Commonwealth Could Be Britain’s Post-Brexit Break

Taking on the leadership of the Commonwealth is a boost for the country embattled in precarious Brexit negotiations and trying to reimagine its place in the world.

In April, Britain hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which was billed as the largest gathering of heads of states in the UK for a long time. Taking on the leadership of the Commonwealth is a boost for the country embattled in precarious Brexit negotiations and trying to reimagine its place in the world.

The summit set the agenda for a sustainable future, hosting a civil society forum, as well as forums for women, youth and business — and the UK found its job tricky. As the summit started, the British government was faced with the prospect of an embarrassing apology and a U-turn over the treatment of the Windrush generation — immigrants from the Caribbean who came to rebuild Britain after the Second World War, many of whom recently faced deportation by the Home Office.

If the UK thought that it could breeze into the chairmanship of the Commonwealth, it misread the signs. Britain, mindful of its colonial history, should be careful in how it displays humility in taking up the leadership of the Commonwealth amidst the challenges the organization is facing. The Commonwealth, to some extent, remains a voluntary space for countries to opt into, where everyone from the small island state of Vanuatu to the big three — UK, Canada and Australia — are equal.

FACING CLIMATE CHANGE

One unique challenge for the Commonwealth will be climate change. Many of its members are small island states, and over the next few years they will face increasing humanitarian challenges as extreme weather events, like last year’s Hurricanes Irma and Maria, become more frequent. Leadership toward responding and making communities more resilient to climate change will need to be balanced with sustainable development.

Many countries within the Commonwealth are rapidly developing, meaning they will face the challenge of “people, cities and resources.” The world’s population passed the 1 billion mark in 1810, doubled in the next hundred years, and by 2010 hovered around 7 billion. The projection for 2030 is 9 billion. But the issue here is not pure numbers — it’s resources. When the global total reached 1 billion, just 3% — 30 million people — lived in cities. Today, the world is 50% urbanized, meaning that 3.5 billion people live in metropolitan areas.

While urbanization is by no means bad per se, it provides a different set of issues to contend with. The prospect of shadow economies, political violence coupled with the relentless drive for money and status, manifesting itself in gang violence, creates reasons for concern. Some of the urban violence coming out of Johannesburg and Nairobi showcases the challenge of rapid urbanization, while many of the small island states in the Caribbean or the Maldives struggle with gang violence, especially among the youth population.

In fact the World Health Organization’s Global status report on violence prevention 2014 shows that within low and middle income countries, the highest estimated rates of homicide occur in the Americas, with 28.5 homicides per 100,000 population, followed by Africa, at 10.9 homicides per 100,000, due to gang violence. The lowest estimated rate of homicide is in the low and middle income countries of the Western Pacific, with 2.1 homicides per 100,000. Where state institutions are weak, violence becomes cyclical and relentless, as criminal violence is traditionally met with the violence by law enforcement.

The Commonwealth is also not immune to the global migration crisis, which has seen the highest number of displaced people and refugees since the end of the Second World War. As the UNHCR reports, an unprecedented 65.6 million people around the world have been forced from home. Among them are nearly 22.5 million refugees, over half of whom are under the age of 18. These demographic changes are putting new stresses on how we engage with and exclude each other as societies across the world are seeing a backlash of racism and xenophobia.

BRIDGING THE GAPS

Yet the Commonwealth offers opportunities to bridge those gaps, given its shared history. The Civil Paths to Peace report by the Commonwealth Commission on Respect and Understanding suggested a framework for all stakeholders — government, media, civil society, business and so on — to explore the complexities around violent behavior and its causes, putting forward ways of building dialogue between communities in the Commonwealth.

The report addresses the narrowing space for civil society and asks for its mobilization to confront violence as well as engage in the process of democracy. It includes the removal of gross economic inequalities, social humiliations and political disenfranchisement that can contribute to generating confrontation and hostility. It calls, in effect, for an integrated approach to dealing with all economic, social and cultural issues that are related to conflict.

The report recognizes cultural and social factors, as well as features of political economy, are all important in understanding violence. It puts forward the premise that there is a need for greater respect and understanding of diversity, to counter disquiet, disaffection and violence: “If the cultivation of respect and understanding is both important in itself and consequential in reducing violence and terrorism in the world, the link between the two lies in the understanding the cultivated violence is generated through fomenting disrespect and fostering confrontational misunderstandings.”

