From the colourful flags adorning the Mall to the names on the Anointing Screen, the King’s Coronation was more than a national celebration; it was a Festival of the Commonwealth. For the first time in decades, cheering crowds were given a glimpse of a country which understood its place in the world. Amidst Pacific atolls and Caribbean islands, Britain was once again global – “and what should they know of England who only England know?”.
This is not the only signal that the King views Britain as a single thread in a broader tapestry. His Commonwealth Day address called for a bloc which “not only stands together, but strives together, in restless and practical pursuit of the global common good”.
Inspiring stuff – but don’t hold your breath for a Renaissance just yet.
The grassroots groups which once maintained the Commonwealth are faded, withered, or entirely moribund. Civil servants and ministers are unaware of – or deliberately insulate themselves from – the possibilities of Britain’s Commonwealth ties. The press is even worse, obsessed with salacious gossip, moral indignation, and childish race-baiting.
Britain’s approach to the Commonwealth, particularly amongst critics, is one characterised by narcissism and insularity. In part because of its unique history, the Commonwealth has become an undeserving whipping boy for domestic frustrations, and a neat way to signal disapproval for the wrong sort of self-confidence.
The European angle is the most obvious. Closer commercial ties to the Commonwealth has long been an ambition of British Eurosceptics, harkening back to the UK’s pre-1973 trading arrangements.
In 1960, five of the UK’s top ten trading partners were Commonwealth member states – Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, and New Zealand. By 1980, not a single one of these countries made the list, displaced by the industrial might of West Germany and the agricultural prowess of the French. Brexiteers who saw opportunity in Asia and Africa were met with scorn and disapproval, and assured that established trading patterns were permanently set in stone.
However, enmity towards Brexiteers fails to tell the whole story. This conflict runs much deeper, touching on Britain’s uneasy relationship to the legacy of Empire.
Living in modern Britain, it’s easy to forget that Britain maintained a fairly sizeable set of overseas possessions well into the 1980s. Vanuatu, Antigua, and Brunei all gained their independence in the first half of that decade, with Hong Kong to follow some fifteen years later. That four hundred years of Empire should have so little effect on modern Britain is a testament to the rapid pace of post-war divestment.
The sheer speed of this withdrawal, and the extent of Britain’s embrace of its European neighbours and American cousins, has reshaped the UK’s identity almost beyond recognition. For most of the British commentariat, history starts in 1939. Any hint of the world before is tied inexorably to the worst elements of that old global order – exploitation, uneven racial hierarchies, and worse. The Commonwealth’s voluntary character, and the role of post-colonial leaders like Nehru, Nkrumah, and Lee Kuan Yew in shaping the modern Commonwealth, is swept under the rug in service of a clear, artificial break from the past.
As a result, the most favoured criticism of the Commonwealth is that it is founded upon Anglo-Saxon chauvinism. Pictures of cheering Caribbean crowds welcoming members of the Royal Family are twisted into race-baiting narratives about white privilege. Commentators who should know better conflate a voluntary twenty-first century organisation with an exploitative twentieth century one, ironically erasing the agency of the developing world in the process. All of this, in turn, serves and reinforces domestic disputes on race and identity.
The pro-Commonwealth lobby is not entirely innocent in all of this. Particularly post-Brexit, far too many were willing to retreat back into post-war nostalgia, seeking to replace trading relationships in Europe with new free trade agreements with the Commonwealth.
Like it or not, global realities have shifted. First-class links to Brunei, Bangladesh, and Barbados can’t replace a good relationship with Brussels. While many in the Commonwealth welcome easier access to Britain’s 65 million consumers, they also fear that they have lost their greatest advocate in the EU, a club of 450 million. British interest is welcome, but self-confident nations in Africa and Asia are interested in partnerships,
All of these false narratives obscure the truth. The Commonwealth is a modern, voluntary organisation with huge unrealised potential, in which the UK is influential – but not central.
Britain is one of fifty-six Commonwealth member states, and one of only fifteen which maintains King Charles as Head of State. The UK now boasts only the Commonwealth’s second-largest economy, its fifth largest population, and its fifth highest level of development. The spectacular failure of the Johnson Government to replace the incumbent Commonwealth Secretary-General in Kigali last year is testament to the fact that London no longer calls the tune.
Nor is London the only capital where the Commonwealth brand still carries currency. Nigeria’s outgoing President Buhari has called for the Commonwealth to stand together in international arenas. On a recent visit to Australia, India’s Narendra Modi lauded a trio of C’s – curry, cricket, and Commonwealth. In 2022, the bloc welcomed two new, French-speaking members from West Africa – Gabon and Togo.
Strip back the narratives and take stock of the reality, and the opportunities are clear. The Commonwealth must be more than Britain’s plan B – but it could be the ideal mechanism for a refresh of our global role, strengthening our hand in our dealings with Brussels, Biden, and Beijing. Reinforcing the Commonwealth web should be central to the UK’s global outlook, reinventing itself as an internationally conscious middle power, a champion of sovereignty in an era of great power competition.
The British establishment must understand that the UK is an influential node in a wider global network. It must recognise that domestic discussions have international consequences, and that we risk throwing away one of our most significant competitive advantages in a frenzy of self-absorption and self-flagellation.
Renewal starts with humility, and a recognition of where we find ourselves. In turn, we must rediscover the confidence to lead and to act – and quickly. Britain is no longer a country with the luxury of time on its side.
The author is a Parliamentary researcher, and Director of the Centre for Commonwealth Affairs, a London-based think-tank working to craft pan-Commonwealth policy.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life