“Disband the Commonwealth” demanded a recent Observer writer, apparently forgetting it is a voluntary organization whose members can leave whenever they wish. Indeed the commonwealth’s very existence is an implicit acknowledgement that British colonial rule generally did more good than harm. Why would any country choose to be part of an association whose founding member had a mostly negative effect on its development?

To be sure imperial Britain was often arrogant, racist, greedy, and brutal. Plantation slavery, the Indian mutiny repression, the East and Southern Africa dispossessions, and the Amritsar massacre were just a few of its crimes. Yet human actions are never absolutely good or evil and must be judged in the light of what has gone before. And for all its sins, the British Empire was from a global perspective probably the most benevolent political institution in history.

It was indisputably the most humane empire ever known, including the Mesopotamian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Greco-Roman, Chinese, Inca, Aztec, Byzantine, Islamic, Mongolian, Ottoman, Mogul, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Japanese, French and Russian. Ho Chi Min commented in the 1930s that if Ghandi had been a French subject he would long since have ascended into heaven. And nothing in the British record even faintly resembles the early 1900s Herero massacre in Namibia when German colonialists killed over 60,000 people and reduced the tribal population by over 80%.

Like old age then, the British Crown was not so bad considering the alternatives. Certainly no other conquering force ever carried out such extensive educational, health, transportation, and political improvements in its dominions. British ruled Jamaicans for instance enjoyed more freedom and justice than American blacks.

And British colonial administration was mostly a huge improvement on the absolutist traditional rule it replaced. For while it is possible to argue as to whether the benefits of Britain’s rule outweighed the costs it imposed, it makes no sense to even ask such questions about chiefs and rajahs who ruled completely in their own self-interest. The British legacy in Southern Africa for example was positively paradisiacal compared with that of the militarily great but cruel Chief Shaka Zulu, whose conquests were called by those who suffered simply “mfecane”, or the crushing.

This is not to ignore the horrible effects of slavery, for even today the social fabric in many African countries has not recovered. But no one people was responsible for this obscenity - Britons, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, Americans and Arabs all played major roles in perhaps man’s greatest act of inhumanity to man. And yet, though it was no atonement, it was Britain who first abolished slavery in its domains and then stamped out the international slave trade.

Now Britain did not conquer a quarter of the map for reasons of goodwill, and never hesitated to extract wealth or appropriate land. The empire lasted over 300 years primarily because it was of great economic benefit to its motherland, and was only disbanded when it could no longer pay for itself. Yet unlike virtually any conquering power before it, imperial Britain not only peacefully set free those it ruled but tried to leave them with some kind of functioning government. And though the attempt often failed, half of the world’s 50 most democratic nations are former British colonies.

True a few guerilla wars were fought against the British. But the losses in these were miniscule compared to what their attempts at freedom cost subjects of the Roman, Chinese, or Ottoman empires. Or for that matter those in Spanish, German, French or Portuguese colonies. The Franco-Algerian independence war alone wasted a million lives, and perhaps it is guilt over Algeria and Vietnam that makes France so generous to its former African colonies.

And just as there is no historical precedence to the peaceful dismantling of the British Empire, so is the commonwealth a unique institution. Whenever else did the former subjects of a conqueror voluntarily form what can only be called a political club?

Now the commonwealth has little direct economic clout and its membership includes no contractual organizations but merely a commitment to a set of beliefs. But amazingly for an institution whose only weapon really is moral suasion, it continues to play an important part in the life of its members. Its suspension of Zimbabwe after its recent rigged elections was certainly regarded by everyone as a serious blow to Robert Mugabe’s presidency. This guilty verdict by his peers will probably not have any immediate results, but was at least a message to the Zimbabwean people that they were not alone in their fight for democratic rights. It may not be much, but it is more than any non-commonwealth nation whose democracy was threatened could hope for.

So while not perfect, the commonwealth has lived up to its unique reputation as a multi-racial body dedicated to promoting democratic principles, good governance and human rights among its membership. It is remarkable really how a shared heritage and language enables commonwealth countries to work together in an atmosphere of cooperation and understanding envied by non-members. This is most evident at the commonwealth games, for at these justifiably titled “friendly games” competitors display a sense of camaraderie unparalleled at any comparable major sporting event.

As for those who think any if this argues for some kind of inherent “British racial superiority”, well were was this “superiority” before the 16^th century? For until then Britain was a barbarous country compared to Egypt, Italy, China or India. It was merely a fortuitous combination of factors that gave birth to modern democracy and its ideals in 17^th and 18^th century Britain, not any innate “uniqueness”. Only the historically ignorant believe in national manifest destinies.

The point of all this is that we Jamaicans need to stop blaming our problems on the past or other people. For compared to most countries we have been historically blessed. I by no means agree with those who consider this nation a failure, for there is much we take for granted here that many others envy. At any rate it is not self-evident to me that most Jamaicans are demonstrably unhappy with our current situation. But those who think independent Jamaica a grave disappointment should look for explanations not in history’s faded pages but in choices we freely make. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” changkob@hotmail.com