The Commonwealth, Copenhagen, and the Need to Belong

The biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting has just taken place in Port of Spain.  There are 54 members in the Commonwealth club.  Unlike the British Empire from which it evolved, each member is free to leave the club – as Zimbabwe did in 2003 – and each has decided voluntarily to join.

Traditionally the members have in common a shared history of British rule.  However Mozambique – a former Portuguese colony – joined in 1995, and Rwanda – once German, later Belgian, never once British – has just been accepted as a member.  Less widely known, at least seven other countries without a historical link to the British Empire (Cambodia, East Timor, Algeria, Madagascar, DR Congo, Angola and Eritrea) have either applied to join the Commonwealth or have  expressed an interest in joining.

The obvious question is why?  Why would any self-respecting nation want to be a member of a club organised by its former colonisers, and, still more puzzling, why would anyone for whom the British weren’t their colonial power be the slightest bit interested? 

In Rwanda’s case, the initial impetus was a falling-out with France.  Although it had never been colonised by France, Rwanda’s period under Belgian control had left it with a francophone education system.  The relationship with France having soured in the aftermath of the Rwandan Civil War, Rwanda has turned to the Commonwealth.  Rwanda does at least share a border with two Commonwealth countries: Uganda is to the north, and Tanzania to the east.

Mozambique shares borders with six other countries, all of them members of the Commonwealth at the time of its accession.  Again, perhaps it was natural to want to join the same club as all the neighbours.  But what, exactly, do Rwanda and Mozambique actually gain from being members of the Commonwealth, and what do the other prospective members hope to gain?

The usual argument is that the Commonwealth stands for democracy, stability, human rights and the rule of law.  That’s what it says in its constitution.  And, from time to time, a member will be suspended for going against these principles.  But that hasn’t prevented military coups in Pakistan, Fiji and Nigeria, and (to say the least) corrupt regimes in Zimbabwe, South Africa and elsewhere.

There are, of course, fringe benefits.  Commonwealth leaders get to meet the Queen every two years, and every four years their athletes can compete at a major Games which doesn’t involve the USA, China and Continental Europe.  (Unfortunately still not much help for Britain’s 10,000-metre runners!)

Of course, the benefits of Commonwealth membership are complex and may differ from case to case.  But the real point of Commonwealth membership is that it satisfies the basic human instinct for belonging.  Not for us citizens, but for our national leaders.  At every level and in every situation, whether at home, at school, at work or anywhere else where we gather and spend time, human beings benefit from the company of their peers.  That’s primarily why national leaders spend so much of their time visiting other national leaders, when in reality the business could just as easily be done by phone, or by mere mortals.

Just as the rest of us enjoy the feeling of togetherness that we get from a chat at the water-cooler or in the canteen, our national leaders benefit from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the G20 Summit, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, and any other chance they can get to affirm their sense of belonging.  I can’t help wondering if this need could be pandered to in a less expensive way.

At a less lofty level, the psychology and the consequences of this human need for belonging are discussed in Module 4 (Motivation) of the Mini-MBA. 

Meanwhile on the Markets...
Now that the shortlist has been announced for the Sports Personality of the Year, you might expect the odds for the ten contenders to have shortened.  In fact, though, most of the frontrunners have lengthened.  This is follows Ryan Giggs' surprise inclusion on the shortlist, and an article in the Racing Post which tipped him.  But footballers very rarely succeed in the SPOTY, so I see the run on Giggs as an opportunity to back others at lengthened odds.  Jessica Ennis is now out to 6/1, and David Haye to 14/1, both with Betfair.  A huge amount depends on how the candidates come across during the BBC programme on December 13th, and both these two charmers look to be excellent value.      



If you don't already have a Betfair account, please use the link to receive a free £25 bet when you join.