American Behavioral Scientist

Americanhttp://abs.sagepub.com/ Behavioral Scientist

Canada and the Commonwealth: Does the Commonwealth Have a Future as Well as a Past? David Merchant and Paul Rich American Behavioral Scientist 2004 47: 1319 DOI: 10.1177/0002764204264257 The online version of this article can be found at: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/47/10/1319

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for American Behavioral Scientist can be found at: Email Alerts: http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/47/10/1319.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 2004 What is This?

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on October 11, 2013

ARTICLE

Canada and the Commonwealth Does the Commonwealth Have a Future as Well as a Past?

DAVID MERCHANT

Policy Studies Organization

PAUL RICH

Hoover Institution, Stanford University, University of the Americas–Puebla, Mexico

Canada is one of the original members of the Commonwealth, and many Canadians retain an interest in the organization. Americans and others find the Commonwealth to be a rather esoteric concept and have difficulty appreciating why it continues to attract support from Britain’s former colonies. This article suggests the Commonwealth plays a role in maintaining Canada’s separate identity in the face of its giant neighbor and that in some ways, the informality and pluralism is, rather than being dated, actually almost postmodern. Keywords: Commonwealth; Britain; monarchy; Canadian; national identity

Canada is often described as a staunch member of the Commonwealth, but what that signifies is a mystery to Americans. Known as the British Empire, then as the British Empire and Commonwealth, then as the British Commonwealth, and finally as the Commonwealth, the resemblance is to a historical Cheshire cat, gradually vanishing until only the smile is left. Some see it as an antiquarian remnant, rather like the wigs of justices and barristers in those countries where British justice once prevailed. That would be an understandable verdict, but perhaps it is a premature one. Currently the Commonwealth has 54 members of which 33 are republics, 16 are constitutional monarchies with HM Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state, and 5 have national monarchies of their own. All members accept HM Queen Elizabeth II as the symbol of their association and as head of the Commonwealth, and some, such as Canada, also accept her as their head of state. The Commonwealth secretary-general, appointed by member governments, is currently Mr. Don McKinnon of New Zealand who succeeded in April 2000 HE Chief Emeka Anyaoku of Nigeria. The secretariat is at Marlborough House in London. AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, Vol. 47 No. 10, June 2004 1319-1328 DOI: 10.1177/0002764204264257 © 2004 Sage Publications

1319

1320

AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST

The Commonwealth started as a racist compact for the “old dominions” such as Canada and evolved to the point where it was a moral force in the peaceful transition from a racist regime in South Africa. The term was used as long ago as 1884 when Lord Rosebery assured Australia “Does the fact of your being a nation . . . imply separation from the Empire? God forbid! There is no need for any new nation, however great, leaving the Empire, because the Empire is a Commonwealth of Nations” (Bogdanor, 1995, p. 240). In the Balfour Declaration of 1926, and in the Statute of Westminster of 1931, the United Kingdom assented that the then “White” dominions were autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to another in any respect of their domestic or internal affairs, though united in a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. (Bogdanor, 1995, p. 240)

This equality was eventually extended to even the smallest of former imperial outposts, so that India’s nearly 1 billion people share membership with Nauru’s 8,000. In the post–World War II era, when the Royal Empire Society turned itself into the Royal Commonwealth Society and an institute for studying the Commonwealth was established at London University, the idea of the continuing usefulness of Commonwealth studies seemed viable. Canadian universities supported Commonwealth studies. To an extent, this relied on the fact that “Imperialism was really an extension of the sovereignty of the European nation-states beyond their own boundaries” and hence, Commonwealth studies remained for a long time essentially British studies (Hardt & Negri, 2000, p. xii). But as the years have passed and countries have become republics, the role of the Crown as the lynchpin of a political Commonwealth has declined. Other power blocs have arisen, including regional groups such as NAFTA, various Islamic councils, and economic groups such as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the World Trade Organization. These seem to have more realpolitik about them and more defined goals than an organization, which after all, has no common economic or military purpose. Although the British Empire and Commonwealth of the past certainly will always be a subject of some research, one therefore asks if the activities today and in the future will be of enough importance to warrant really substantial commitment to ongoing scholarly investigation. Is there still enough identity and influence to the Commonwealth to make future studies a worthwhile prospect— do Canada, Papua New Guinea, and Belize have enough in common to make membership in the present and future Commonwealth a worthwhile subject to study? Is the topic something like the Holy Roman Empire in its last extremities, or the prospects for the return of the Count of Paris to the French throne, a gloss on shadow courts?

