Appraising the Commonwealth
| Date | 01 March 1984 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1984.tb00169.x |
| Author | J. A. Cross |
| Published date | 01 March 1984 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Political
Studies
(1984),
XXXII,
107-1
12
Appraising the Commonwealth
J.
A.
CROSS
University College, Cardiff
Not the least of the problems raised by the study of the association of hetero-
geneous countries latterly called the Commonwealth is one of semantics. By its
informality, even formlessness, the association defies the categorizations
of’
political science and international relations. But in addition it has not always
been clear what the collectivity and its members should be called. ‘The British
Empire’ is manifestly anachronistic but its use long persisted, even after the
term ‘British Commonwealth of Nations’ had emerged from the first world
war as the officially-favoured description of those countries, primarily of
European settlement, which had achieved ‘dominion status’ and formal
equality with the United Kingdom. Churchill, even in his
1950s
prime minister-
ship, was much given to referring to ‘the Commonwealth and Empire’,
although by that time ‘Commonwealth’ (with or without the prefix ‘British’)
had become the preferred term to cover both independent countries and UK
dependencies, the latter officially being prepared for independence, or at least
the maximum viable degree of self-government. ‘Dominion’ and ‘dominion
status’ were terms prolonged beyond their natural life and have still not been
entirely eradicated from popular usage. With Asian independence in the late
1940s
‘Member (or Member Nation) of the Commonwealth’ and ‘independent
(or full) Commonwealth membership’ were clearly more appropriate
designations, and had the merit
of
including Britain itself, as ‘dominion’ and
‘dominion status’ could never do. For the same reason it was clearly inapposite
to refer to Britain and the Commonwealth, unless ‘overseas’ preceded
‘Commonwealth’.
If the Commonwealth ever had a golden age it was surely in the
1950s.
The
accession to independence
of
the Asian members, followed in
1957
by the first
African member, Ghana, had demonstrated that the independent
Commonwealth was not a white man’s preserve, while the wish
of
so
many
non-European former colonies to retain links through the Commonwealth
with the erstwhile imperial power served both to salve metropolitan injured
feelings at the loss
of
empire and to vindicate the disinterestedness
of
Britain’s
imperial custodianship. Commonwealth leaders almost vied with each other
in extolling the virtues of their unique multiracial association of equals. Louis
St. Laurent, the Canadian Prime Minister, spoke in January
1951
of
Common-
wealth nations having ‘a community of interest on matters that really count
.
.
. a common attachment to certain political ideals, such as the maintenance
of a large measure of freedom for the individual within the community, and
the upholding of genuine control by the citizens over their governments’; while
0032-32
17/84/01 /0107-06/$03
.OO
0
1984
Political Studies
To continue reading
Request your trial