The Sun Is Finally Setting: The Coming Downfall of the British Commonwealth
Art by Jaren Henderson and Donia Ghaith
It has been said that the sun never sets on the British Empire. Well, it’s beginning to look like dusk.
The death of Queen Elizabeth II has sent many questions rippling through the UK and the world. What purpose does the monarchy serve? Why is the United Kingdom so important internationally? What does the future of the Commonwealth and Britain look like? The last question is the most prescient one to the UK and the world. To answer this, we’ll have to figure out what the Commonwealth is, what it does, who’s in it, and what its future looks like. Then, we’ll discuss the past, present and future of the UK, its economy, its politics, and how that will affect the Commonwealth at large.
What is the Commonwealth?
The United Kingdom’s Commonwealth serves as a collective of states, both sovereign and under the dominion of the UK, that seeks to aid in trade, facilitate collective growth, and centralize currency under the British pound. The Commonwealth has existed in its current state for the better part of the last two centuries. During this time, it has been instrumental in the formation of the economies of Britain and its many former colonial states. At the genesis of the Commonwealth in the late 1800’s, it was meant to maintain British control in its colonial states, while also making it easier for those states to trade amongst themselves. As members of the Commonwealth traded among themselves, they would inevitably trade with the British, thereby increasing their revenue and trade capacity through the perceived economic freedom of their colonies. In 1949, India decided to remain a member of the Commonwealth even after becoming a self-governing state, adding a wrinkle into the plan that would end up benefiting the UK and the Commonwealth greatly.
That new form of membership for Commonwealth members was one in which they were self-governing and autonomous, but could still benefit from the free trade and economic freedom of the Commonwealth. India, Pakistan, and many other nations that joined after the decolonization period post World War II are still members of the Commonwealth. While many chose the route of self-governance, there are a few that continue to keep the British Crown as the Head of State. Countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand all are self-governing with the exception of their Head of State, who is now King Charles III, the present British monarch. This is different from many countries in the Commonwealth, but also around the world, where the head of state is either a democratically elected leader, like the US President, or the monarch of their country. This leaves some Commonwealth countries with the British Monarch as their Head of State, while others are completely sovereign.
Today, the Commonwealth encapsulates over a quarter of the world’s entire population (though half of that is in India alone). With a GDP of $13.1 trillion, the Commonwealth is the third largest in the world, outpacing Japan, Germany, and France. Through all of this growth, from the Commonwealth itself, the UK has benefited the most. The Commonwealth is an extension of the former British Empire, and in its current state, it mainly serves to continue British domination and economic control, preserving British public and private interests.
Why Stay? Why Leave?
The issues of removing the King as head of state, removing the state from the Commonwealth as an organization are some of the most pressing to its member states now in the absence of the Queen. The Commonwealth does still have many benefits to the states that remain a part of it. As a member, countries are allowed to freely trade amongst themselves, giving them an internal competitive advantage over those who are not members. This can be beneficial to many countries, especially those on different continents, as it gives them the incentive to trade over greater distances, increasing their GDP. However, while this system seems to work for the benefit of all members of the Commonwealth, it is a false narrative used to keep these countries in the system that benefits bigger economies in the Commonwealth. Many of the smaller members of the Commonwealth are unable to economically compete with larger members such as the UK and Canada, creating inequitable outcomes that benefit the larger economies. These countries only continue to grow while the rest have had their economic growth stunted.
Through the Commonwealth system, the UK has been able to consolidate its trade and centralize the Commonwealth economy around itself. To the British, the Commonwealth is a system with the same end goal as the Empire that preceded it. The UK is using these other countries as faux-trading partners when they are really still economic colonies. Yes, they are self-governing and can choose not to trade with Britain if they want, but the system they agreed to be a part of gives them no other real choice than to give free trade to the nation that colonized and subjugated them for years.
When broken down by percentages, the US and China are the largest trade partners for countries in the Commonwealth. Even after this, there are multiple other countries like Japan and Germany that most member states trade with at higher rates than the Commonwealth as a whole.