Merchant, Rich / CANADA AND THE COMMONWEALTH

1321

The short answer is that it is not unreasonable to Canadians to reply that the Commonwealth does have relevance to present concerns. Indeed, Commonwealth studies have a great deal to offer when it comes to studying some of the problems being raised by that newest of political science enthusiasms, globalization. Questions as to how to handle national sovereignty, small state survival, and the preservation of cultural identity have been given a “dry run” by the Commonwealth structure. Indeed, one reason that the Commonwealth continues to be relevant is that its past has become more acceptable: The era of the British Empire is no longer regarded as an entirely negative period by its former colonies. Americans have had recent lessons in just how hard it is to “help” other countries. The Commonwealth’s onetime unsavory reputation is brought to mind by illustrations in the press of the time, such as from Le Petit Journal, a 19th-century French publication: Queen Victoria cutting up the Chinese pie with the help of other emperors (January 16, 1898); the British paying off corrupt Egyptians (June 14, 1896); and the conscripts of a dozen colonies standing guard over the Empire (July 11, 1897). However, the past is not all a Joseph Conrad story, and the British Empire was not the Belgian Congo. For some Commonwealth countries, the past has been improving as the present has been deteriorating. The old days no longer appear quite so bad as one contemplates the troubles of Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe. This may be nostalgia, but there is such a thing as well-founded nostalgia. Just as historical reputations of individuals have their ups and downs, the reputations of the old Empire and Commonwealth have been recovering. This is important, because an aspect of the Commonwealth is the sharing of a common heritage. Moreover, the world position of English, which is one powerful ingredient of Commonwealth identity, has been sharply on the rise. The immediate postEmpire hopes that a particular native language would take over from English in countries such as Nigeria and India have proved illusionary. This is now increasingly related to the growth of the Internet and the World Wide Web, the extensive use of which by the Commonwealth being a subject discussed presently. The Commonwealth is virtually the only international organization that does not require interpreters. Nevertheless, it has to be admitted that its enormous diversity puts in question the meaningfulness of the Commonwealth. The 54 countries are on all continents and in all major ocean areas. Approximately a quarter of the world’s area and population are included. That it is possible for such a quilt of loyalties to be stitched together in one organization does say something about the prospects for globalization. In other words, it is an indication that similarities can be found amid differences. For Canadians, often perplexed by their own diversity, this is a positive value. Two thirds of the Commonwealth’s members are small states. But that is another reason for its utility—it gives a voice to countries that would be overlooked at the now popular meetings of the Seven, the Eight, and so on. One

1322


aspect of the diversity issue is that the Commonwealth is so important to small states. For these small countries, Commonwealth education and development projects that may seem minor in great power terms are not unimportant (see The Commonwealth Foundation’s Web site at http://www. commonwealthfoundation.com/programmes). Nor is the chance of a dialectic denied any member in other forums. The Commonwealth has cooperated with La Francophonie, the association of French-speaking nations, notably in joint observation of the Seychelles elections. It funds a joint office for nine members at the United Nations who otherwise would find it hard to support a mission and has observer status itself. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is himself a Commonwealth citizen (Ghana). Approximately 37 of the Commonwealth states would be described as small. They have the capability for mischief, as recent fears about links of terrorism with offshore banking illustrate. The Commonwealth provides a place where democratic values in the small states are reinforced and where recognition, which is important to states and individuals, exists on a level that is not possible in other international organizations. For example, in Barbados, the Queen’s honors list this January made Geoffrey Adams Dinwiddie (a name which is not fictional) a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George and hence, Sir Geoffrey Dinwiddie. Another example would be the conferring of the Member of the Order of the British Empire on Roswell Sawyer for his service to the fishing industry; this is not a small thing—a purely Bahamas honor hardly would carry as much prestige. Nor would a purely Tuvalu award shine as brightly as the three British Empire Medals given in those distant islands this year. Even larger states share in this giving of attention that is missing elsewhere. Ernest Dennis, the chief steward to the lieutenant-governor of Ontario, probably appreciates his new Royal Victorian Medal (silver) from the Queen as much as he would have welcomed something in the Order of Canada, which she also heads (“New Year Honors,” 2001). This is pomp, but it is also the stuff of identity. The Commonwealth has a strong card in offering an alternative identity to those who are suspicious of Kentucky Fried Chicken. A great fear about globalization is that it is a synonym for Americanization.1 The Commonwealth provides its members, including Canada, with a way to be global but different. This is one club that the Americans cannot join and dominate, something which gives Canada a uniqueness. It is not just small members who are afraid of what globalization means to their culture. The Canadian journalist Thomas Walkom (1999) recently wrote in the Toronto Star, We are in danger of becoming a nation whose time has gone. . . . Already, almost all Canadian institutions designed to express national sensibilities are under attack as impediments to world trade—by the WTO or the North American Free Trade Agreement or just by the Americans. We cannot protect our magazines or books; we cannot demand distribution of Canadian films. We have been a nation for 132 years. Unless we wake up, we will not keep going for another 50. Death will come


