Information Related to "She Used to Be Our Queen, Too..."
| Audio/Video |
by Melvin Rhodes
When Elizabeth II ascended the throne 50 years ago in 1952, Britain's African possessions were larger than the entire United States of America. Today Britain has no African empire. Yet Queen Elizabeth herself remains popular throughout the continent. Africa's postcolonial realities help us understand why.
Extensive celebrations are taking place across Britain this year to mark the queen's golden jubilee. Her 50-year reign has seen the United Kingdom transformed beyond all recognition from the head of the world's greatest empire to a member of the European Union. The demographic makeup of Britain differs greatly from when Elizabeth became queen, while the morals and way of life of the people have radically altered- including the behavior of a few younger members of the royal family itself.
Nonetheless, much appreciation will rain on Queen Elizabeth II, whose position as head of state for 50 years has contributed to the nation's stability during a time of radical change.
During the celebrations it is unlikely that much attention will be paid to the queen's African role. At one time almost all of Britain's African possessions had their own parliaments, with the British monarch as their own head of state-reflecting the political system evolved over centuries in the mother country, often called "the mother of parliaments."
In a continent that has since become a byword for political unrest and instability, Britain's African territories were noteworthy examples of political stability. Often overlooked is that the nations that have shared in the British system of government have for centuries enjoyed a good measure of political soundness.
No economic progress can come without political stability. Sadly, since independence, most African nations have gone backwards economically. At least one reason for this has been a lack of stability. No country in Africa has developed a political model that works as well as the British colonial political system.
Perhaps this is one reason for what the British publication The Economist has referred to as Africa's continued fascination with Britain's monarchy.
Major changes in postwar Africa
After World War II Britain's royal family toured the empire's African possessions to thank them for their contributions to the Allied war effort. Wherever the royals went they were mobbed by millions of their subjects who at the time still gloried in being part of the empire upon which the sun never set.
 |
| Britain's Queen Elizabeth II appears in the first public engagement of her jubilee year in January. She assumed the throne in 1952 on the death of her father, King George VI. This year marks her 50th on the British throne. |
It was to be the last such tour before the African world turned upside down. Present on the tour were King George VI and his wife, Queen Elizabeth, parents of the present monarch. They were accompanied by their two daughters, Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret Rose.
While in Johannesburg, South Africa, in the year that preceded the coming to power of the Afrikaner Nationalist Party, which introduced apartheid, Princess Elizabeth turned 21. On her birthday she broadcast her greetings by radio to the nations of the British Empire and Commonwealth.
Less than four months later the rapid dismantling of the British Empire would begin with Britain's granting of independence to India and Pakistan. In her broadcast Princess Elizabeth dedicated her life to the service "of the great imperial family to which we all belong," the commonwealth of nations that had been the world's foremost power for nearly two centuries. Few at that time realized its end was imminent. Almost no one realized its prophetic significance.
Less than five years later, in 1952, the princess again visited Africa, this time accompanied by her husband, their having married in November 1947, a few months after that first tour. On a visit to Kenya Colony's Treetops game reserve during the 1952 tour, the 25-year-old princess became queen upon the death of her father, George VI.
George VI's wife assumed the title of queen mother when Elizabeth ascended the throne. (The queen mum, as she would affectionately come to be known, died in her sleep in March 2002 at the age of 101, having enjoyed a long and eventful life of service.)
In 1952, Britain's African possessions still seemed secure. Members of the royal family were warmly received wherever they went. In 1953, the year of the new queen's actual crowning, loyal African troops that had helped fight World War II in the jungles of the Far East and the deserts of the Sahara walked in Elizabeth's coronation procession through the streets of London.
Meanwhile, African nations moved forward. World War II had seen attitudes change. Fighting alongside British soldiers had altered the Africans' perceptions. No longer were they content to be subservient to their British rulers; they now saw themselves as equals. African nationalist movements were to spring up throughout the continent.
The suffrage widened in many countries, enabling more people to vote. Although voting privileges in Britain's colonies were designed to be nondiscriminatory, before the Second World War parliaments were usually dominated by politicians of European descent. This changed rapidly. Only two years after Queen Elizabeth II's coronation, Britain's most progressive African colony, the Gold Coast (now Ghana), negotiated for independence. Its African "chief minister," Kwame Nkrumah, went to London to draw up a proposed constitution for the new nation.
The independence model to be introduced was the one that had worked successfully in other former colonies, notably Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. All these nations had opted for "dominion" status, whereby the countries became entirely independent of British control but retained loyalty to the British monarch as their head of state, thereby sharing in the benefits of the most stable political system, one that dated to 1688.
These independent nations, all constitutional monarchies, formed the British Commonwealth, often described at the time even by nonmembers such as the United States as an association of free peoples. The Commonwealth was renowned for its political stability, rule of law and basic freedoms (of speech, the press and religion) for all citizens. Sadly, this was all about to change.
Changes affect the Commonwealth
The seeds of change had already been sown. Two years after independence from Great Britain, the Indian government expressed its desire to remove the British monarch as India's head of state but emphasized its desire to remain in the Commonwealth.
