Another year, another Commonwealth meeting

I don’t want to get into a debate about the evils of the empire so let’s put all of that aside for a moment (well, for the length of this blog post at least). As modern phraseology goes, “let’s park that idea” or “let’s deal with that offline”. However, I would like to deal with one of the lingering consequences of colonialism — the Commonwealth. For all the evils that went with colonialism, the Commonwealth has been a vital institution in the fields of education (through the Commonwealth bursary scheme) and governance.

Nearly all the former British colonies (bar Zimbabwe) are members of the Commonwealth and they recently gathered in Trinidad and Tobago to celebrate 60 years of the Commonwealth. Like with Catherine whatshername (the new EU foreign policy supremo), I found myself playing a game of “Name that Secretary-General”. To be honest, the last Commonwealth Secretary-General that I remember was Don McKinnon and I know that he had retired as secretary-general which meant that in order to name the current secretary-general of the Commonwealth I had to visit the Commonwealth’s website . It turns out that the current secretary-general of the Commonwealth is Kamalesh Sharma, an Indian diplomat.

This raises all kinds of issues about the Commonwealth, some of which were explored in a recent BBC World Debate. In essence, for me, the issue is one of visibility. Though I have no doubt about Sharma’s diplomatic skills, I suspect that he is more a “secretary” than a “general”. The problem with posts such as secretary-general of the Commonwealth and the UN secretary-general is that the member states often prefer someone who is more a “secretary” than a “general”. Take for example UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Sharma. They are perhaps less inclined to rock the boat than the likes of Boutros Boutros-Ghali who was more of a “general”, much to the US’s disliking.

But surely the Commonwealth is a defunct organisation that should just roll over and die?

The Commonwealth still has enormous significance. Indeed, at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Rwanda was admitted as a member of the Commonwealth. Though Rwanda was never a British colony, and strictly speaking shouldn’t be a member of the Commonwealth (like Mozambique and Namibia), the fact that these states have sought Commonwealth membership shows that the organisation still carries significant weight on the international arena. For example, the Commonwealth scholarships play an important role in promoting education in developing state members of the Commonwealth.

If the Commonwealth is going to remain relevant it means that Sharma is going to need to start speaking up on issues, as well as making sure that all Commonwealth members adhere to the principles of the Commonwealth (such as human rights). Though I am not advocating annoying your membership to such a degree that they all want to leave your organisation, it is a question of utilising the soft power (which the Commonwealth, in my opinion, has oodles of) for the good of the members of the Commonwealth and the world as a whole.

This raises the important issue of how the Commonwealth can use its soft power to promote better governance in its member states. Given that the largest proportion of Commonwealth members are African states, the Commonwealth, in essence, can play a role similar to that of the European Union. Though the Commonwealth will never be able to forge a political or economic union equivalent to that of the European Union, it can use its attractive force to make a difference. In this regard, it may be worthwhile to look at some kind of rebate scheme for Commonwealth members. In essence, show how you have complied with our guiding principles and we will provide you with a rebate on your membership fees. This could be extended to aid, for example. By complying with Commonwealth rules and regulations states could qualify for greater flows of aid.

Some people would argue that this is tantamount to neo-colonialism. However, it seems to be working for the European Union. By making candidate European Union member states comply and implement a whole raft of legislation, once admitted, the greater European Union members will be assured of the fact that the state being admitted is one that they are happy with. Also, as the saying goes, democracies don’t fight democracies.

A further advantage to this approach would be that there is an incentive for Commonwealth member states to adhere to the rules. This means that violating the rules of the Commonwealth and being expelled from the organisation will carry consequences, other than not being able to take part in the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi next year.

So start to speak up Mr Sharma! Let’s make the Commonwealth relevant again.