1323

slowly—a privatization here, a trade agreement there. Maybe there will be a currency agreement with Washington. For reasons of efficiency, we will put our cashstarved armed forces under American command. And finally, to give all Canadians a crack at the big apple, will come a common North American citizenship. The withering of Parliament will take longer, for politicians are adept at holding on to their jobs. In the new North America, Parliament might even survive intact, as a quaint, powerless regional body charged with matters that are not deemed too important. You want to know Canada’s situation as the last embers of the 20th century flicker and die? This is it: We are not exactly being murdered. Call it, rather, assisted suicide.

Of course, the Commonwealth itself has some of the ceremonial trappings of identity. There is Commonwealth Day with its worldwide services, and the Queen’s Christmas Address is still an after-the-holiday-dinner feature in some far outposts (Helien, 2001; “Queen’s Counsel,” 2001). Even minor royals such as the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester maintain energetic travel schedules in the cause, frequently visiting Canada, and the Queen is constantly abroad (see http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page150.asp): During her reign, The Queen has visited every country in the Commonwealth (with the exception of Mozambique and Cameroon, who joined in 1995) and made many repeat visits, either as a multiple visit (e.g. Anguilla, Dominica, Guyana, Belize, Cayman Islands, Jamaica, Bahamas and Bermuda in February/March 1994) or to one country (such as Canada in June/July 1997, which included the celebration of Canada’s National Day). The Queen also visited India and Pakistan in October 1997, to mark the fiftieth anniversary of their independence from Britain, which led to the formation of the modern Commonwealth. One third of The Queen’s total overseas visits are to Commonwealth countries. The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales and other members of the Royal family also pay frequent visits to the Commonwealth. (Queen’s Role in the Commonwealth, n.d.)

Every 2 years, the heads of the Commonwealth countries convene and the Queen receives each one individually as well as hosting the entire group to a ceremonial meal at which a set of gilt cups, one for each country, are used for the toasts: In consultation with Buckingham Palace, a protocol has been developed governing the use of the Commonwealth Mace, an extraordinary item made from 18 carat gold with an oval Cabochon Ruby at its head, and a matching set of silver gilt toasting goblets. The Mace is used in the presence of the Sovereign or an immediate member of the Royal Family representing the Head of the Commonwealth. The Goblets will be used at The Queen’s Banquet by Commonwealth leaders when a formal toast is made. (The Monarchist’s League of New Zealand, n.d.)

In the face of the problems of the new vehicles of globalization, such as the World Trade Organization, clinging to old forms may make political sense. It is by no means an established fact that barbeque at the Bush Texas ranch will give more stability than the Queen’s teas at Commonwealth summits, and he is

1324


unlikely to greet guests with a gold mace and gilt cups. Those who think that ritual conservatism is unimportant to the political order might cast a glance at the survival of monarchies (Kammen, 1993, p. 613). Not only have many thrones survived the vicissitudes of democratization but their current occupants enjoy authentic popularity as well (Muggeridge, 1965, p. 125). They have survived partly because rituals give form and continuity that plainer modes of rule often do not. Victor Turner (as cited in Doty, 1986) wrote, The ritual system is not a meaningless inheritance form a dead past, but something that meets contemporary needs. The form of the ritual is consistent with the form of the society. And the conflicts of the society are the same as those dramatized and symbolized in its ritual. (p. 87)

British imperial ritual, based on heraldic science, is part of the glue of the Commonwealth.2 The British did, after all, achieve considerable success with rule by ritual (Juvenal, as cited in Kaplan, 1992, p. 109). Nobody gives more attention to the subject than does Buckingham Palace: The Queen distinguishes between her various roles by using a personal flag—initial E and crown within a chaplet of roses—for use at Commonwealth meetings where the Royal Standard would be inappropriate, or by using special Standards in her various realms. The Queen, though not being part of the machinery of government in the Commonwealth, has become a personal link and human symbol of the Commonwealth as an international organisation. (Queen’s Role in the Commonwealth, n.d.)