Economically, free trade for smaller and poorer nations can only help marginally if it's not with a larger group of nations. Since a majority of trade is with countries outside of the Commonwealth, the free trade it provides can only do so much. Functionally, these smaller, often African and Caribbean nations, have to trade for a striking amount of their manufactured goods. Previously, the UK systematically extracted their natural resources. The British have continued to extract raw materials from members of the Commonwealth through private companies. These companies control some of their biggest resources, like the sugar crops in Jamaica, or British Telecom’s near monopoly on telecommunications in India. Due to this, these companies are not seeing the same benefits that Britain is seeing. So now these smaller countries and former colonial states are forced to accept British control of their economy through the Commonwealth and the “economic freedom” it brings.
The “freedom” from the Commonwealth does not warrant the economic box that it places around the country, essentially forcing them to prioritize Commonwealth members despite the actual details of the trade agreement. This results in uneven economic results, as Britain and a few other larger countries are allowed to trade with whomever they like and do not have to fear judgment from the Commonwealth. These inequitable outcomes are why countries are beginning to truly examine their relationships with the Commonwealth and the UK.
Ireland’s Example
Ireland was the first nation to leave the Commonwealth back in 1949, and has been battling with British imperialism since. When Ireland declared itself no longer a member of the Commonwealth, they were met with contempt and bad trade deals with Britain for many years, as Britain attempted to flaunt its control over the Irish economy. However, as time went on, Ireland made its own way and continued its pursuit of economic freedom and separation from the imperial desires of Britain. Though this sparked much violence for years, that was a result of British overreach and imperialism in the northern Irish counties.
After Ireland left and began to achieve its freedom, its GDP began to climb, from the lowest points of under $100 million in the 50’s and 60’s, it continued its growth in the 70’s until today, marking a figure of $498 billion dollars, which places Ireland’s GDP at 29th in the world, ahead of oil giants like the UAE and Egypt, and above much larger countries like the Philippines and South Africa. The growth in the Irish economy can be directly attributed to a separation from the UK trading sphere. Around the time of their break from the Commonwealth through the 1970’s, Ireland sent almost 50% of all its exports directly to the UK, a number that is seemingly impossible compared to just about every other trade relationship in the world. That number has slowly plummeted to a number under 10%, a figure more reasonable for two neighboring countries.
It should also be noted that if the northern Irish counties were to be given back to the Republic, the GDP would increase to above $550 billion, giving the Island of Éire a GDP in the top 25 in the world.
Ireland is the blueprint all Commonwealth countries seeking to leave must follow in order to succeed. Since Ireland left the Commonwealth and joined the EU, a conglomerate of countries focused on actually facilitating trade and growth in its member states, it has only prospered. The key to this prosperity was decreasing its reliance on UK trade deals, instead focusing on mutually beneficial trade with the EU, China, and the US. Now, this does not mean that all trade with the UK should cease, as that would not be a prosperous method of trade in that the UK does have some value as a trading partner. However, reducing the reliance on one single nation or commonwealth leads to variance in the economy often leads to an increase in GDP and options for companies. Other countries considering leaving the Commonwealth should look to Ireland for an example.
India
Since it joined in 1949, India has steadily risen in the Commonwealth to become the biggest economy among all its members. India surpassed the UK last year thanks in part to a rapidly growing agricultural sector and an ever-increasing service sector. As India has maintained its growth, its key has not been the Commonwealth. In fact, a vast majority of India’s trade is split between the US, China, and a myriad of Middle Eastern countries. There is not a single Commonwealth country in the top nine of India’s trade partners (when ranked by the amount of money traded between the two partners). This is one of the examples of India’s redundancy in the Commonwealth. It is the largest economy in the Commonwealth in spite of the Commonwealth, not because of it.
India has been continuously exercising its own economic freedom for decades now, leading to such sharp growth and placing India higher and higher on the worldwide GDP board. This is in spite of the Commonwealth, which in essence seeks to centralize all the economies of its members under the British pound, thereby centralizing economic power in Britain. This is steadily affecting India less and less, as they slowly separate themselves from the pound, creating their own economic freedom within the bounds of the Commonwealth. However, it would be significantly more beneficial to leave entirely.
