Seeman -20131026 -Public meeting at Thiruvanmiyur condemning Commonwealth meeting Related Materials: Commonwealth summit: why this group of nations matters Twenty years ago this week, the Queen delivered a speech before Commonwealth leaders gathered in the Cypriot resort town of Limassol for their biennial conference. It was the year after her "annus horribilis" and she was in reflective mood. To begin with, the event was taking place on the Royal Yacht Britannia, just as its continued operation had been placed in doubt by the announcement of a government review. But the Queen also used the occasion to ponder the state of the Commonwealth 40 years after her Coronation: "If, on the day I was crowned, someone had prophesied that, at this meeting 40 years hence, 50 countries would be represented, that neither South Africa nor Fiji would be among them, and that the meeting would take place in Cyprus, I would, I think, have been very surprised." Twenty years later, on the eve of another Commonwealth summit, the Queen's capacity for surprise might have diminished; but she must still wonder at the resilience of an institution that many consider an anachronism and whose future once looked about as guaranteed as Britannia's. Astonishingly, there are now even more members of the club than there were in 1993. South Africa is back, of course, and the admission of francophone countries such as Cameroon and Rwanda, together with the former Portuguese colony of Mozambique, has swelled the number to 53, with a combined population of two billion souls. Not all member states will be taking part in next month's summit in Sri Lanka: the Canadians are boycotting the meeting in protest at the human rights record of the host nation. India may decide not to go. But there will be another, more prominent absentee: the Queen herself, for the first time since 1973, will not attend. The Prince of Wales will take over in her absence, marking a big moment for him and the Commonwealth. While the Prince, judging by his profile in Time magazine, might be reluctant to take on the responsibilities of monarchy, leading the Commonwealth is a task his mother takes seriously. If he shows less of a commitment to such duties, the Commonwealth might look around for a new head when she dies. But would that change the institution irrevocably? To a great extent it is bound together by a common loyalty to the Queen, not only as its symbolic head, but also, as Charles will be, as head of state to 16 of its members. If he seems indifferent to the role, the Commonwealth risks losing its historical validity. Despite the inclusion of countries that were not British colonies, a shared imperial past remains its rationale, otherwise why would it be different from any other collection of nations? The Commonwealth is, indeed, the only organisation outside the UN to bring together rich and poor countries globally rather then regionally. It represents a quarter of the world's population, but does it do them any good? It is meant to stand for democracy and good governance; and yet, by meeting in Sri Lanka, its commitment to both is being called into question. Over the years, it has harboured despots. Zimbabwe left in 2003 despite its capital producing the Harare Declaration on the promotion of human rights and democracy. Fiji remains suspended and Gambia has pulled out. But they would all be welcomed back once their current leaders had gone and they had shown a commitment to its principles. It is fashionable nowadays to scoff at such groups and question their relevance. Commonwealth summits tend to resemble a jamboree for the political elites while their citizens languish in poverty or have their liberties curtailed. But the Commonwealth is more than its meeting of leaders. It has a role observing elections in member countries and provides guidance on administrative, judicial and regulatory reform. Yet the Commonwealth needs to think about its purpose. Should its leaders be giving succour to the regime in Sri Lanka? It is formally committed to democracy and human rights, yet it too often turns a blind eye to abuses. On the other hand, by sticking together and talking, it has the potential to become a powerful agent for change in the developing world -- provided it shows a greater propensity to discipline its recalcitrant members, and abandons the rhetoric of grievance. The Queen concluded her Limassol speech: "I am entirely confident that, 40 years on, the Commonwealth and its ideals will have survived -- changed, adapted, maybe even weather-beaten -- but still there, a force for peace and good government." At the halfway point of this prophecy, would anyone bet against it?

• published: 27 Oct 2013
• views: 1157