ON October 3 the President of Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, announced the country’s desire to leave the Commonwealth and said: “Gambia will never be a member of any neo-colonial institution and will never be a party to any institution that represents an extension of colonialism.” (The Telegraph). 
The British Foreign Office commented that it was a regrettable move. Two years ago Yahya Jammeh blamed the UK for backing the opposition party ahead of the country’s general elections.
So what is it with this Commonwealth club?
I watched with both interest and detest the discussion on a Sky News programme on Sunday November 17, about the recent CHOGM held in Sri Lanka.
The focus was on whether the Prime Minister David Cameron should have attended the CHOGM summit in Sri Lanka (November 10 to 14) because of Sri Lanka’s human rights record with the Tamils.
The meeting was boycotted by the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Indian Prime Manmohan Singh.
The presenter likened the PM’s (Cameron) attendance of the CHOGM in Sri Lanka to visiting Zimbabwe, or shaking hands with President Robert Mugabe.
“Would you and David Cameron consider visiting Zimbabwe?” he asked the Foreign Secretary William Hague, who responded by giving a vague answer.
“Would you shake your hands with Robert Mugabe?” he asked again a few moments later.
Again, the Foreign Secretary gave a vague response and went on about how the UK is committed to promoting human rights in Commonwealth countries.
This report was followed by a panel discussion of three people in the studio, and a video interview with the High Commissioner of Pakistan to the United Kingdom Wayid Hasan, and Sir Michael Arthur former UK High Commissioner to India.
The presenter asked the relevance of the Commonwealth, or indeed of Britain being a member of the Commonwealth when there is no longer a common purpose, nor common values in an organisation marred with ‘inefficiency’.
The references to Zimbabwe and its President Robert Mugabe were not necessary at all.
We have seen the Western leaders visiting many parts of the world, countries where elections have never been held, and countries with terrible human rights records, yet we see them dining and wining with these countries’ leaders.
Zimbabwe is no longer a member of this master-servant fraternity.
Kumhoresa kana kumhoreswa naPrime Minister wekuBritain hazvitadzise ngoma kurira kuZimbabwe madhongi achikuma! Many people I spoke to feel that bringing Zimbabwe and President Robert Mugabe into a Commonwealth discussion was not necessary, and shows the extent the British were enraged when we took back our land and its resources.
The Commonwealth was established as a political grouping between the British and their subjects in the colonies; countries that were united by language, ‘culture’ and history. However, the membership now includes a few non-former colonies including Mozambique, and Rwanda.
Although the Commonwealth was founded on the basis of equality and freedom, the values were applied subjectively. The organisation is also used to further neo-colonial interests of the former master.
The Sky News presenter argued that the British should not be a member of this Commonwealth, because most of the members (41 out of 53) outlaw gay rights, hence he sees no common purpose or shared values anymore.
But the key question is, is the Commonwealth as relevant today as it was in 1931 when it was founded or 1949 when it was formally constituted?
It may have been relevant during the colonial era to the minority white governments in colonial countries who wanted a strong cultural link with their kith and kin in mother country.
While the values of the Commonwealth Charter included respect of human rights, rule of law and democracy, however, the Commonwealth displayed double standards on matters concerning the oppression of blacks in the colonies during the colonial era.
In 1985, Margaret Thatcher opposed the Commonwealth’s bid to impose economic sanctions on apartheid South Africa. Thousands of black people were killed during the wars of independence, for example in Kenya and Zimbabwe, yet the Commonwealth through its head, the Queen of England, looked aside.
It is now obsessed with human rights (gay rights) after the member states have lost millions of citizens during wars of independence.
They died for their rights.
And under the watchdog of the head of the Commonwealth!
Countries like Nigeria, Pakistan and Zimbabwe (in 2002) have been suspended for alleged human rights abuses yet thousands of Africans died to have the same rights in the first place.
One of my friends compared the Commonwealth with an abusive and womanising husband who has been divorced by all his wives and still wants to keep them under one roof, and to teach them morals and faithfulness.
He said “kana muchato wapera vanhu vanoparadzana.
“I don’t see any logic in this gathering when the Empire is no more!”
Josh Chigwangwa, a Zimbabwean based in Hertfordshire and a blogger on international affairs says: “The Commonwealth is no longer relevant because it was formed on an unequal power basis, for Britain to parcel out its superiority and goods to colonies.
“Now the global wheel has shifted by 360 degrees.
“China, a country the British once humiliated during the Opium wars of the 19th century, is now a super power capable of giving AID to the UK.
“The balance of power has shifted.
“The global wheel has moved 360 degrees back to history and the British are begging China for contracts…things have changed.”
Dr Tawanda Madhlangobe, an educationist also based in Hertford thinks that the Commonwealth is irrelevant and does not preach its values.
He said “Forgive my ignorance, but why do the members of the Commonwealth accept the Head of State of one member to be permanent head of the commonwealth?
“Such an institution is hardly an example of democracy.
“More like a club of the 18th century, with the Queen as a sign of the imperial past which is yet to embrace itself on equal terms for all.
“Past sell by date if you ask me!”