive media coverage, including 15 op-ed pieces in leading national newspapers around the Commonwealth
• 8 expert groups on key aspects of the Commonwealth’s work
• Bespoke online focus groups involving young people from around the Commonwealth

DOWNLOAD COMMON WHAT?

Contacts:

For all media enquiries, please contact Joanna Bennett on +1 868 374 4355 and joanna.bennett@thercs.org.

RCS Headquarters, London: Mr Alex Try, conversation@thercs.org, +44 (0)20 7766 9235; 25 Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5AP, UK.

Last week we featured the opportunity to ask Kamalesh Sharma, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, any question you wanted. He is now responding.

Answering a question on profile, posted on the Commonwealth Conversation website, he said:

“It is by making ourselves relevant and responsive to the concerns of the ordinary people whom we serve that we can best hope to be acknowledged by them.”

He also welcomed the “frank exchange” of views the Commonwealth Conversation has enabled.

To see more responses visit the Commonwealth Secretariat’s website. He will be answering questions throughout CHOGM.  

This post is written for the Commonwealth Conversation by journalist Derek Ingram

At the last Commonwealth summit in Kampala in 2007 heads of government endorsed a report that updated the rules for countries wanting to join the Commonwealth.

So far the only country admitted that has no historic connection whatever with the UK or any other Commonwealth member is Mozambique, which was a Portuguese colony, joined in 1995, and has been a successful model.

Cameroon, also admitted in 1995, had before independence been part British and part Nigerian. Namibia, once German and then a trust territory under South Africa, became a member in 1990, even before South Africa’s return.

The membership report, produced under the chairmanship of former Jamaica prime minister P.G. Patterson, laid out more explicitly, and even tightened, the qualifications for applicants without historical connections, but in accepting it the Heads added some leeway. They said that “in exceptional circumstances” applications could be “considered on a case-by-case basis.”

However, applicants had to comply with the values, principles and priorities set out in Commonwealth declarations made over the years. They must show a commitment, inter alia, to democratic processes, free and fair elections and representative legislatures, the rule of law, protection of human rights, and freedom of expression.

For many years now several countries have been knocking on the Commonwealth door. Even Algeria has shown interest. 

The most pressing case is Rwanda, which before independence was under German and then Belgian rule.

It is adjacent to Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda, is now teaching English in its schools and has even started playing cricket. But it hardly adheres to Commonwealth standards as required. It is not democratic and its people do not enjoy freedom of expression.

Rwanda has a champion in neighbouring Uganda. Presidents Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame of Rwanda are longtime comrades in arms. Museveni, as host of the last CHOGM, is until the November one in Trinidad, chairperson of the Commonwealth.

The most fervent supporter of  Rwanda’s membership is the UK for reasons that are still not entirely clear.

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) sent the eminent international lawyer Yash Ghai on a mission to Rwanda to discover whether it fulfils the Commonwealth requirements. 

His thorough report finds Rwanda does not satisfy the test of Commonwealth values. It says its government “has not hesitated to use violence at home and abroad when it has suited it.”

The reaction of many people is to point out that some member countries of long-standing still do not measure up to these values.

This is no answer. There is no point in the Commonwealth adding to its problems.

In fact, Cameroon was admitted too early and for years now the Secretary-General’s envoys have been trying to get a more democratic situation there. (Paul Biya has been president for 27 years and wants to stand next year yet again).

No member will every have totally clean hands, but there is only a handful such as The Gambia, Sri Lanka, Swaziland that present real problems.

Recently years of Commonwealth diplomacy brought to the Maldives good elections and the end of a president who had ruled for 27 years. In this work the Commonwealth does a great job.

On Rwanda it should wait for next year’s presidential elections, send a strong observer group to decide whether they are fair (the last ones were not) and then consider the application at the next CHOGM in 2011.

The Commonwealth currently has an Action Plan for Gender Equality. It views gender equality as a goal in its own right, but also says it can be a key factor in enhancing democracy and peace and eradicating poverty. Important issues such as ensuring education for all and reducing maternal mortality also come under its umbrella.

But should the association go further and advocate ‘positive discrimination’ to ensure female representation at the highest political levels in its member states? Currently there is only one female president in the Commonwealth, India’s Pratibha Patil who, like the Head of the Commonwealth herself, Queen Elizabeth II, occupies a largely ceremonial position. Only two Commonwealth member states currently have female Prime Ministers, Luisa Diogo of Mozambique (who, again, does not wield executive power) and Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh (the latter, like Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan and Chandrika Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka before her, the daughter of a former national leader).

Is this status quo something the Commonwealth could or should tackle? And more broadly, should the Commonwealth be more assertive in speaking out against cultural norms that legitimate discrimination against women?