H.M. The Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, highlighted the Commonwealth’s Relevance in its 60th Anniversary Year during her 2009 Christmas Broadcast.  Her speech also featured video interviews with delegates at the Commonwealth Youth Forum in Trinidad and Tobago.

It is sixty years since the Commonwealth was created and today, with more than a billion of its members under the age of 25, the organisation remains a strong and practical force for good. Recently I attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago and heard how important the Commonwealth is to young people. New communication technologies allow them to reach out to the wider world and share their experiences and viewpoints. For many, the practical assistance and networks of the Commonwealth can give skills, lend advice and encourage enterprise.

It is inspiring to learn of some of the work being done by these young people, who bring creativity and innovation to the challenges they face. It is important to keep discussing issues that concern us all – there can be no more valuable role for our family of nations.

I have been closely associated with the Commonwealth through most of its existence. The personal and living bond I have enjoyed with leaders, and with people the world over, has always been more important in promoting our unity than symbolism alone. The Commonwealth is not an organisation with a mission. It is rather an opportunity for its people to work together to achieve practical solutions to problems.

In many aspects of our lives, whether in sport, the environment, business or culture, the Commonwealth connection remains vivid and enriching. It is, in lots of ways, the face of the future. And with continuing support and dedication, I am confident that this diverse Commonwealth of nations can strengthen the common bond that transcends politics, religion, race and economic circumstances.

Have a listen…What do you think?

Savage, 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.”

Just as the Crown was essential to the evolution of the world’s most successful system of governance, the Westminster model, so it has been at the very centre of the long evolution of the Commonwealth.

No one has put The Queen’s personal contribution as Head of the Commonwealth more clearly than did the thirteen year old Australian youth ambassador, Harry White at the opening of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games:

‘Your Majesty, during the past 54 years of your reign you have been the glue that has held us all together in the great Commonwealth of Nations in good times and bad times. The love and great affection that we all hold for you is spread across one third of the world’s population in our Commonwealth.’

Most citizens of the Commonwealth have known no other Head. Only the elderly remember her father the dutiful King George VI, and the immense feeling of sadness that descended on the Commonwealth on his untimely demise.

It is hard to imagine the end of this present reign, but when it comes there will be again great sadness but recognition, not only in the Commonwealth, but across the world, for her lifetime of impeccable service. Indeed it is probable she will give her name to the long post war era.

Attention will inevitably then turn to the Coronation of the King, and incidentally, to the new Prince of Wales. It is inconceivable that at this momentous time, the Heads of Government would even entertain a suggestion that the central and indeed crucial office of the Head of the Commonwealth should rotate among themselves. This would not only be unworkable, it would be unacceptable. Such a Head of the Commonwealth could never be seen to transcend politics and division as the new Sovereign will immediately demonstrate as the constitutional monarch of not one but sixteen diverse countries.

That the Heads of Government will not immediately accept King Charles III is unrealistic. It is as unrealistic as expecting that when the Archbishop invites the Coronation congregation in Westminster Abbey to do homage and service to him, they would actually refuse.

Admittedly there has been a disgraceful and mischievous campaign against him by rogue elements in the British media, two of whom were convicted for their criminal activities. This campaign has centred on the sort of caricature journalism used against his father, and appallingly, even his young sons. But the fact is Prince Charles commands increasing considerable international respect.

At the recent Group of 20 meeting in London he called – and chaired – a crucial and very effective meeting at the highest levels to preserve the world?s rainforests. Participants included the Indonesian President, the World Bank President, the German Chancellor, the Japanese, Italian, Australian, Guyanese, and Norwegian Prime Ministers, the President of the European Union Commission, Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, the British Foreign Secretary and the Brazilian Foreign Minister. At a time when most are thinking of retirement, he works to fund a whole suite of worthy charities, raising close to a quarter of billion dollars annually.

There can be no doubt that as Head of the Commonwealth he will attract increased international standing for this organisation which by its attachment to principle and enforcement of standards is attracting greater international respect.

Tell us what you think?

I suspect a lot of us don’t like the whiff of colonialism that we detect about the institution, the implication that Britain is still running the show.

Australians have been rude for some time about our dear Queen, who is titled “head” of the Commonwealth, which makes it sound like a private school. Quite a lot of Canadians, too, feel that the monarchial tie with the mother country should be severed.

But, he argues,

The Commonwealth is more than just fun, or its Games. It’s an institution, like NATO, looking not just for a reason to exist, but ways in which to use its existence to better the human condition.

What do you think? Yawn-inducing? Or a force for good? Perhaps both?

Read the rest of his article here. And comment below.

Commonwealth can make a better world, By Iain Hunter, Times Colonist, July 25 2009

My favourite is a provocative piece by Professor David Flint from Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. Although he gets some things about our poll wrong (you can find the questions we actually asked here), he nevertheless raises some important points about the relationship between the Monarchy and the Commonwealth.

I’ve also now written an opinion piece in ‘The Age’ on Friday 24 July …

“Australia has traditionally been a big supporter of the Commonwealth, from the Commonwealth Games to funding development projects to leading political campaigns. Yet Australians seem divided about its relevance.

It’s worth noting that Australians seem well informed but one in five say they would be happy if Australia left the Commonwealth, more than double the average of the other countries polled. And, just to complicate things, Australia was the only country polled where Prince Charles was the most popular choice for the next head of the Commonwealth. Everywhere else the clear winner was a headship that rotated between members.

The obvious explanation for Australia’s approach is how divided the country remains on the issue of a republic. Presumably a hard core of people love the Commonwealth for its ties to royalty, while a similarly sized group hate it for the same reasons. The problem is that both groups are equally out of touch with the reality of what the modern Commonwealth is…”

Read the full article: At 60, this grand old dame is in desperate need of a makeover

What do you think?

Despite being a founding member, supplying the association’s first secretary-general and continuing to be one of its major funders, Canada seems to have fallen out of love with the Commonwealth. Less than a quarter of Canadians could name anything the Commonwealth does, and only a third would be upset if Canada withdrew its membership…”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE ON THE GLOBE AND MAIL WEBSITE.

And then let me know what you think below.