Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ)
Early tomorrow morning, Australian Eastern time, the 2026 Commonwealth Games will begin in Glasgow.
With the FIFA World Cup only just in the rearview mirror, Australians will once again be able to enjoy the sporting achievements of elite athletes. And as always at the Commonwealth Games, there is likely to be plenty of medals – Australia has been by far the most successful nation since the event was launched as the British Empire Games in 1930.
Nevertheless, some may wonder what is the point of dominating an international sporting competition without world powers such as the United States, Russia and China?
Athletes at the games once came from the British Empire. Today, they come from the Commonwealth of Nations.
So what does it mean to be in the Commonwealth these days, and what future does it have?
Once mighty British Empire
The British Empire was the largest in history. At its peak following the first world war, it controlled a quarter of the world’s territory and nearly a fifth of its population.
But even as it grew in the 19th century, several of its colonies agitated for democracy and a degree of self-rule. In particular, the white settler colonial societies called for responsible government, meaning local parliaments – rather than the British-appointed governor – would have the final say on laws.
In 1848, Nova Scotia on Canada’s eastern seaboard became the first colony in the British Empire to receive responsible government. Others in Canada, Australia and New Zealand soon followed. After Confederation in 1867, Canada was seen as the first independent nation within the Empire.
In the early 20th century, the term “dominion” was used to describe self-governing nations within the British Empire, including Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, New Zealand and South Africa.
Significantly, the Balfour Declaration of 1926 established that Britain and the dominions were “equal in status” but “united by a common allegiance to the Crown”. It described the dominions as “freely associated […] members of the British Commonwealth of Nations”.
Soon after, the 1931 Statute of Westminster gave legal backing to their equal status.
End of empire and decolonisation
Following the second world war, the British Empire was gradually dismantled, with former colonies in Asia, Africa and the Pacific seeking independence. The turning point for the Commonwealth came when India – formerly the jewel in the imperial crown – gained independence in 1947 but sought to remain as a member. Following much debate, India was ultimately allowed to join the Commonwealth, despite being an independent republic that did not have the British monarch as head of state.
The modern Commonwealth began on April 27 1949 following a meeting of Commonwealth prime ministers at 10 Downing Street. The London Declaration dropped the word British from the Commonwealth of Nations and confirmed that member states did not need to swear allegiance to the Crown. This paved the way for not only India, but also Pakistan and Sri Lanka (then called Ceylon) to join as free and equal members.
Rather than a common allegiance to the Crown, the modern Commonwealth was linked by a broad commitment to similar democratic values. The decision to allow republics to join allowed the Commonwealth to evolve and grow, and eventually countries with no link to the British Empire, such as Mozambique and Rwanda, were admitted too.
Today, there are 56 member states in the Commonwealth, the vast majority of which are republics. Had the condition of retaining the British monarch remained, the Commonwealth Games would be contested by just 15 countries, mostly small island nations.
Does the Commonwealth still serve a purpose?
The Commonwealth of Nations is not a trade bloc like the European Union or a defence alliance like NATO. It does not have the economic clout of the G7, and with members all over the world, does not represent a geographic region. Instead, it offers members with shared values an opportunity to regularly meet and discuss global issues.
In 1971, during the Cold War, the first Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) took place in Singapore. The subsequent Singapore Declaration defined the Commonwealth as an association committed to the “promotion of international understanding and world peace”. Two decades on, the Harare Declaration of 1991 took a stand against racism, especially South Africa’s apartheid system.
In the 21st century, a formal Commonwealth Charter was agreed by members. The 16 core values show how the organisation has changed with the times. They include democracy and human rights, but also concepts that would not have occurred to the founding members in 1949, such as environmentalism, gender equality, and recognising the needs of small states.
While the Commonwealth has little real power, it does exert influence and has suspended members that violate its principles. In 1961, South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth to avoid suspension, only rejoining in 1994 after apartheid was abolished. Nigeria, Pakistan and Fiji have all been suspended (then reinstated) at various times following political violence and coups.
Like the United Nations, the Commonwealth can be criticised as little more than a regular talkfest. This view ignores the soft power that large multilateral bodies have in reinforcing international norms. It also provides a forum where government heads from the global north and south, large and small nations, can discuss pressing issues and pursue common goals.
In 2025, there were even reports that President Donald Trump was interested in the United States joining the Commonwealth. While unlikely to happen, it would certainly change the clout of the organisation, not to mention the medal tally at the next Commonwealth Games.
Does the Commonwealth have a future?
In one sense, it is surprising the Commonwealth survived the strong anti-colonial feeling after the second world war. Its longevity owes much to its adaptability. In 1953, Queen Elizabeth II distanced the group from its imperial past.
She claimed:
The Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the Empires of the past. It is an entirely new conception.
Although King Charles III is the symbolic head of the organisation, as his mother was before him, there is no requirement that the British monarch lead it. With the 2010 Commonwealth Conversations final report finding much more enthusiasm in developing countries than the old dominions, it is possible, if not likely, that a future head of the Commonwealth may come from Africa, Asia or an island nation.
Although the British Empire has long since passed into memory, for now at least, the Commonwealth seems determined to “keep calm and carry on”.
Benjamin T. Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/22/as-the-games-begin-what-does-the-commonwealth-mean-and-what-purpose-does-it-serve/