The Guardian view on the Commonwealth: an unsure future under King Charles III

The Guardian view on the Commonwealth: an unsure future under King Charles III

Editorial

The post-imperial club was a global stage that justified the pomp and scale of the crown – but that is not enough to keep it going

[pic 1]

The Queen with Commonwealth leaders in London in 2012. ‘Whether King Charles III can carry on his mother’s legacy is another question.’ Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/PA

Tue 13 Sep 2022 19.11 BST

Queen Elizabeth II was not just Britain’s head of state. She was an integral part of how a country found its lost destiny. The empire was already in decline when the late queen became monarch, but the United Kingdom still had 70 overseas territories and was basking in the afterglow of its moral and military triumph in the second world war. The coronation was a globally significant event, its golden flummery1 an enactment of the kind of nation Britain thought it was. Monarchy was presented as hierarchy’s human face.

But history dispelled2 the illusion of timeless continuity through ceremonial ritual. With revolts brewing3 in almost every imperial possession, Britain’s global footprint shrank. When Hong Kong was transferred to China in 1997, the Prince of Wales thought it the “end of the empire”. A myth arose that Britain had voluntarily decided to transform its colonies into a commonwealth. Having been cruelly exploited for decades, British colonies became independent republics with indecent haste. Today there are only 15 realms with the monarch as head of state. That number is set to fall: Barbados became a republic last year, with Jamaica likely to follow – and even perhaps Australia.

The Commonwealth, with the Queen as its head, was a club designed as a destination for countries parachuting out of British rule. The monarch cultivated warm personal relations with many Commonwealth leaders to keep the group together. Whether (if) King Charles III can carry on4 his mother’s legacy is another question. He succeeded her as head – though the position is not hereditary and he lacks his mother’s star-power as the longest reigning monarch in the modern age. Her commitment5 to the post-imperial club was such6 that in 1986, when a boycott of the Commonwealth Games was threatened by countries that disapproved of Margaret Thatcher’s opposition to economic sanctions against South Africa, Buckingham Palace briefed7 against Downing Street.

The monarchy has been involved in skirmishes8 with the government – but a post-Brexit executive, pumped up on its own power, has brushed off its interventions. King Charles attempted this year to push back against the disgraceful policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda and his son criticised the Windrush scandal, which saw hundreds of Commonwealth citizens wrongly detained and deported. Both monarch and heir have acknowledged the harm and legacies of slavery. But both stopped short of9 crossing swords with the government by issuing an apology for it – for fear, probably, of opening a door to reparations. A monarch should not meddle10 in politics, even for the right reasons.

This also exposes the weakness of the Commonwealth. Its head has been unable to move politics in a progressive direction in the UK, let alone11 anywhere else. The post-imperial delusion of British political life was exposed when Boris Johnson failed to oust the secretary general of the Commonwealth. A blundering, colonial mentality undergirds (supports) Brexiters’ delusion(a false belief) that the post-imperial club of nations could be an alternative to the European Union. The Commonwealth has received more royal attention than the EU – in part because it offered a global stage that justified the pomp and scale of the crown – but both remain unloved in Britain.

The future of the Commonwealth and its purpose is unclear. Whether it comes together or comes apart will be up to12 member states. But they will be watching Britain – aware that it is facing its own uncertain future as a wave of dissolution laps against (to eat at, to dissolve)  its shores.

1flummery : meaningless or insincere flattery or conventions

2dispel : to make (a doubt, feeling, or belief) disappear.  To drive waya or cause to vanish by or as if by scattering : DISSIPATE

3brew : to bring about : FOMENT.  Another meaning is ‘to prepare (beer, ale etc) by steeping, boiling and fermentation or by infusion and fermentation

4to carry on : continue

5commitment : an agreement or pledge to do something in the future

6was such 🡺 était tel que

7to brief : to give final precise instructions ; to coach thorougly in advance ; to give essential information to

8skirmish : a minor dispute or contest between opposing parties

9to stop short of :  to stop or be stopped just before doing or reaching something

10 to meddle : to interfere

11let alone :not to mention, to say nothing of

12to be up to : to depend on

UNE AIDE à la compréhension de l'article qui figure également dans le fichier.  Ce devoir sera à rendre à la rentrée, le lundi 7 novembre.  

...