Charles III’s Commonwealth stands on shaky ground

Ireland departed once it finally became a republic in 1949, as did Zimbabwe in 2003, while South Africa left only to re-join after Apartheid ended in 1994.

Today, the Commonwealth claims to be, "a voluntary association of 56 independent and equal countries" with, "shared goals like development, democracy and peace." 

The beginning of Queen Elizabeth II's reign coincided with the decline of empire, and the monarch embraced the Commonwealth as a substitute organisation. She spoke passionately about it and helped to give it some sense of identity, loosely based on shared values.

Whether she succeeded is a matter of debate. Critics of the Commonwealth, like the writer Afua Hirsch, regard it as simply 'Empire 2.0': a means of Britain amplifying its global importance by claiming a degree of influence over its former colonies. Other critics view it as less sinister but largely irrelevant.

The Commonwealth's champions, meanwhile, particularly in London, emphasised the benefits to all members, not just Britain.

King Charles himself recently insisted that the values of peace, justice, tolerance, respect, solidarity, care for the environment and the vulnerable, compelled members to act to improve, "the lives of the 2.6 billion people who call the Commonwealth home."

Different members interacted with the commonwealth differently.

Most became republics on independence, ensuring their links to London were largely informal and cultural. Fourteen members, known as 'realms', however, retained the British monarch as their head of state, ensuring a continued constitutional link to the old imperial metropolis. 

Given the key role played by Elizabeth II in the Commonwealth's evolution, inevitably many members have taken her death as an opportunity to evaluate what membership means. But it is most pressing for those that still have the monarch as their head of state. 

Many Commonwealth members held an attachment to the queen herself rather than the British monarchy as an institution, and republicans are now urging formal detachment. 

Caribbean concerns

Caribbean Commonwealth nations are leading the calls to re-evaluate their relationship with Britain. These states are mostly dominated and ruled by descendants of the slaves that Britain forced onto the islands to work sugar fields and other plantations.

Many Caribbean governments, alongside their supporters in the UK and elsewhere, have urged London to formally apologise for its extensive role in the slave trade. Some have sought financial reparations.

The issue is finally gaining some traction in the UK, including King Charles agreeing to cooperate with an investigation into past monarchs' links to slavery, while Prince William expressed, "profound sorrow," for slavery during a 2022 trip to Jamaica.

But the UK government itself has shown no sign of apologising, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak recently stating, "trying to unpick our history is not the right way forward, and it's not something that we will focus our energies on."

Given the association between Britain, slavery and empire, it is unsurprising that Republicanism in Caribbean Commonwealth countries is on the rise.

Even before Elizabeth II died, Barbados renounced the crown in 2021, while her death prompted Antigua and Barbuda to announce it will hold a referendum on doing the same.

The Prime Minster of Belize, outraged by Sunak's refusal to address the slavery reparations issue, said in the week before the coronation that he would seek to move his Central American state to become a republic.

Jamaica, the most populous Commonwealth Caribbean country, has been among the most vocal. Prince William's visit last year, in which he ill-advisedly donned the white uniform associated with imperial officials, was poorly received.

Since then, the minister for legal and constitutional affairs has proposed replacing the king as head of state with an elected president subject to a referendum, as soon as next year.

The coronation was met with little cheer in Kingston and the change of monarch alongside Sunak's refusal to apologise for slavery have accelerated the moves to ditch Charles III.

End of the realms?

Were all the Caribbean countries to follow Barbados' lead, it would leave only six realms behind. The largest of these, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, are also ambivalent about their future relationship with the monarchy.

Australia has a long history of republicanism. In 1999 it held a referendum on whether the queen should be replaced as head of state with a parliamentary-appointed president.

The vote was lost 55-45%, but opinion polls showed a majority favoured becoming a republic, though there were divisions over the method of appointing the president. 

While Charles' coronation garnered some interest, news reports suggested a generational divide: with younger Australians expressing indifference.

The underwhelmed Australian reaction was epitomised by New South Wales' decision to cancel an illumination of Sydney Opera House to commemorate the coronation for budgetary reasons, despite having done so to mark the queen's death last year.

It was also determined that — unlike his mother —Charles would not be appearing on the $5 bank note.

New Zealand's Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, meanwhile, recently stated that he favoured his country becoming a republic in the future, though it was not an immediate priority. His predecessor Jacinda Ardern held a similar stance.

That said, recent polls suggested only 36% of Kiwis wanted to become a republic, while 48% were happy to remain under the crown.

A series of referendums in 2015-16 saw voters opt to retain the current New Zealand flag, which contains Britain's Union Jack, suggesting attachment to Britain might still be strong.

Canada also appears to have mixed views on the monarchy but, like New Zealand, seems in no rush to remove Charles. Recent straw polls by Leger suggested support for the monarchy has dropped, with 56% suggesting Canada should 'reconsider its ties' to the monarchy.

But Prime Minster Justin Trudeau stated there was, "no appetite," to explore the question now, and there appears little enthusiasm or agreement on what might replace the king.

Unlike Australia and New Zealand, the proximity of the United States has historically made Canada more attached to the Britain and the monarchy as a way of first defending and then defining itself against its southern neighbour, something that looks unlikely to change for a while.  

A declining Britain

The contrasting views of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the Caribbean states on the monarchy, prompt the same question each time: why retain a British head of state?

For the Caribbean states, ending the nominal rule by a foreign monarch makes sense.

While many may have had a personal admiration for the queen, why should they continue to be 'subjects' of a royal family who's forebearers oversaw the enslavement and domination of their ancestors?

For Australia, the question seems to be one of nationalism: its growth as a regional power has long made many Australians ask why its head of state sits on a throne on the other side of the world rather than in Canberra.

 Meanwhile, Canadians and New Zealanders appear to be more indifferent to the King, but uncertainty at the alternative may continue to bind them to the monarchy for a while.

A second, bigger question for these realms, as well as the wider Commonwealth members, is why remain in this British club at a time when Britain is evidently in decline globally.

As the British Empire wound down, London remained the 3rd or 4th most powerful state and retaining some link to the old imperial centre made sense for newly independent countries, allowing some to temporarily gloss over Britain's past oppression.

For some this remains true, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa where Britain tends to favour Commonwealth states in its aid and investment programmes – though some have argued this is actually exploitative.

These perceived benefits led four African states that were never in the British Empire, Rwanda, Mozambique, Gabon and Togo, to join the organisation later on.

But to many others, Britain is not the powerhouse it once was.

While its economy continues to be one of the world's largest — the fifth — it lacks the global reach it did at the end of empire. Brexit and other isolationist policies have damaged Britain's image and diminished its influence now that it cannot amplify its voice through the European Union.

Having said that, this does not mean the Commonwealth is on the brink of collapse.

Even were Jamaica and other Caribbean states — as well as Australia in the future — to become republics, most would likely remain in the Commonwealth, as Barbados did in 2021.

However, it is questionable whether Charles has the charm and respect to bind the club of nations together in the way his mother did. With Britain lacking the global power it once had, it is hard to see the organisation evolving and flourishing into something dynamic that is valued by its members.

Instead, it will likely potter along, heralded by Britain as a sign of its global heft, but largely ignored or even derided by its other members who increasingly wonder, what's the point?