Queen Elizabeth’s death: balancing pragmatism and history

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom died on Thursday last week. She ruled her country for 70 years. As the head of the British empire, she also served as a head of state for several countries that maintained her as such.

This includes Australia and New Zealand. Her son has been confirmed as the King of the United Kingdom, now known as King Charles III.

World leaders have conveyed their messages of condolences to the government and people of the United Kingdom. Some have even declared days of mourning - some of them in Africa.

President Hage Geingob offered his message of condolence, reminiscing about his personal encounters with the Queen. He concluded that the Queen will continue to inspire future generations. He also congratulated King Charles III. He has not declared a national day of mourning, like other countries.

The speaker of the National Assembly, Peter Katjavivi, also released a statement on behalf of the National Assembly, following the death of the Queen.

In the statement, he recounted a conversation between the Queen and his late wife. Katjavivi headed the Swapo office in London before independence, and his late wife, Jane Katjavivi, was also born in England.

After colonialism, the Queen maintained control over her colonies through the creation of what is termed the Commonwealth. Beyond the games and meetings between the leaders of the former colonies and their colonial master, Britain has been successful in ensuring that the wealth of the former colonies is maintained to the advantage of the British.

The name, Commonwealth, is indeed befitting for this arrangement that is aptly explored by Ghana’s first president Kwame Nkrumah in his book ‘Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism'.

To be fair and because of pragmatism, the Commonwealth has had to change its content and character to avoid being seen for what it is: an instrument of the sustenance of British imperialism. Scholarships and other social programmes run by the Commonwealth have proven to be helpful to the citizens of the former colonies.

What is of concern is the sentimentalism surrounding the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the euphoria over King Charles’s ascension to the throne. Missed, and subordinated, is the brutal colonial project that Queen Elizabeth III presided over during her 70-year reign.

British imperialism plundered the resources of the colonised people, such as the Africans. It is claimed that the Queen used to wear a diamond on her crown that was taken from Africa. Of course, it is known that she did not buy this diamond from an African shop owned by an African. It is colonialism and imperialism that account for that diamond. The only contribution of Africans was the use of their hands to extract it from African diamond fields.

Britain owes its development to slavery and colonialism. Cities such as Liverpool were built by the blood and sweat of the slaves, a majority of whom were of African descent.

The British monarchy was central to the slave trade. In Liverpool today, many streets are still named after slave traders.

This includes Bold Street, Earle Road, Tarlton Street, Cunliffe Street, and Cropper Street, just to mention a few. Foster Cunliffe’s family, for example, is associated with 26 slave ships. The Queen has done little to deal with this celebration of slavery.

We should, therefore, find a balance between pragmatism and history. The public must obtain a balanced picture between the good and the bad. This conversation must extend beyond the statements released by politicians in the form of presidents.

In fact, one of the first things that King Charles III did was to meet with the leadership of the Commonwealth in the form of Secretary-General Patricia Scotland and High Commissioners from Commonwealth realms.

Africans must begin to ponder the direction Charles III is likely to take and the implications for the continent. They must further explore how they could bring about new relations with new and broader benefits for the continent. Whether Charles III is his own man or his mother’s child remains to be seen. The point is that pragmatism should not subordinate history and vice versa. A balance is needed.

Muthoni waKongola is a native of Kongola in the Zambezi Region primarily concerned with analysing society and offering ideas for a better Namibia. She is reachable at [email protected] or @wakongola on Twitter.