India does not need the UK or the Commonwealth as much as they need India. Since India is not dependent on the Commonwealth, there is no real point in them sticking around, as at this point, it only serves to legitimize the British imperial rule that India fought so hard to rid itself of. Freeing itself of the Commonwealth would begin to truly place the colonial past of the nation behind itself, something that the people of India have sought to do since the days of Gandhi.
Since a majority of India’s trade comes from non-Commonwealth sources, that means that they are also not receiving any real sort of value from the agreement. Historically, India only joined the Commonwealth as a way to be allowed to become a republic. But now, with the economic freedom they have earned themselves, they are no longer beholden to the British Empire – or what’s left of it. India should seriously consider leaving, not only to remove itself from the imperial legacy that has haunted it for years, but to also give itself the true economic freedom of being on its own without the UK. India does not need the Commonwealth as much as the Commonwealth needs India, because of the size of its economy and its dominance over the rest of the Commonwealth in terms of trade.
Australia, New Zealand, and Canada
Australia has considered leaving the Commonwealth or removing the British monarch as head of state multiple times in the last decade, with a referendum on the monarchy initially scheduled for their upcoming election. However, that referendum has been postponed due to the death of Queen Elizabeth II, as a sign of respect for their former Head of State. Australia would also benefit greatly from leaving the Commonwealth, though not as much as most other nations due to their reliance on British imports. They import British goods at a higher rate than most other nations, creating a dependence similar to Ireland’s when it freed itself from the Commonwealth and British control. This reliance on the British and their failing pound can only spell doom for both economies if they continue on their current path. As of now, both economies are so reliant on each other, that if the pound fails, and the British economy collapses, so would Australia’s. Australia’s lack of important resources and close relationship with its colonial motherland has led to an entirely British dependent economy.
New Zealand, the sheep-covered neighbor of Australia, has made a point to economically separate itself from the UK in recent years, seemingly preparing itself to leave the Commonwealth. This would provide a prime example for other nations around the world attempting to distance themselves from their colonial past and former imperial masters.
However, one small hiccup in New Zealand’s plan is their insistence on staying in the Commonwealth whenever the public are given a vote on it. Twice, the New Zealand population has narrowly voted to stay in the Commonwealth, despite an outpouring of support from the nation's technocratic establishment. Recently, New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, said that becoming a republic and possibly leaving the Commonwealth is in the future of the small nation, though they are also refraining from voting on it in reverence to their dead Head of State.
Canada is another nation considering leaving the Commonwealth, though it should be noted that this is mainly the talk of the citizens of Canada and not the government or its politicians. Canadians have long wanted to leave the Commonwealth and leave Britain in its past, especially French-Canadians who have no connection to the country. Canada most likely would not leave any time within the next twenty years, barring a major political shakeup and widespread approval. Of the three nations, Canada is least likely to leave anytime soon.
It should be noted that these three countries, the three most loyal to the monarch, with Canada even publicly reaffirming its loyalty during King Charles III’s coronation, are all the whitest and largest settler colonies left from the British Empire. All the governments and their leaders have not had to deal with the same levels of discrimination, racism, and horrible treatment that all other non-white Commonwealth nations suffered. It is less likely that these nations leave, as they see themselves more aligned to their former colonial ruler than the marginalized groups in their own nations.
Barbados & Jamaica
Barbados is the most recent country to remove the British Royal as their Head of State. In late 2021, Barbados elected a new Prime Minister, Mia Mottley as the nation's first native Head of State, officially confirming their status as a republic. Shortly after being elected, Mottley announced that Barbados would take a look at its relationship to the UK and the Commonwealth some time in the future. This development is a result of economists in Barbados realizing that since their economy is heavily reliant on tourism and self-sustained Barbadian agriculture, they had no major economic incentive to keep the Queen (now King Charles III) as their Head of State. They are not relying upon the economic system that they joined the Commonwealth to use. Staying in the Commonwealth only serves to benefit them a fraction of what true economic freedom could do for them.
