8 minute read
WHAT, IF ANYTHING, UNIFIES THE COMMONWEALTH?
The Director of the new Centre for Commonwealth Affairs looks at how the Commonwealth Charter is central to its work while also reviewing how its principles are put into practice.
Since setting up the Centre for Commonwealth Affairs earlier this year, this is the question that I’ve been asked more than any other.
All of the traditional answers prove unsatisfying. Despite the misconceptions of some, it certainly isn’t about a connection to the British monarchy. Just fifteen of the Commonwealth’s fifty-six member nations maintain a formal constitutional relationship to the Crown; Commonwealth membership has been open to republics since the London Declaration of 1949.
It isn’t just an alumni club for the British Empire either. To label the Commonwealth as such would be to diminish the contributions of figures like Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), Milton Obote (Uganda), and Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore). The Commonwealth has a long history of defending racial equality and supporting social justice which runs contrary to the empires of old. In any case, four Commonwealth member states – Rwanda, Mozambique, Gabon and Togo – have no historic link to the British Empire at all.
While English remains the organisation’s official language, many of the Commonwealth’s 2.7 billion citizens are not fluent English speakers. Shared principles like a Westminster model of parliamentary democracy and the role of Common Law remain influential, but are by no means necessary or sufficient for Commonwealth membership.
So, where does that leave us?
Whatever its unifying features, the Commonwealth today is a modern, dynamic network, which stretches to every corner of the globe. It is a web of international connections, which brings together political, professional and civil society organisations, often touching on areas of shared interests. Centuries of cultural crosspollination have produced a familiarity and trust which enables Commonwealth countries to work together.
Perhaps then, in keeping with this fluidity, the Commonwealth should be defined by values, rather than by prescriptive rules or regulations. That’s the theory of the Commonwealth Charter, which marks its tenth anniversary this year. In its own words, the Charter “is a document of the values and aspirations which unite the Commonwealth”. It outlines sixteen of these values and aspirations, adherence to which – in theory – unites the Commonwealth’s member states.
This is an attractive idea, but the reality isn’t quite so straightforward. In truth, the Commonwealth Charter is aspirational rather than descriptive. Even accounting for a wide range of fair interpretations, many Commonwealth member states do not meet the expected standards. Without drawing on any particular examples, it isn’t difficult to think of cases within the Commonwealth where democracy is imperfect and where human rights have been violated.
Such is the difficulty of defining an association by adherence to rights and principles. These abstract ideas will, necessarily, be interpreted differently in different national cultures and political contexts. It is trivially easy to identify those states who flagrantly violate the rights of their people or undermine democratic values. It isn’t quite as easy to rule on those ambiguous cases, the grey areas between adherence and violation.
And that ambiguity isn’t just about differing opinions on moral questions. Take the Article 6 commitment to the Separation of Powers. While an agreeable idea on its face, it could be argued that the Separation of Powers is not properly realised in Westminster model parliamentary systems. After all, the British Prime Minister – the head of the political Executive – is drawn from Parliament, the Legislature. Parliament, in turn, has the authority to overturn the rulings of the Judiciary. This is hardly an exemplar case of the Separation of Powers in action, and yet there are few calling for the UK’s expulsion from the Commonwealth for its failure to comply with the Commonwealth Charter or the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles on the Separation of Powers.
Clearly, if shared values are to be the Commonwealth’s defining feature, we must take a more nuanced approach. Proponents of the Commonwealth Charter’s values must embrace their aspirational nature and accept that some of those values will be easier to instil than others. They should also look to the historical development of these values and recognise that their full realisation within the Commonwealth will be a slow, gradual process, which will look different in each member state.
Too often, these facts are omitted from conversations about values. What remains is hectoring and finger-wagging, with little practical understanding of how to promote values in practice.
In order to turn the principles of the Commonwealth Charter into reality, Commonwealth Parliamentarians should focus on building robust, stable institutions, looking to best practice elsewhere as inspiration. In doing so, they will create environments in which political and social rights can flourish.
Using the example of the British civil service, let’s explore this theory in action. The Northcote Trevelyan Report, published in 1854, is generally regarded as the founding document of the British Civil Service. It promoted the idea of an impartial, objective civil service, with its members appointed on merit – and crucially, able to transfer their loyalty between governments.
These steps were all taken with practical, procedural considerations in mind. However, and in tandem with other institutions like the Judiciary and Parliament, they gradually helped to foster a free, fair political system capable of vindicating basic rights. Its commitment to impartiality ensured that it behaved according to the principles of good governance. Its meritocratic selection process was a boon for social mobility and economic opportunity. Its non-partisan nature strengthened democracy, ensuring that the state would always be run by reliable experts, rather than by partisan loyalists.
While Britain’s civil service has its flaws, it has historically promoted the rights and values that lie at the heart of the Commonwealth Charter. It has helped to create the stable conditions needed for a relatively free and relatively prosperous society in the UK. Just as importantly, it has worked with other institutions to pursue aims like the protection of the environment and the widening of access to healthcare, education, food and shelter.
The lesson to be learned is not that Commonwealth countries should copy Britain’s civil service – far from it. This story simply serves as a reminder of the role that good institutions can play in promoting Commonwealth values. For this theory to work, these institutions must be tailored to their particular context, reflecting national needs and local peculiarities. Get it right, and the result will be the gradual, grassroots emergence of Commonwealth values.
However, institutions don’t tell the whole story.
Parliamentarians would also do well to place more emphasis on the Commonwealth’s potential as a network for economic development. Commonwealth businesses enjoy a 21% cost advantage when trading in the Commonwealth, and foreign direct investment between Commonwealth countries produces greater profits and employment on average. Policymakers have a role to play in highlighting and enhancing this so-called ‘Commonwealth Advantage’, diversifying national trading portfolios in the process.
In the first instance, greater intra-Commonwealth trade would work to support the Commonwealth Charter’s commitment to Sustainable Development - but this isn’t just about promoting national prosperity. Where populations have their economic needs met, they will find it far easier to advocate for their civil liberties. It is difficult to focus on bureaucratic irregularities when one is struggling to put food on the table. While economic prosperity and civil liberties do not always travel hand-in-hand, there is an undeniable link between the two.
It may also be time to update the Commonwealth Charter, inserting an additional commitment to National Sovereignty. In a world of intense competition between would-be global hegemons, the Commonwealth has a role to play as a forum for states interested in maintaining a diverse range of diplomatic partnerships. It provides a space in which states of all shapes and sizes can come together, and work together as equal partners. It is significant that the Commonwealth today is the largest international organisation which does not include the United States, China or the Russian Federation.
A National Sovereignty clause would also fit neatly with the Commonwealth Charter’s other commitments. It would supplement the needs of small and vulnerable states, while complimenting the Charter’s commitment to international security. It would also serve as a signal that the Commonwealth recognises its role in reforming the international system along fairer and more equitable lines.
I hope that the Centre for Commonwealth Affairs’ work can help to furnish Parliamentarians with the policy ideas needed to deliver on the values of the Commonwealth Charter. In cooperation with our international network of research partners, we are working to strengthen the modern Commonwealth, and deliver practical value for its 2.7 billion citizens. The mission of the Commonwealth Charter is central to that work – but with a decade of hindsight, it may be time to revisit how we put its principles into practice.
The Centre for Commonwealth Affairs is a pan-Commonwealth think-tank based in Westminster, UK working with partners and members across the Commonwealth. Its research focuses on global issues, drawing on global ideas and global perspectives. From trade and security to education and the digital divide, the Commonwealth has an increasingly important role to play in rising to the challenges of the modern world. www.commonwealthaffairs.co.uk
