By Mafa Kwanisai Mafa

THE ‘British Commonwealth’! 

Often referred to simply as the ‘Commonwealth’, it is a political association of nations primarily composed of former colonies the British Empire. 

It was established to purportedly promote ‘cooperation’, ‘mutual assistance’ and ‘shared values’. 

The organisation has faced criticism for perpetuating neo-colonial structures under the guise of ‘unity’ and ‘democracy’.

Zimbabwe, once a member of the Commonwealth, withdrew from the organisation in 2003, following intense political and economic pressure. Does the history and objectives of the British Commonwealth align with Zimbabwe’s revolutionary gains, sovereignty and liberation values? 

An anti-colonial, pan-Africanist, and anti-imperialist lens will guide this analysis.

History of the British Commonwealth

The British Commonwealth traces its roots to the decolonisation process of the British Empire.

Initially formed as the British Commonwealth of Nations in 1931 through the Statute of Westminster, it sought to redefine the relationship between Britain and its dominions, granting these territories legislative independence while maintaining symbolic ties to the British monarchy. In 1949, the London Declaration redefined the Commonwealth as a “. . . free association of independent nations”, allowing republics and monarchies alike to retain membership.

Today, the Commonwealth includes 56 member-states spanning Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas and the Pacific. 

Notably, the organisation purports to promote ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘good governance’ and ‘economic development’ among its members.

Zimbabwe’s exit from the Commonwealth

Zimbabwe became a member of the Commonwealth upon attaining independence in 1980.

Membership symbolised the country’s break from settler-colonial rule under Ian Douglas Smith’s Rhodesian regime, marking a new era of sovereignty under the leadership of Robert Gabriel Mugabe and ZANU PF. However, Zimbabwe’s membership came under scrutiny during the late 1990s and early 2000s, primarily due to its land reform, which sought to redistribute land from white commercial farmers to black Zimbabweans as a corrective measure for colonial dispossession.

This policy, though revolutionary, drew sharp criticism from Britain and other Western countries, leading to Zimbabwe’s suspension from the Commonwealth in 2002. 

Much as we are seeing in South Africa now, Western governments accused the Zimbabwean Government of ‘human rights abuses, electoral fraud and poor governance’, using these charges as pretexts to impose sanctions.

In response, Zimbabwe withdrew from the Commonwealth in 2003, with Mugabe famously stating: “Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans, not for the British.”

Neo-colonial or progressive?

The Commonwealth’s stated objectives include inter alia:  “…promoting democracy, human rights, and economic development”. 

However, critics argue that these ideals often serve as a smokescreen for neo-colonial influence. The organisation’s structures and policies have historically been skewed in favour of Britain, which retains disproportionate influence.

Member-states from the Global South are often subjected to scrutiny and conditionalities that undermine their sovereignty and developmental priorities.

For Zimbabwe, Commonwealth membership presented more challenges than opportunities. While it facilitated access to technical assistance and global forums, it also subjected the nation to undue interference in its internal affairs, particularly regarding its land reform and economic policies.

 Land reform and sovereignty

One of Zimbabwe’s most significant revolutionary achievements has been its land reform programme, which sought to address historical injustices perpetrated during colonial rule. By redistributing land to millions of landless Zimbabweans, the programme aimed to restore economic control and dignity to the black majority. Despite its challenges, mostly international sanctions, the policy represented a bold step toward true sovereignty and self-reliance.

Rejoining the Commonwealth raises concerns about whether Zimbabwe would be compelled to reverse or compromise these gains. The Commonwealth has historically aligned with Western interests, often pressuring member-states to adopt neo-liberal policies that prioritise foreign investment over national development. 

Put in the Zimbabwean context: ‘Padare unouya nedehwa; huni yaunosvikoisa pachoto kuti chibvire. Pasina izvo unodziya waani?’ (literally, how do you make the wealth ‘common’ when you are not bringing anything to the table?)

What does Britain have to offer to make the wealth a shared ‘common’!

For Zimbabwe, this could undermine its sovereignty, territorial integrity and revolutionary ethos.