Image of Mia Mottley, the new Prime Minister of Barbados… Art by Donia Ghaith
After the end of direct British occupation, the sugar industry was not handed back to Barbados, and instead was divided amongst private interests, British and otherwise. Leaving the Commonwealth would allow Barbados to have more control over its economic destiny, giving it more control over its domestic sugar and agricultural products. Currently, Barbados prioritizes trading these resources with other members of the Commonwealth, which as of 2022 is primarily the UK. Barbados will also be able to choose trades and target nation states that would benefit them the most in terms of lower tariffs, but also in growing their own GDP.
Finally, it will be good from a cultural standpoint for Barbados to withdraw, metaphorically and economically leaving their colonial past behind. Barbados has said for years that it wants to separate itself from that age, firmly placing imperialism, its history of slavery, and the mistreatment of its people firmly in the past.
Jamaica on the other hand is just beginning the process of removing the King as its Head of State, and forming itself into an independent republic. Also on the table is the removal of itself from the Commonwealth, though this does not have the same support as self-governance within the country. Jamaicans want to free themselves from British rule as well as the Commonwealth. Since selling the majority of their sugar industry to private corporations in 1982, Jamaican economists have argued that nationalizing the sugar industry would boost the country's GDP and give it more trading power and leverage. The issue as of now is the amount of British private interests that still own Jamaican sugar crops, which is extremely similar to colonial times, where Jamaica did not have control over its economic freedoms and was instead reliant on British control. British interests can be removed by a Jamaican republic government with little available resistance from the UK, resulting in a heavy boost for the Jamaican economy and better access to money for its people.
Other Caribbean Nations
While Barbados has left and Jamaica is considering a move away from the UK, many other countries in the Caribbean have begun to take a serious look at their relationship with the UK.
Antigua and Barbuda, a small nation made of multiple islands in the Caribbean, for instance, has begun the process of setting up a general election on the removal of King Charles III as their current Head of State. Similarly, they are also looking into removing themselves from the Commonwealth, as their economy is mainly based on sugar exports and tourism, the Commonwealth does not benefit those in any meaningful capacity. The Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Gaston Browne, said that they would make the move to become a republic “in the next three years.” Now, while the Prime Minister made it clear his desire is to stay a “dedicated member” of the Commonwealth, there is support among the public to remove itself from the Commonwealth entirely, not just the monarchy.
African Nations
There are a few African nations considering leaving the economic system entirely, like Zimbabwe, which has already left once.
While Zimbabwe did leave the Commonwealth, it did not leave of its own accord, instead being forced to leave by the Commonwealth due to institutional policies oppressing certain native ethnic groups. However, even as Zimbabwe began the process of ending its racially oppressive government and creating a much more equitable and democratic country, they were not allowed back as they had begun heavily trading with rivals of the UK like China and Germany. Zimbabwe was allowed to rejoin in 2018, having not become a full fledged member as of now. They were only allowed back once the country had demonstrated it would respect human rights and increase democratization, things it had done as early as 2010, but then was not enough for the UK and the Commonwealth, as they desired to make an example out of the country.
Zimbabwe, in contrast to Ireland and South Africa, saw its GDP gradually decline after it was removed from the Commonwealth, though this was due to the UK’s tentativeness to allow trade. There was an unspoken and illegal embargo against Zimbabwe that hindered their growth as a sort of punishment for continuing a system that Britain had initially implemented, that of racial oppression and segregation. Once 2010 came around and the secret embargo began to be lifted, Zimbabwe grew, being hailed as a win for free markets, when in reality it was the trade partners they previously had coming back. Since the lifting of Britain's embargo, Zimbabwe has grown immensely, achieving a GDP higher than a few of its neighbors, namely Mozambique who recently joined the Commonwealth.
South Africa was also removed due to the international recognition and pushback aimed at its Apartheid system, as a statement by the Commonwealth that it would not put up with racial oppression or violence, even though Britain is who placed that system upon South Africa in the first place. South Africa did well, however, in its absence of the Commonwealth. Rejoining eventually in 1994 after Apartheid as more of a political than economic move, due to the economic success of the Apartheid system.