The concept of developing respect and understanding is further cemented by the Nobel laureate, professor Amartya Sen, in his book, Identity and Violence, the premise of which states that the key to good citizenship and social cohesion is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries.

It is the recognition of this plurality and the searching for commonalities within this pluralism that will lead to greater respect and ultimately understanding and acceptance. Thus, these new solutions will have to challenge people to accept diversity and create equal opportunities for multicultural communities, ethnicities, traditions, cultures and faiths. The new solutions will also have to take into account the existence of multiple identities that add a richness and variety to diversity and pluralism as part of a common wealth that needs to be celebrated in the global civil society and integrated into life as a positive force for development.

NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Addressing this, the Commonwealth Commission argued for more dialogue and discussion on the richness of human identities and the counterproductive nature of placing people in rigidly separated identity boxes, linked with religion or community. At the 2007 Commonwealth People’s Forum in Kampala, Uganda, civil society leaders called for “the creation of an enabling environment to foster: unity in diversity, where there would be respectful and meaningful dialogue and collaboration between people with different identities and values; and practical grassroots action and community linking partnerships to build peace, prosperity and well-being for all Commonwealth Citizens.” This was very much in keeping with the Civil Paths to Peace mandate for an engaged process toward respect and understanding.

A decade later, the UK government has an opportunity to revisit these principles and create an environment to foster the knowledge and engagement needed for a sustainable future to be created. It must understand that there are lessons to be learned from, as well as provided to, the Commonwealth. It must first start by accepting that there has to be a space for different voices to be heard within the organization, be it the youth, women, the private sector or civil society. The latter in particular is an integral part of the Commonwealth DNA, providing not only dialogue, but also dissonance.

In an era of shrinking civil society space worldwide, Britain should champion the role of civil society globally, seeing it as a partner and not a service provider or instrument of foreign action. There is much to be done to reclaim the basic rights being lost in the clampdown on civic space or even the rights being lost in a digital world. Post Brexit, the UK has to battle the rising tide of populism to respond to the weakness of democracy and use this as an opportunity to reimagine what the Commonwealth can be: not just a club for former British colonies, but a vibrant space for innovation and thinking, with a youth dividend that is multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious, that can pave the way for what diverse societies could and should be — based around partnerships and sharing.

This originally appeared on Fair Observer

My thoughts of the Olympics Opening Ceremony

I am a sports fan and love watching the Olympics.  It symbolises all the best in the human sporting excellence and dedication and somehow also represents an opportunity for a pause button (rightly or wrongly) on world affairs as for about two weeks much of the focus is on the athletes.  I see the Olympics as a great opportunity to learn and understand from each other, as athletes engage with people from countries they probably would never engage with (I’m thinking USA and Iran), and a time for reflection as the Olympic Truce is observed for about 100 days.  Finally it is a time for learning as you actually discover countries that you have not even heard of, but realise that life goes on outside of the bubble that you are accustomed to.  Politics, corporate sponsorship, tickets aside, the Olympics is probably one of the more unifying shows around the world.

When the Olympics was awarded to London, I remember the excitement that greeted it, followed by the sudden realisation of reality as the next day, 7/7 took place.  In those 7 years, the Olympic debate and its engagement with communities took a back shelf as security took a higher priority.  For the Muslim community in particular, the scrutiny on radicalisation and constant obsession with identity and affiliation, has meant that they have been fighting fires and seeking justification, which is a shame as a majority of them primarily reside close to the main Olympic parks and thus should be recipients and equal partners in the infrastructural regeneration that has so far taken place and the social regeneration that is anticipated afterwards.

It is tough to articulate the mood of the country in the run up to the Olympics.  The austerity measures have really started to strangle people and last year’s riots shocked the nation into once again questioning the disconnect within society.  Add to this, the coalition government’s attempt, led by the Tories, to artificially construct some sort of British identity and affiliation by somehow negating multiculturalism, as was apparent by David Cameron’s speech last year in Munich, and has meant that for many migrant and Diaspora communities, it has been a period of a few uncertain years.