A formula was worked out that would enable India to become a republic but retain its membership in the Commonwealth by recognizing the monarch as head of the Commonwealth, a title Elizabeth still holds. The groundwork for significant change had been laid. Regrettably, dictatorships were to follow independence in many of Britain's former colonies, with resultant negative economic effects, the breakdown of law and order and loss of freedoms.
Ghana is typical of this trend.
Even before independence, Kwame Nkrumah told his British advisers he could "ride a coach and horses" through the constitution once his country gained independence. This is what he figuratively did, with other nations following in Ghana's footsteps.
On March 6, 1957, the modern nation of Ghana was born. Tens of thousands of people carried placards bearing the words "Elizabeth and Nkrumah forever," reflecting their commitment to their new nation and the monarchy. Two years later Nkrumah proposed abolishing that tie. A referendum was held. Many older Ghanaians believe the vote was rigged.
| As Britain celebrates Queen Elizabeth's 50 years on the throne, few could have imagined the astounding changes in the nations of the British Commonwealth- particularly those in Africa- during her lifetime. |
Nkrumah became president; the tie with the crown was abolished. One year later parliament proclaimed Nkrumah "president for life."A year after that the parliament was itself abolished. In only four years Ghana's parliamentary democracy, which had given the country stability for a century, was no more. At the same time one of the wealthiest African nations was bankrupt in the wake of government mismanagement and endemic corruption. Ghana and the rest of Africa were on their way to disaster.
After the loss of the Suez Canal in 1956, Britain rapidly dismantled its African empire. British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, addressing the South African parliament in Cape Town, warned that "the winds of change" were sweeping across Africa. Not eager for the effects of those winds, South Africa left the Commonwealth and ended its tie with the queen. With the end of apartheid in 1994, it rejoined the association as a republic.
The neighboring self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia (as it was then called)-fearful of the rapid changes in Africa that inevitably led to dictatorship, corruption and nepotism, with an accompanying white flight of skilled Europeans from chaos and civil war-unilaterally declared itself independent of Great Britain in November 1965 while trying to remain loyal to the British crown.
This ill-fated attempt at halting the tide of history led to seven bloody years of civil war and the ultimate birth of Zimbabwe (as Rhodesia was renamed). One of the most prosperous nations of Africa in colonial times, Zimbabwe is the world's most rapidly declining economy as it descends further into dictatorship and economic chaos.
Changing role for the queen
Is it any wonder that African nations and other countries in the Commonwealth continue in their fascination with Queen Elizabeth? Older people remember a time of political stability and economic progress, of law and order and guaranteed freedoms. It wasn't perfect, certainly. Only God can establish a utopia. The problem is that nothing better has replaced the system instituted and maintained by the British Commonwealth.
Perhaps a Ghanaian market woman summed it up best when I opened my wallet to buy some produce. She saw there a British bank note with the queen's portrait on it. "Ah, Queen Elizabeth," she said. "She used to be our queen, too. Since then we have had many, many presidents, coups and military dictatorships, and we are worse off. In England they still have Queen Elizabeth."
The British monarch continues to play a role in Africa and elsewhere, visiting Commonwealth nations that have sent her official invitations and with which she is familiar. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference held in March in Coolum, Australia, virtually every head of government of the 54-nation Commonwealth was scheduled for a private audience with the queen. This included African leaders who also see the queen on visits to London.
Ironically, Elizabeth II seems to be more appreciated in Africa than in countries where she still reigns as head of state, notably the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some of the islands of the Caribbean and Pacific.
These nations have continued to enjoy political stability as constitutional monarchies on the British model-stability that is largely taken for granted by many of their citizens. Even The Economist wrote in its latest yearbook that the introduction of a republic in Australia "would probably require an extensive rewrite of the constitution if it were not to introduce the danger of an over-powerful head of state" (The World in 2002, p. 42).
|
Recommended
Reading
|
|
What was behind the surprising rise and sudden decline of the British Empire? For a deeper understanding of where the British Commonwealth fits in Bible prophecy, be sure to request our free booklet The United States and Britain in Prophecy. Request
or download
your free copy today
|
In other words, political instability would likely be the outcome of removing the hereditary monarch as head of state, though certainly to a lesser degree than in thirdworld nations that were once a part of the British Empire.
Often underappreciated, even at home in England, is the primary purpose of the restoration of the monarchy in the 17th century-the desire on the part of the people never to experience another dictatorship, whether royal or republican. A dictatorship was England's experience during the reign of Charles I and under the illfated republic of 1649-60. America's founding fathers created another republic a century later with weaker central government, a system that has worked well for the United States but has met far less success anywhere else, including Africa.
As for Africa, hope for the troubled continent lies in the future, when African countries will again come under a constitutional monarchy. This time it will be a perfect government that will last forever. The King will be Jesus Christ, the constitution the laws of God. You can read about this future in your Bible:
"Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever" (Isaiah 9:7).
"'. . . He (Jesus Christ) will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.' For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem" (Isaiah 2:3). GN
Related Information:
Table of Contents that includes "She Used to Be Our Queen, Too..."
Other Articles by Melvin Rhodes
Origin of article "She Used to Be Our Queen, Too..."
Keywords: British commonwealth Queen Elizabeth British empire Ghana Africa, British colonial
British commonwealth: