One of the best things Zuffikar Ali Bhutto ever did was pull out of this toothless tiger of an organisation, and one of the worst decisions his daughter Benazir did was get us re-admitted. We should now formally quit this bankrupt organisation again.
What’s so good about being in the Commonwealth?
Visits from the Queen, the opportunity to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph, a much better chance of winning a gold medal in the shot put because Russia, Germany and the US don’t compete in the Commonwealth Games. The benefits of being in the Commonwealth are limited, and President Musharraf is unlikely to be quaking at the threat to suspend Pakistan from the 53-member body. He has, in any case, been here before. When he seized power in a military coup in 1999, Pakistan was suspended for five years.
It is easy to be cynical about the Commonwealth. The threat of suspension is largely symbolic. There will be no Commonwealth task force despatched to inflict shock and awe on Islamabad; no trade sanctions; we’ll still play them at cricket; they might even win that shot put gold. Bizarrely, Pakistan’s athletes would not be banned from the Commonwealth Games in Delhi in 2010 if the country were suspended. The only practical effects would be an end to the funding of projects designed to encourage economic liberalisation and good governance - a perverse response to bad government - and a ban on Pakistan attending meetings of Commonwealth heads of government. “Being in the Commonwealth gives you clout on a global level,” says Eduardo del Buey, the Commonwealth Secretariat’s director of communications. “You’re better off being one of 53 member states than being alone.” The Commonwealth is a club based on shared values - peace, democracy, egalitarianism. When it suspends a member it is, in effect, saying that country no longer shares its values. Del Buey says Pakistan was keen to be readmitted in 2004, and that suspension is damaging - though Fiji has been suspended since last year’s military coup without too many people noticing.