Now the actual conversation on multiculturalism is a complex one.  Do we talk about multiculturalism in allowing diversity as a lived experience or one that is a set of policies to manage such diversity?  More often than not we find a conflation of the two, where immigration is encouraged so that the experience of a society is transformed by diversity, making it more vibrant and cosmopolitan, but also there are a set of policies which manage diversity by putting people into boxes (defining individual needs and rights) and using those boxes to shape public policy. 

What this means is that conversation takes place in silos where inequalities in social policies are blamed on the immigrants or one section of the community is targeted as being the problem or that tackling sections of the community is only done through a security perspective ignoring underlying social contexts.

The discussion of identity and belonging also cannot take place in a contextual vacuum. If people feel continuously marginalised by social exclusion or perceived discrimination, they will feel reluctant to articulate an identity that says that they belong.

In the last two years, the debate has been magnified with the Royal wedding in 2011 and the Queen’s Jubilee Celebrations earlier on this year, where despite the best efforts to try and carve a ‘British’ identity from them, it was noticeable that amongst the thousands that celebrated publicly in their localities or in London, very few came from immigrant communities or were second / third generation expats. For a large majority of them in particular those coming from former colonial countries such as the West Indies and the Indian Subcontinent, a British identity that has strong resonance, affiliation and link with the Royal family is problematic as it brings into the discussion the painful issues of colonialism and the past suffering.  Many from previous British colonies are only in the UK because of the mess that their countries of heritage are in after post colonial independence.  However to divorce the Royal family from British identity is equally to strip it of one of its fundamental pillars.  So there remains an impasse.

Hence it was always going to be interesting at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in London as to what route would be taken in terms of defining a British identity.  Much has been written about the ceremony both positive and negative.   Much to the dismay of a lot of people, it didn’t acknowledge the well known icons of the UK nor the empire and perhaps it was felt didn’t represent the old values of the UK. People complained that the historical sequences were not representative enough or that the modern day sequences had missed out bits. Equally though there were people who praised it and felt affirmed by what they had seen.  Some of these positive comments came from people who are normally cynical about anything to do with British identity.

From my perspective, what I enjoyed most about the ceremony was that it was about appreciating everyday people who make up the UK and things to do with their everyday lives, be it music, the health service, their kids.  The people represented were of all colours and all faiths, sizes, gender and age.  It celebrated the inventors, artists and scholars and acknowledged the activists.  

This is what I think is the most important aspect of the opening ceremony as it gave a most vivid blueprint for what it means to be British in the modern day.  Granted that much of what Britain stands for are built on empire and history which means there are those who feel apologies should be made for this or that this should be incorporated in articulating an identity.  However I feel that a 21^st century British identity is one that is made up individuals who have their own multiple identities. As Amartya Sen says in his book, ‘Identity and Violence’ the key to good citizenship and social cohesion which are components in a cosmopolitan society is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries.

Danny Boyle’s piece left me in no doubt of articulating what Amartya Sen was trying to say. It is the sum of these individual parts that a strong vibrant British identity can be borne that has a multi ethnic choir and some one of Asian Muslim heritage doing the 7/7 memorial dance.

Of course there is much to be done within social policies, education and community cohesion to translate that into practice.  The reality is that there are a lot of challenges facing people from their own contexts and heritage, just trying to break through social inequalities and make a better life for themselves and their families without worrying too much about what it means to be British.  What the Olympics Opening Ceremony did was to affirm and appreciate this in the overall pursuit of the grand vision for the identity. In the end, it has opened another window not only into the discussion of what it means to be British but has set a new paradigm for determining British identity, one that has more resonance with everyday people.

An edited version of this was published in the British Council's Our Shared Future Blog

Victoria and Abdul

I am a self confessed history geek that loves nothing better than to get into a story from the past that not only has as much relevance to today’s context  as it did when it first made an appearance but was a trendsetter in terms of policy, attitude and thoughts then as it actually does now.

Few however have managed to tick all the boxes for me apart from the story of ‘Victoria & Abdul’.  When I first came across the book ‘Victoria & Abdul: The True Story of the Queen’s closest confidant’ written by Shrabani Basu, it was more of an innocent interest of a historical story that made me venture in, but by the time I was finished, I was convinced that this was something greater.  It is what prompted me to convince our organisation to have it as the launch of our new Cordoba Heritage Series on the 10^th of May 2012.

For those of us who have at one stage or another studied Victorian history, this is a relatively unknown story.

