The Commonwealth and democracy

Salman Haidar, Former Indian Foreign Secretary, The Statesman, Asia News Network, Calcutta

Another Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) has taken place, this time in Australia, and once again obituary notices for the organization are being written. Nothing very much ever seems to happen at a CHOGM.

Sometimes there is a clash that attracts passing attention, more usual is the routine sort of affair that takes place every two years to widespread international indifference. However, at the end of the Australia meeting, sparks were flying. Tony Blair's disenchantment was made known, and later there was an angry statement by Thabo Mbeki. These reactions grew out of acute disagreement on the subject of democracy in Zimbabwe.

India was not in the thick of it for disastrous events at home had compelled a last-minute pullout by the Prime Minister and the country was represented by its minister for external affairs. In another setting, this may not have made a great difference, but at CHOGM, the Heads are inclined to communicate essentially among themselves.

The Prime Minister of an island of a couple of hundred thousand individuals has a louder voice than the foreign minister of a billion people. That is the nature of the club, and the best recourse for any non-Head is to let the debate swirl around him and say little, for he will be hard pressed to make his point.

The issue that caused such division in Australia is the question of democratic standards in Zimbabwe. The Commonwealth has made democracy its beat, requiring of its members that they do not fall short on this count.

Attention has been focused on expropriation and redistribution of choice farmland, and on the attendant law and order problems. Robert Mugabe is accused of high-handedness and of ignoring legal norms.

Commonwealth disapproval can lead to suspension or even cancellation of the membership of an errant country. In the past, Fiji has been forced to withdraw in the face of Commonwealth rejection of its racist policies.

Pakistan has been under the Commonwealth's democratic hammer. At the Auckland CHOGM in 1996, it was decided to suspend Nigeria's membership, in a sharp rebuke to the military government of the time that ignored high-level appeals for clemency and went ahead with plans to execute political prisoners even while the meeting was in progress.

This was predictable, perhaps, for the Auckland decision became possible only because it was advocated by Nelson Mandela. He was at the time the outstanding world statesman, with unrivaled moral authority, and others could not fail to follow where he gave the lead.

There was no comparable figure in Australia. As a result, efforts to bring pressure on Zimbabwe bore only bitter fruit. The (that is, white) members lined up against the others and the argument about democratic practice in Zimbabwe took on unfortunate racial overtones.

He led his country to independence and is the only President it has ever known. This election, however, unlike earlier ones, has been condemned by the Commonwealth observer team sent there to certify that proper procedures had been maintained.

This remains a live concern and we may well see further attempts to force Zimbabwe to pay a price for perceived rigging of the polls. India has not been called on to take a position thus far but that immunity will be difficult to maintain if calls for sanctions gain momentum.