skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This week the Centre for Economics and Business Research predicted that by 2015 the UK will drop from 7th to 11th in the list of the world’s biggest economies. Many people will be surprised to learn that China, India and Russia don’t already outrank the British economy, but no, apparently this will happen sometime in the next six years.
As we come to the end of the decade (and don’t let the Queen tell you it’s still the noughties for one more year!), it’s tempting to look back and ponder ten years of constant change. Ten years ago the internet was already a part of many of our lives; now it’s insinuated itself into our very culture. Ten years ago we’d all heard of terrorism but most of us had never heard of Al Qaeda. And ten years ago we all knew that eventually the Chinese would start to throw their economic weight around; this is the decade in which it’s actually started to happen.
But it would be fatuous to spend too much time looking back, because the forces which brought about these and other dramatic changes will move even more quickly in the 2010s and 2020s than they have in the 2000s.
Of all the modules on the Mini-MBA, ironically it’s Module 9, Management of Change, which has had to be revised and rewritten more than any other. In one way or another, everyone from prime ministers to humble business trainers is busy coping with the white heat of change.
The biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting has just taken place in Port of Spain. There are 54 members in the Commonwealth club. Unlike the British Empire from which it evolved, each member is free to leave the club – as Zimbabwe did in 2003 – and each has decided voluntarily to join.
Traditionally the members have in common a shared history of British rule. However Mozambique – a former Portuguese colony – joined in 1995, and Rwanda – once German, later Belgian, never once British – has just been accepted as a member. Less widely known, at least seven other countries without a historical link to the British Empire (Cambodia, East Timor, Algeria, Madagascar, DR Congo, Angola and Eritrea) have either applied to join the Commonwealth or have expressed an interest in joining.
The obvious question is why? Why would any self-respecting nation want to be a member of a club organised by its former colonisers, and, still more puzzling, why would anyone for whom the British weren’t their colonial power be the slightest bit interested?
In Rwanda’s case, the initial impetus was a falling-out with France. Although it had never been colonised by France, Rwanda’s period under Belgian control had left it with a francophone education system. The relationship with France having soured in the aftermath of the Rwandan Civil War, Rwanda has turned to the Commonwealth. Rwanda does at least share a border with two Commonwealth countries: Uganda is to the north, and Tanzania to the east.
Mozambique shares borders with six other countries, all of them members of the Commonwealth at the time of its accession. Again, perhaps it was natural to want to join the same club as all the neighbours. But what, exactly, do Rwanda and Mozambique actually gain from being members of the Commonwealth, and what do the other prospective members hope to gain?
The usual argument is that the Commonwealth stands for democracy, stability, human rights and the rule of law. That’s what it says in its constitution. And, from time to time, a member will be suspended for going against these principles. But that hasn’t prevented military coups in Pakistan, Fiji and Nigeria, and (to say the least) corrupt regimes in Zimbabwe, South Africa and elsewhere.
There are, of course, fringe benefits. Commonwealth leaders get to meet the Queen every two years, and every four years their athletes can compete at a major Games which doesn’t involve the USA, China and Continental Europe. (Unfortunately still not much help for Britain’s 10,000-metre runners!)
Of course, the benefits of Commonwealth membership are complex and may differ from case to case. But the real point of Commonwealth membership is that it satisfies the basic human instinct for belonging. Not for us citizens, but for our national leaders. At every level and in every situation, whether at home, at school, at work or anywhere else where we gather and spend time, human beings benefit from the company of their peers. That’s primarily why national leaders spend so much of their time visiting other national leaders, when in reality the business could just as easily be done by phone, or by mere mortals.
Just as the rest of us enjoy the feeling of togetherness that we get from a chat at the water-cooler or in the canteen, our national leaders benefit from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the G20 Summit, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, and any other chance they can get to affirm their sense of belonging. I can’t help wondering if this need could be pandered to in a less expensive way.
At a less lofty level, the psychology and the consequences of this human need for belonging are discussed in Module 4 (Motivation) of the Mini-MBA.