In June 1887 two Indian servants were sent to Queen Victoria as a present for her Golden Jubilee. One was the 24-year-old Abdul Karim.   Young Karim immediately caught the Queen’s eye and was rapidly promoted to become her Indian Secretary in 1894. He cooked her curries, became her Hindustani tutor and delighted the elderly Queen with his stories about India, especially as she had not visited the sub continent despite having the grand title of ‘Empress of India’, and soon became the lonely monarch’s closest companion.

She honoured him with titles, gave him houses in Windsor, Balmoral and Osborne and extensive land in Agra.   However this relationship did not go down well with the strict hierarchical world of the royal household.  They were not only opposed to the idea of a servant being catapulted into such prominence by the Queen’s side but were also scandalised by his race. At a time of great flux for the British Empire in India, the idea that there was an Indian advising the Queen ‘on Indian politics’ became unacceptable and rumours started to circulate that Abdul Karim was passing the Queen inflammatory advice about India and that he was a spy leaking sensitive and secret foreign policy information.

On the eve of her diamond jubilee her family and courtiers even threatened to declare her insane in a bid to quash a potentially scandalous relationship.  However despite these objections, the Queen stood by Abdul Karim, even accusing her household of racial prejudice, till her last days, refusing to let him go.  When she died in 1901, he was the final person to see her before she was buried and walked behind her funeral casket as her orders.  However with her death, Abdul Karim became an ostracised man and was immediately exiled back to India, with members of the royal household marching into Abdul Karim’s home, seizing all items bearing the royal crest and burning all his letters from the Queen.  He would die eight years later at the age of 46, a largely broken man in virtual obscurity, a far cry from the times he was the most recognised member of Queen Victoria’s household.  In the partition that would follow the independence of India in 1947, his descendants would be forced to move to Pakistan where they were relatively unknown and the story of Abdul Karim would be forgotten from their history, until Shrabani found them whilst doing research for her book.  Now his mausoleum in Agra, India is being catered for by his great grandson and the story has since made the public sphere in the UK in the past few weeks with an article in one of the tabloids and a documentary on TV and the rights being sold by the author for a movie to be made.

Victoria & Abdul is not only the story of an unusual relationship between the Empress of India and a humble servant which flourished at a time when the British Empire was at its height but it allows us a glimpse at the narrative of the British empire and their attitude towards their subjects which provides the foundation for much of our heritage and legacy today.  

Queen Victoria was definitely a pioneer in her fight for equality against racism and status.   What makes the story even more interesting is that for the last 10 years of her life, her bodyguards and servants were all Indian Muslim led by Abdul Karim.   The relationship between the crown and Islam could have been fractious given the socio political contexts of Crimea and the Ottoman empire, yet Queen Victoria was adamant on how she would approach the relationship with her Muslim subjects and the support she would give those under her rule.  This is an important message that transcends the history pages for today.

As the UK sets to celebrate only the second time in its history, the diamond jubilee of a reigning monarch, there are many similarities between that time and now.  There are problems in Europe and in relationships with the Muslim world, with Muslim citizens of the UK having a spotlight shone on them in terms of their loyalty.  The story of Victoria and Abdul shows that true friendship and loyalty transcends these boundaries of race, ethnicity and faith.  Yet for second and third generation Muslims in the UK and in Europe, the lesson from this story is that Islam has had a long, fractious but also healthy relationship (at the highest echelons of power), with mutual admiration and support being shown, with the UK (and Europe).  This is the heritage that we collectively have and must proudly propagate in the face of those who seek to be divisive.

This is what we at The Cordoba Foundation seek to do with our Cordoba Heritage Series which is aimed at exploring, understanding and appreciating our common heritage and creative legacy to offer solutions to difficult questions of identity and belonging in today's  'West'.  By exploring the shared history that acknowledges the many sources of western culture from the east, we recognise the history of empire as a history that belongs equally to all its heirs, of every race, faith and nation.  

It is about redefining the role of history as a dispassionate exploration of the past which supports entrenched positions and inhibits understanding looking at a more open minded approach to the writing of an intercultural history to modern Europe.   

It is in doing this study that we can establish a firm and secure identity for Europe and its second and third generation migrants.

An edited version of this was published on the British Council's Our Shared Future Blog