Also to be mentioned are the Commonwealth Games, begun in 1930 and last held in Manchester, England, in July 2002 as part of the Queen’s 50th anniversary of accession celebration. More than 5,000 runners circled the Commonwealth with a baton that contained the message that the Queen will give open the games (see the Commonwealth Games Web site at http://www. commonwealthgames.com). It is not the Olympics, and perhaps that is the point, as the chances of winning at table tennis are certainly better for some countries without China participating, and lawn bowls have never achieved Olympics standing. The city underwent a mammoth facelift for the occasion (“The XVII Commonwealth Games,” 2001). To outsiders, it seems much activity in aid of an almost spectral cause. Yet despite the differences when 1.7 billion people are brought together, Commonwealth literature makes frequent references to being a family and to a common heritage that permits an atmosphere of more trust than usually exists among nations. Too much can be made of this. How being part of the Commonwealth currently contributes to understanding between Pakistan and India appears conjectural. But too little can be made of it as well. When Fiji was dropped from membership because of its discrimination against Indians in its population, a moral point was made that is often missing from politics.


1325

In defense of the continuing importance of the Commonwealth, one has to point to a number of quiet practical achievements. For example, the creation and distribution of CS-DRMS, now one of the world’s leading computerized systems for debt management, used by 40 Commonwealth nations. There is the Commonwealth Electronic Network for Schools and Education (CENSE), which ties together national learning grids and supports teachers and administrators. The Commonwealth Network of Information Technology for Development (COMNET-IT) is based in Malta and developing distance-learning programs. The Commonwealth Business Network (COMBINET), the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association, the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization, the Association of Commonwealth Universities, the Council for Education in the Commonwealth, and several hundred more organizations do useful work. The growth of the World Wide Web for Commonwealth educational purposes is particularly impressive (see The Commonwealth of Learning Web site at http://www.col.org/comover.htm). And the Commonwealth anticipated by many years the current interest in the development of international civil society (Currie, 1970, p. vii). An inevitable question regards the future of the Commonwealth when the present Queen abdicates or dies. Given the age of the Queen Mother, who died at nearly 102, it is conceivable that this issue will not arise for the next 30 years. Although Prince Charles does not have the standing of his mother, who would have such standing given her 50 years as monarch? Alternatives have been discussed, and the British Monarch is head of the Commonwealth by consent rather than by right, but if the head of the Commonwealth was an elective position, many of the small states would lack the candidates. The head might come from a country locked in controversy with another country, such as India with Pakistan. In short, the present situation of a hereditary head of a major international organization is one of those implausible but successful solutions that the British seem to be proficient at offering, given their ability to modify but retain the House of Lords, Lord-Lieutenants of counties, the Privy Council, and the woolsack. In the immediate post–World War II era, when the Commonwealth began to emerge as more than a Caucasian concept, community was largely expressed through the nation-state. One could argue that the various communist and socialist internationals and such organizations as the church and Freemasonry also permitted community to be experienced without nationalism, but in the main, it was the nation-state that was the vehicle of community. The Commonwealth early on permitted participation in two communities, the conventional nation-state and a cultural and historical worldwide community. The United Nations, on the other hand, “was planted squarely within the old framework of international right defined by pacts and treaties” (Hardt & Negri, 2000, p. 5). Thus, albeit in a limited way, the Commonwealth anticipated globalization. We live, as by virtue of our interest in world history we know, in a time when contrary movements seem to simultaneously gather strength, including

1326


globalization and nationalism. Proponents of world history have to take very seriously the concerns of those who feel that globalization has ignored their identity, fearing that our enthusiasm for a new world inadvertently will leave them out. In an era that has seen the revival of the Scottish parliament, the excesses of Basque insurgents, and the revival of Hawaiian nationalism, not to mention casinos on Indian reservations, it would be the brave historian who would deny the troubles than can be caused in the immediate future if free trade is our only concern. Tom Nairn (1997) enjoined, Critics love fulminating about the distortions and phoniness which so frequently blight such transpositions, forgetting the hopeless or totally daft mythologies which held all previous mentalities down into status clamps . . . the cankered, oneoff, lop-sided, ham-fisted, half-baked, one-eyed trajectory of actual modernisation led to rough justice. That was still better than what preceded it—no justice whatever, and forever. It also led to an ascriptive equality of pasts: the Irish, the Serbs, the Tibetans, the Inuit and the Micronesians will not be left out, and stake their claims like everyone else . . . having been startled into memoriality, they are damn well not going to subside again. Before industrialization, this happened all the time: cultures, peoples, traditions would just “go under,” leaving a few puzzling bricks or stones behind if they were lucky. Even at the very end of the twentieth century, metropolitan blueprinters come out every other week with new plans for improved or graceful subsidence in the best interests of “everyone.” (p. 5)

