Accidents of History

Following on from Friday's blog post, it has been established that from time-to-time we are able to wander off topic at the editor's whim and I'm grateful for this indulgence because to be honest there is some considerable stress associated with endless analysis of probation and its demise, and it provides some therapy. 

It might come as a surprise to some, but I'm not generally cynical by nature, but rather by force of circumstances - I'd much prefer to be inspired than grumpy. It was just last Monday that I became aware of the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in London and only because of the news that our prime minister was 'dissing' some twelve Caribbean leaders by refusing to meet them to talk about the Empire Windrush scandal. By Tuesday she was eating humble pie in front of them at 10 Downing Street. As someone who has always enjoyed both politics and history, it got me thinking as to exactly what had brought about this volt face?

Lets be honest here, the Commonwealth hasn't featured in the domestic political psyche for years. We joined the Common Market in 1973 and effectively turned our back on the former colonies by confirming our membership in 1975. It must have been hugely insulting, especially to long-established trading partners like Australia and New Zealand, to be told their butter and lamb was no longer required. It strikes me that over subsequent years it became fashionable to regard the Commonwealth as an irrelevance, an historical anachronism borne of a dreadful colonial past, and now as dead as the apocryphal 'Norwegian Blue'.

But of course the Queen didn't see it like that and it's always been a source of bemusement to me that so many former colonial jurisdictions didn't either. If 53 disparate former colonies, both Republics and Monarchies, representing 2.4 billion people, still feel it's relevant and worth being an active part of in 2018, surely there has to be something to it? 

Wheels have turned, we are in the middle of Brexit and as a result of a 'force majeure' in the form of Cyclone Pam, the CHOGM scheduled for 2017 in Vanuatu was scuppered. As the Queen no longer undertakes long-distance travel and would not have attended, the decision to reschedule for London in April this year meant that in effect the Commonwealth had decided to come to her, and the timing turns out to have been exquisite. Suddenly the UK is desperate to talk trade with non-European nations; the new world needs the old world to sort out climate change; the Queen wants to cement her Commonwealth legacy; the Heads of Government wish to unite and mark a significant milestone; the Windrush saga comes to a head, and the sun is shining in London. 

As well as being at best ambivalent about the Commonwealth, many feel the same about the King-in-waiting. The position of Head of the Commonwealth is not dictated by statute or treaty and in fact it's fascinating to read on page 63 of the glossy 172 page celebratory publication 'Queen and Commonwealth - 90 Glorious Years'  how the issue was decided upon her Accession in 1952:- 

"The position of Head of the Commonwealth had not been enshrined in the constitution. In fact it had been India’s first Head of Government, Jawaharlal Nehru, who had clarified the position. When he had dispatched a telegraph of condolence to Elizabeth on her father’s death he had also, without any consultation, welcomed her as Head of the Commonwealth. The rest of the countries followed India’s example."

Last Thursday the Queen was well aware that the following day the Heads of Government would decide who would succeed her. Her preparation had been skillful and the culmination of years of dedicated service, wise counsel and judgement, combined with political nous of the highest order in making the most of an accident of history. Naysayers, including Jeremy Corbyn, who recently told Andrew Marr that a 'rotating Head' would be a good idea, just serve to prove how out of touch they are in not appreciating what was obvious to Nehru and subsequent elected Presidents, that those in positions of power by virtue of accidents of birth, very definitely have utility. And who would be brave enough to deny such a venerable international treasure and icon her 'sincerest wish' on the eve of her ninety-second birthday? The decision was unanimous, if not without some small degree of doubt from at least one quarter we learn. 

My love of history I suppose is because I aways want to know why and how things happen. I love this story recounted here and ponder if the Palace played any part in last week's rapid turnaround by Theresa May:-  

"The Queen’s biggest Commonwealth struggle came in 1986 when seven prime ministers arrived in London to talk about applying sanctions against South Africa, booted from the organization for its apartheid regime. While the seven wanted sanctions, Britain’s prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was opposed. The Queen hosted a working dinner—no spouses, no aides allowed—at which Thatcher was given a clear message that a schism would not be allowed. “She would be a minority of one,” recalls Sonny Ramphal, then secretary-general of the Commonwealth. “Margaret Thatcher had been hijacked by her Queen.” Four years later, Nelson Mandela was freed. “When Mandela came out of prison, he knew one of his benefactors was the Queen,” Ramphal states. Soon, South Africa was back in the organization and Mandela was a guest of the Queen at Buckingham Palace."   

As a young idealistic schoolboy I have fond memories of a history trip to the amazingly-futuristic Commonwealth Institute on Kensington High Street, sadly no more. In those halcyon days I also remember being so inspired by the notion of a bright future for our planet through other bodies such as the UN, I was motivated to attend the Christmas conferences of the grandly-titled but now defunct Council for Education in World Citizenship. 

As I grew up and idealism was inexorably replaced with cynicism, Margaret Thatcher, no fan of the Commonwealth, withdrew the UK from UNESCO in 1985. The CEWC had its government grant axed in 1994, subsequently forcing it to suspend operation and merge with the Citizenship Foundation, itself morphing recently into Young Citizens in furtherance of its 10 year Strategic Plan.  

It strikes me that in stark contrast to the often-flawed operation of the UN and many of its affiliated agencies that become mired in geo-political conflict, the Commonwealth has not only successfully weathered its difficulties, it's soldiered-on and recently launched many imaginative initiatives that seek to tackle climate change, education, trade, women's rights, security and good governance. The extremely difficult legacy issue of LGBT rights remains, but there has been some progress in encouraging and supporting jurisdictions wishing to consider reform. It's even likely that Zimbabwe will rejoin should concerns regarding elections be allayed.     

I'm really happy to say that in the warm London sunshine last week, I rediscovered an antidote to cynicism. My interest, respect, hope and aspiration for a better world through the amazingly reinvigorated Commonwealth of Nations has been renewed. I defy anyone not to be similarly inspired by what's been quietly going on, mostly ignored and unnoticed here in the UK, but admirably outlined variously on their website, CHOGM 2018 Report and massive Ministers Handbook.