Mozambique is a strange case as well, being only one of two countries to join the Commonwealth without British colonial ties. Having been a colony of Portugal, Mozambique did not have the benefit of an economic colonial bloc when it gained independence, and was mired in civil war for over twenty years. Curiously, Mozambique seems to have joined the Commonwealth due to political reasons as opposed to economic ones. By making friends with an economic power such as the Commonwealth, Mozambique sought to prove itself a worthy member of the international capitalist state, something it had previously avoided. Its economy has not benefited much since joining, only benefiting from better facilitated trade with other African Commonwealth members.
While all mainland African countries have removed the British monarch as their head of state, there are a few who are now considering the idea of leaving the Commonwealth in the same vein as Ireland. Zimbabwe, which only recently rejoined, has had discussions in its opposition party, if they take power, to remove itself of its colonial ties and leave the Commonwealth entirely, this time under their own power and through their own choices. Botswana, as well, has given a few meaningful looks at leaving, due to its trade links occurring around its neighbors, whom they have good relations with, regardless of their Commonwealth status. They don’t necessarily benefit from Commonwealth trade, and would also consider leaving.
Brexit, The Queen’s Death, and Rishi Sunak
Image of current British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Art by Donia Ghaith
Recently in the UK, Brexit, which preceded the Queen’s death, has brought up a multitude of economic questions. The governing Conservative party has been unable to answer or solve these pressing questions, and Rishi Sunak, the new Prime Minister, will surely falter as well.
Tory leadership, the reason for Brexit, has routinely placed its emphasis on maintaining a “Britain-Centric” economy, which clearly has not worked so far with the British pound falling year over year. The Queen’s death tanked the pound, the Tory leadership faltered, and now there is an investment banker with ties to multiple British corporations as Prime Minister, which can only spell doom for the pound and the British economy as a whole.
Brexit showed the world that the leadership in the UK believes that Britain only needs itself to survive, a statement drenched in irony considering its reliance on its former colonies via the Commonwealth. This statement shows the rest of the Commonwealth that despite their integral part in the UK economy, the UK believes that they do not need them, which is a slap to the face of all members. The UK spat in the face of the EU when it left, which did nothing but harm itself, and is now preparing to do the same to the Commonwealth, their biggest support system now that they have fully left the EU. The Commonwealth is fundamentally the only thing that has kept the UK afloat since Brexit, and the idea from British leadership that they only need themselves is honestly laughable.
The Future
There are not many futures in which the Commonwealth stays intact, especially in its current form, beyond the next twenty years. This, by itself, is an impressive number of years for a trade organization to stick around. While the Commonwealth has been a great success for Britain after the dissolving of its empire, it has not been as great for the former colonies who joined. Economic stagnation and resource extraction still occurs, despite the neo-liberal freedom that has been promised.
Within the next decade, countries will begin to leave, starting in the Caribbean and the ones with the most violent history, with India, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand especially leaving before two decades have passed. The biggest four nations have the most to gain and the least to lose in leaving the Commonwealth, with only economic prosperity following a split. Britain on its current path won’t be able to justify an economic organization based on its own currency, and if it holds on to that through these next few years, only devastation can follow.
Countries should leave, though. Leaving colonialism behind is one of the most culturally important things a former colony can do. Abandoning imperialism and setting forth on a path free from oppression and economic control can only be good for almost all Commonwealth nations. Freeing oneself from one's oppressors is extremely important as well for personal growth, and personally, I believe could start a sort of renaissance in a lot of these countries.
The Present
At the risk of sounding like a Magic-8 Ball, the future is unclear. The present, however, is very much clear.
Tory leadership wants nothing more than to cut off the UK economy from the rest of the world, something that is in opposition to the pure functionality of the Commonwealth and the British economy over the last three hundred years.
If Britain wishes to survive with its Commonwealth intact, Tory leadership must be ousted, they must begin the process of giving more economic freedom to its Commonwealth members, and focus its efforts on rebuilding the relationships it has stolen, or else these countries will begin to leave one by one. Britain is headed down a path of economic implosion, a scary proposition for the rest of the world, given their importance.
But for now, we have to simply watch as Britain reels from the death of its longest reigning monarch and its reliance on a party leadership that seems hell bent on self destruction.
Edited by Aidan Kato