Threat to liberation values and sovereignty From a pan-Africanist perspective, Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle epitomised the fight against colonial exploitation and imperialism. Rejoining the Commonwealth could be perceived as capitulation to Western pressure, particularly given the continued imposition of economic sanctions by Britain, the EU and the US. Such a move risks eroding the values of self-determination and anti-imperialism that have defined Zimbabwe’s post-independence trajectory.

Furthermore, the Commonwealth’s selective application of its principles raises questions about its commitment to equality and justice. While Zimbabwe was sanctioned for alleged human rights abuses, countries like Britain and the US have faced little accountability for their colonial and imperial crimes, including the transatlantic slave trade, resource exploitation, and military interventions.

Pan-African solidarity and the case against rejoining

Pan-Africanism advocates African unity, self-reliance and the rejection of external

domination. Zimbabwe’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth aligned with this vision, signalling  a refusal to bow to neo-colonial dictates. Rejoining the organisation without securing guarantees for respect of its sovereignty and revolutionary policies risks undermining Zimbabwe’s standing as a beacon of pan-African resistance.

African nations have historically borne the brunt of Western exploitation, from the Scramble for Africa to the imposition of structural adjustment programmes in the 1980s and 1990s. Zimbabwe’s defiance of Western-imposed norms, including its land reform and Education 5.0 policy, represents a broader struggle for the continent’s economic and intellectual liberation. Rejoining the Commonwealth without addressing these historical grievances could weaken Zimbabwe’s pan-Africanist commitments.

Economic sanctions and the push for re-engagement

Zimbabwe’s economic challenges, exacerbated by sanctions, have fuelled debate about re- engaging with the Commonwealth as a means of accessing international aid and investment.

While this argument has merit, it overlooks the need for sustainable, homegrown solutions.

Sanctions, often justified under the guise of promoting democracy, have disproportionately harmed ordinary Zimbabweans, restricting access to essential goods, services and financial

markets.

Re-engagement must, therefore, be approached cautiously, ensuring that it does not compromise Zimbabwe’s sovereignty or developmental priorities. The Government’s focus should remain on fostering regional integration, strengthening partnerships with fellow African nations and leveraging alliances with Eastern powers, like China and Russia, to counter Western hegemony.

Examples of Commonwealth double standards

The Commonwealth’s selective treatment of its members underscores its neo-colonial underpinnings. For instance, Britain’s continued occupation of the Chagos Archipelago, despite international court rulings, highlights its disregard for the sovereignty of Global South nations.

Similarly, Australia’s treatment of its indigenous population and Canada’s history of residential schools for First Nations people have attracted minimal censure from the Commonwealth.

In contrast, Zimbabwe faced relentless criticism and sanctions for pursuing land reform, a policy rooted in correcting colonial injustices. 

These double standards reveal the Commonwealth’s complicity in perpetuating Western dominance and its failure to address systemic inequalities among its member-states.

Recommendations: Charting a sovereign path forward

To safeguard its revolutionary gains and uphold its liberation values, Zimbabwe should adopt a measured approach to re-engagement. Any discussions about rejoining the Commonwealth must prioritise Zimbabwe’s sovereignty and the irreversibility of its land reform. λ Strengthening ties with the AU and regional bodies like SADC can provide a platform for collective resistance against external pressures. Zimbabwe must invest in self-reliance and policies such as Education 5.0, which emphasise innovation and industrialisation, should remain central to Zimbabwe’s development agenda.

Zimbabwe must expose Western hypocrisy. Zimbabwe should leverage international forums to highlight the Commonwealth’s double standards and advocate reparations for colonial injustices. 

Zimbabwe must forge alliances with emerging powers and strengthen partnerships with China, Russia, and other Eastern nations to counterbalance Western influence and foster economic growth.

By prioritising self-reliance, regional integration and alliances with like-minded nations, Zimbabwe can chart a path of sustainable development while resisting the duplicity of Western imperialism.

Re-engagement with the Commonwealth must, therefore, be approached with caution, ensuring that it serves the best interests of the Zimbabwean people and the broader pan-African struggle for liberation and self-determination.