Commonwealth studies may be an illustration that people cross boundaries with more ease sometimes than scholarship does (McGinn, 1999, p. 23). Nairn (1997) might well have added to his remarks about memoriality that we need an educational system aware of the pluralism inherent in the world and of the practical necessity of respecting that pluralism. The Commonwealth has done that rather well. The Canadian scholar John Raulston Saul (1995) cautioned, An educational or social system that defines progress as the total of a myriad of more or less water-tight compartments denies the possibility of a citizen-based society. It therefore denies the individual as the source of legitimacy. However fine the abstract intentions of professionalism and expertise may be, the net result of this approach is a mechanistic view of men and women. Knowledge and understanding in their real sense—as the foundations of consciousness—become impossible. Society conceived in this way is viewed through corporatist eyes and denies both the complexity of the human and the complexity of human society. (p. 164)

A relatively relaxed association that has a common historical background but recognizes a pluralism of interests is not a bad model for the international community. Those looking for suggestions about the style needed for the new global society may find a useful model in the evolution of the Commonwealth.


1327

NOTES 1. According to Ryan (1998), The central fact of the twentieth century is that the modern Western world has swept the rest of the world into its economic, technological, and, less straightforwardly, cultural orbit; the societies affected by this process have resisted, acquiesced, joined in with enthusiasm, and often all three in varying combinations. Almost every summary term for this process will give offence to somebody. (p. 64) 2. Muggeridge (1965) observed, In green rooms and board-rooms alike, in episcopal palaces, palace grills and palais de danse, wherever two or three are gathered together for whom the Garter, the Thistle, and even the humble O.B.E. are crocks of gold at the rainbow’s end, there shall loyalty be found. In the poker-game of politics the Monarchy is regarded as an ace, to be held in reserve, and only played if there are dangerous depredations on the bank. (p. 125)

REFERENCES Bogdanor, V. (1995). The monarchy and the constitution. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Currie, J. (1970). Professional organisations in the Commonwealth. London: Commonwealth Foundation & Hutchinson. Doty, W. G. (1986). Mythography: The study of myths and rituals. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Helien, N. (2001, December 23). Queen’s plea to curb tide of bigotry. The Sunday Times, p. 4. Kammen, M. (1993). Mystic chords of memory: The transformation of tradition in American culture. New York: Vintage. Kaplan, J. (Ed.). (1992). Familiar quotations (16th ed.). Boston: Little, Brown. McGinn, N. F. (1999). Towards international cooperation in education for the integration of the Americas. Washington, DC: Inter-American Council for Integral Development. The Monarchist’s League of New Zealand. (n.d.). New Zealand’s monarchy. Retrieved from http:// www.geocities.com/cox_nz/factsheet1.htm Muggeridge, M. (1965). The Queen and I. In D. Thomas (Ed.), Personal opinion: An anthology. London: Thomas Nelson. Nairn, T. (1997). Faces of nationalism: Janus revisited. London: Verso. New Year honors. (2001, December 31). The London Times, pp. 11, 15. Queen’s counsel: Civil society is strengthened by the monarchy [Editorial]. (2001, December 26). The London Times, p. 15. Queen’s role in the Commonwealth. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/ Page343.asp Ryan, A. (1998). The growth of a global culture. In M. Howard & W. R. Louis (Eds.), The Oxford history of the twentieth century (pp. 63-77). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Saul, J. R. (1995). The unconscious civilization. New York: Free Press. Walkom, T. (1999, December 24). A Canadian call to arms. Toronto Star. Retrieved from http:// www.flipside.org/vol3/jan00/00ja29b.htm The XVII Commonwealth Games. (2001, December 31). The London Times, p. S10.

1328


DAVID MERCHANT, an honors graduate of the University of the Americas, is executive director of the Policy Studies Organization in Washington and director of publications of Phi Beta Delta. PAUL RICH is a professor of international relations and history at the University of the Americas–Puebla, Mexico, as well as fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is international president of the honor society Phi Beta Delta and president of the Policy Studies Organization, an American Political Science Association affiliate.