Non British views on the Common Wealth?

Post Reply New Topic

In the UK (among other places), the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee is approaching. This has prompted me to ask forum members from other member states of the Common Wealth of Nations how the organisation viewed in their own country and their own personal views.

It's generally ignored in Canada. Our attitudes toward the Queen vary a lot based on generation. The older generation tends to be composed of royalists, while my parents' generation tends to be indifferent. My generation doesn't tend to pay much attention to anything like this but when it does I'd say it's probably more in favour of a republic, but not likely to get all upset about it.

As an Englishman the commonwealth always struck me as an obsolete body and with little or no significance nowadays; like the commonwealth games. But then I see royalty similarly obsolete and irrelevant. Though I think other English folk's opinions may differ significantly to mine. It will be interesting to see if the Queen's diamond jubilee creates as much fuss with street parties etc as her golden jubilee did.

Canadian here. Outside of pride for the accomplishments of several other Commonwealth countries (Aus, NZ, etc) my thoughts rarely go that way.

When I think of the "Commonwealth", I don't think of the UK, and I don't think of the actual list of Commonwealth nations. (I don't even know it!) I mainly just think of Canada and Australia. I am aware that many of the Commonwealth nations are in Asia and Africa, but I don't feel much connection to those countries. So, for me, the Commonwealth is like some sort of exclusive club with only three countries in it, bound together by little things like having the Queen on our money.

It's a bit technical, but it's worth pointing out that there there is a difference between the Commonwealth nations and the Commonwealth realms. The Commonwealth realms are the Commonwealth nations where the Queen is Head of State, and not every Commonwealth nation is a Commonwealth realm. So, if you remind me that New Zealand is a Commonwealth nation, I would think of Canada and Australia. But if you remind me that New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm, then I would think of the Queen.

EDIT: Just realised that South Africa is in the Commonwealth. That had actually never occurred to me before. I guess South Africa is a good example of a Commonwealth nation that is not a Commonwealth realm.

EDIT EDIT: Aha! South Africa re-entered the Commonwealth in 1994, after not being in it for 30 years! No wonder I was confused.

I find it largely irrelevant in many ways now days in practical ways.

However, I still think that being part of the "commonwealth" is a sign or symptom of a nation that has not fully sorted out it's national identity yet. I think that if it had managed to sort out their national identity, then they would have broken off from the commonwealth and formed a republic.

I know what you mean. However, maybe it's not quite so simple. What if a Commonwealth nation sorts out its national identity, and it turns out that part of its genuine national identity is that it is a former British colony? In other words, maybe affirming its Commonwealth status would be a way to grow up, just as rejecting its Commonwealth status would be a different way to grow up. If we use the analogy with people, imagine a little kid who grows up surrounded by model trains since his parents collect model trains. Whether the kid becomes an adult who collects model trains, or becomes an adult who doesn't collect model trains, we would still say that the kid has grown up. The key is that, in either case, he has decided whether or not to collect model trains.

Here is a quote from the movie Antz:



Also, there are quite a few independent issues when it comes to a country "severing the apron strings to Mother England". For example, here are the questions facing New Zealand (I guess they are the same questions in Australia and Canada):

Should the Monarch be the Head of State of New Zealand?
Should New Zealand be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations?
Should the Monarch be on New Zealand currency?
Should "God Save The King/Queen" be a national anthem of New Zealand?
Should the New Zealand flag feature a Union Jack?

I'm not sure about all of the details, but I think that just about every permutation of yes/no answers to these questions is possible. Personally, I feel strongly that we should change the flag to the Silver Fern, and I feel somewhat strongly that we should remain a member state of the Commonwealth. (Note that we could do this even if we became a Republic with an elected Head of State, just like South Africa.) I am undecided on the others.

Last edited by Declension on 22 May 2012, 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But most of them have not even matured enough to even make that choice yet. 200 years is diddly squat in terms of how long a country has existed.

And to me, self-identifying as a former British colony rather than coming up with your own identity could be somewhat harmful, and my main concern is that it would be a way to avoid truly considering what is at stake and the long term implications of it.

I mean - how long till you stop having to prove yourselves to Britain if you choose to self-identity as a colony? Another 200 years? Never?

I am not saying deny the influence they had on founding your country, but accept it and find a way to move forward regardless. Don't rely on it forever as a way to avoid making those hard but necessary decisions. Don't use it as an excuse to not think something through thoroughly and rather just do as you have always done.

At the very least Australia needs a new flag. I would rather see the boxing kangaroo as their flag rather than having the current one with the union jack. All it does is signify ownership.

Last edited by Kjas on 23 May 2012, 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

I agree with you that this is by far the most important aspect. For the average person, all of this talk of Commonwealths and realms is just technical details. And people pay surprisingly little attention to the visual details on money. But what people really notice about a country is its flag. Compare Australia / New Zealand to Canada. I think that Canada is in a much better position in terms of seeming to be an independent country, even though the only actual difference is that it has a unique flag. It's still a realm, and it's still a member of the Commonwealth, and it still has God Save the Queen as a national anthem, and it still has the Queen on its money. But the flag makes up for all that.

