Saturday Sep 21, 2024
Saturday Sep 21, 2024
Friday, 15 November 2013 00:01 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The Commonwealth, some 50 countries spread across the globe, united only by their connection to the former British Empire, is unique in concept. Among its membership are India, Bangladesh, Singapore, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Fiji, Cyprus, Belize, Seychelles and Saint Kitts & Nevis – an amazingly diverse collection of countries from every corner of the world. No surprise that it was called the empire on which the sun never set!
A maritime empire
Clearly, in size, culture, history and economy there is little in common between most of these countries save for their past association with that smallish island nation in the North Atlantic Ocean, which once built a mighty empire. Unlike the empires of old like the Romans, Mongols, Gupta and the Moguls, which were contiguous to the land of the conquerors, the British were a maritime empire. So were the Portuguese, Spanish and the Dutch empires of about the same era whose success was based on their sea power, but eventually it 
were the British who prevailed.
If their only purpose was conquest and plunder, it is unlikely that there would have been a Commonwealth to celebrate their association with the former empire. While exploitation of the conquered territories was an inevitable result of empire building, for the former colonies there is a greater legacy from that experience which is yet to be fully understood, explained or appreciated. It is pointed out by some for instance that there was no one country called India prior to the British arrival. In other words there was no consciousness of being “Indian” until geographical and administrative unity was imposed on the sub-continent.
“Establishments” left behind by the British
At a more visible level, most of these former colonies now have elected governments, legal systems, banking systems, technological advances across the board and a whole lot of other institutional and cultural legacies including the richness of the English language as “establishments” left behind by the British.
This legacy has enabled the Commonwealth to endorse as well as claim certain ideas such as the rule of law, representative democracy, individual liberty and free trade as “common” objects which allow for organisational coherence.
Broadly speaking, most of the countries in the Commonwealth have in place democratic systems including parliaments for their elected representatives. The speaker of the parliament (in reality a chairman who actually speaks very little), his robes, mace and even rules of conduct are based very much on British traditions. Similarly our political parties like the UNP and SLFP were inspired by British and other European political methods.
As we know, in those countries political parties are internally democratic with no inclination to a dynastic culture. English expressions such as “it is not cricket,” “parliamentary language” or “have a fair go” attempt to capture some of the cultural expectations of these institutions.
The inspiration for our police force was the British constabulary. Under that system a constable will not hesitate to take into custody any person breaking the law, however exalted. In the deep jungles of Uganda a newly-recruited constable was now expected to arrest his hereditary chief because that man had slapped a tribesman. Likewise, our courts, banks, schools, universities etc were set up following British models. How they have evolved in the adoptive lands is there for us to judge.
‘Rights’ conscious 21st century
In the ‘rights’ conscious 21st century, the idea of the British empire, or for that matter any empire, would be unlikely. Nations and races as well as the individuals who constitute those collectives now have recognised rights which are not to be violated or taken away lightly.
Almost every situation or relationship now confers legally recognised rights. If it were suggested to a 16th century Sri Lankan that he has a right to information (including information on the thinking and the activities of the king) or even privacy (including the right to prevent late night political meetings in his neighbourhood), he would have been quite dismissive of the suggestion. His outlook of the world was not arranged on those lines.
Even today most Sri Lankans don’t believe that his government has no authority to spy on him or tap his telephone unless they are satisfied that he poses a threat to national security or is suspected of having committed a crime. That decision ought not to be made by a politicised bureaucrat but only by an independent judicial or quasi-judicial authority. But the average Sri Lankan appears to be of a mindset which accepts such abuses by the government almost as if the world was so ordered and there is nothing he can do about it.
The best example of this craven mentality to my mind is the rude and brutal manner in which the convoys of government big wigs whiz through traffic. To an outsider unfamiliar with the mind of the natives, it will seem like the VIP in the vehicle with darkly tinted windows has an urgent call of nature.
But we know that to the Sri Lankans, Government ministers and officials have priority in everything, even if he is only going home for an afternoon nap. It is so ordered that the other people must step aside and wait. Even the drivers and the security detail in that convoy will be disappointed if they have to stop at a red light or allow any other vehicle to pass. It will be a denial of their passenger’s importance and reflectively their own.
Not quite British
When the delegates of the various countries arrive in Colombo for the Commonwealth conference they will observe many institutions originating from the British legacy. From the newspapers delivered to their rooms in the morning, the mounted guard at the ceremonial parade, to the cocktail parties in the evening, will be as close a replication as could be of the source of the practice. But then there will be other signs and sights which will tell the visitor that there is a big gap between say London and Colombo.
The palpably raw power commanded by the political establishment surrounded by large numbers of uniformed security and the frequency of road closures will be indications of a temperament not quite British. They are in a country where all are equal but some are definitely more equal.
The more perceptive visitors will begin to wonder whether having institutions of a modern democracy necessarily means the acceptance of the latter. Will a mimic suffice for the real? It will be good for our visitors to mind the gap.
(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law and a
freelance writer.)