I remember during the Rugby World Cup, people all over Auckland were putting up Silver Fern flags on their cars, in their front lawns, etc. Now this is cheating a little bit, since the national rugby team prominently uses the Silver Fern in its logo. But I remember thinking that it really is already the national flag of New Zealand. It's iconic and recognisable, and makes New Zealanders feel proud instead of cringing. And when you look at the history of the Silver Fern as an icon, you discover that it is just the sort of history that you would want for a national flag.

Compare this:



to this:



Or at the very least, we could try some sort of unholy fusion of the two:

But it doesn't. We have the very boring O Canada!

Apparently, Canada and Australia each have a "national" anthem and a "royal" anthem, whereas New Zealand has two "national" anthems. But I think this is probably just a nominal difference. The populace of New Zealand, Australia and Canada think of their national anthem as being God Defend New Zealand, Advance Australia Fair, or O Canada respectively, and are virtually never called upon to sing God Save the Queen. But the government and army of New Zealand, Australia and Canada use God Save the Queen at formal events, especially when either the Queen or her representative the Governor-General is present.

New Zealand:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL9CFbtwUWc[/youtube]

Australia:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XhEEWkxYAA[/youtube]

Canada:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH11i0QtDdo[/youtube]

It says a lot that when it comes to any sporting event or the Olympics, Kiwis always dress in black and white and the Aussies always dress in green and gold, both the fans and the athletes. You never see either of them wearing red, blue or white.

I think that says enough to be honest.

As it is, when I think "New Zealand" I think of the black and white flag, not your official one.

Flags might be the most obvious representation for the average layman, however when it comes to politics, it's a different matter. Separation from the commonwealth would come with a host of both good and bad political repercussions, and the systems would have to go under change accordingly, although I hope it would be for the better.

That's a good point. And they are both quite distinctive colour schemes. If we use the language of advertising, we might say that they are strong brands. According to Wikipedia, there is no country in the world which has a green-and-yellow flag besides Mauritania, and there is literally no country in the the world which has a black-and-white flag.

It is very common for national sports teams to dress in the colours of their flag. So it really is as if the flag colours are already selected. The only remaining question is the symbolism. I think that the Silver Fern is the obvious choice for New Zealand, but I'm not very familiar with the Australian options (boxing kangaroos aside). Speaking of sports teams, New Zealand's national netball team is literally called the Silver Ferns, so maybe sports teams are a good guide to flags in general. Is there an Australian national sports team that is named after something that would look good on a green-and-gold flag?



It seems to me that any political changes which result from becoming a Republic would be either diplomatic (e.g. the UK doesn't like it when former colonies choose their own Head of State), or decorative (e.g. needing to choose a powerless Head of State in a new way, maybe a Presidency). The political changes which result from leaving the Commonwealth might be more significant, which is why I don't advocate it. It's a club with perks. Why leave the club? It's possible to be a Republic which is still in the club, like South Africa. Does anyone look down on South Africa just because they are a member state of the Commonwealth? I didn't even realise that they were in the Commonwealth until I did research for this thread!

Okay...the Queen of England is a nice old lady who wears a lot of hats, and she seems to spend most of her working hours trying to undo the extensive foreign relations damage done by your governments. I think the Royal Family's primary job is to get people to believe that they agree with each other. The Commonwealth countries are generally fairly nice, and I think that your Queen has at least a little bit to do with them being so level-headed and down-to-Earth.

Does that sound about right?

Well, putting on my bureaucrat hat, I think that the Commonwealth is probably one of the most effective international organization on the planet.

CHOGMs (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings) provide a unique opportunity for heads of government from North and South to come together in an organization that transcends geography, economics and much of geopolitics. The Commonwealth is not restricted to former British possessions. Neither Mozambique nor Rwanda, for example, were ever British possessions. Although it is now a Commonwealth Realm, Papua New Guinea was never a British possession (although it was an Australian one).

It was the Commonwealth, not the UN Trusteeship Council, that oversaw the vast decolonialization of formerly British territories in the quarter century after the War. It was the Commonwealth, not the UN, that was instrumental in the disestablishment of apartheid. Thatcher's opposition to sanctions was roundly rebuked by the assembled Commonwealth leaders, and the UK--effectively South Africa's last international ally--was brought on board.

While the Commonwealth might not intrude in the daily lives of its members' citizens, as an institution it provides each of the member states with an international political reach well beyond the weight that they would otherwise bring to bear. While six Commonwealth members are also members of the G20 or the OECD (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the UK), for the rest, the Commonwealth represents a strong platform from which to exercise influence in international affairs. Furthermore, it gives the "Big Six" a group of nations from whom to look for support at larger international fora, such as the UN and the WTO.

According to Wikipedia, one of the reasons the Canadian flag was changed was due to hostility to Canadian peace keepers during the Suez Crisis due to presence of Union Jack on their flag at the time.

I agree that the presence of the Union jack on the flags of Austria and New Zealand is a strong political statement. Perhaps as the economic importance of Asia grows these two nations will seek to present themselves without such an overt tie to the UK.

Regarding coins, the Royal Canadian Mint produces some great collectible work. The only coins I've seen with decoration such as theirs.