Opinions

Accession of Charles III and the possibilities for Nigeria

ON Thursday September 8, Buckingham palace announced the passing of Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s longest serving monarch, after a long and eventful reign spanning a whooping seven decades. The 96 year-old highly revered monarch had become queen in 1952, after the rather untimely death of her father, king John the 6th, who became king in 1936, only after his brother, Edward the 8th had abdicated the throne, to marry an American divorcee, something found unacceptable at the time. All of the circumstances of her accession to the throne set the tone for what would come to be seen as an eventful seventy years of meritorious service to kingdom, and perhaps the entire globe; especially given the widespread and endless outpouring of sentiments since her passing. Since the sad occurrence, varying perspectives have been shared across the globe about what kind of individual Elisabeth was, and how the British royalty had affected them in her very, very long reign.

Such perspectives have ranged from the critical to the obscene, the courteous to the complimentary. In it all, there can be no gainsaying the fact that almost all of the world from the north pole to the south have felt the impact of a monarch who directly or indirectly touched lives in more ways than one! Nigeria for one will not be out of place in joining those who should be reflecting on the impact of the monarchy under Elizabeth, and whether there’s anything one may anticipate from the accession of King Charles III, going forward. In doing this, one would begin by observing that Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1952, eight short years before independence, and when the British empire was continuing to wane. Put simply, the first few years of her reign, saw Britain, granting independence to very many African and non-African colonies. Interestingly, Britain had come up with a structure to replace imperialism, or sustain it, depending on who you talk to! That structure is what they call the commonwealth of nations, and Queen Elisabeth superintended over the organization from what consisted of just seven countries when she commenced rulership, to what what it has now become; namely, a commity of 54 nations. In other words, everyone who subscribed to the commonwealth, has the ruler of Britain as head at that level.

Meanwhile, this should help in understanding the reference to the queen as head of Britain, the realms and the commonwealth. The realms here, referring to the 15 countries or nations that still have the queen as their head of state; – Canada, being one.Before independence, the queen had visited Nigeria as part of the British empire, and had granted awards of M.B.E (Member of the British Empire), to many Nigerian citizens. I can recall countless stories of many of my forebears, who narrated how they had to stand for hours to welcome their August visitor. Incidentally, Abeokuta was part of her itinerary. And after independence, Nigeria still had the monarch as head of state for three years, until becoming a republic in 1963. And without any prevarication or fear of contradiction, a lot of the intricacies of life and living, politics and governance, social and religious, economic and culture; still reverberate around the realities of domination and subordination, traceable to the vestiges of the structure and dynamics of power and control established by the British over the decades and centuries prior to independence.

For example, it is rather unclear how many recognised the symbolism of the conduct of the main electoral actors prior to the 2015 elections, when President Jonathan’s security adviser, and presidential candidate Muhammadu Buhari both took their turn to speak at the Royal Chatham House in Britain! Ostensibly, both of them were seeking to convey different narratives to those who were supposed to matter, if they would be president. That singular event, served to illustrate the realization by the elite (at the very least), that Britain would be ignored at their peril.Incidentally, the British would be the first to tell you that the role of the monarchy is to be seen as merely symbolic. However, the reason why many are apprehensive of Charles as king is the fact that his social, cultural, religious environmental and need I say political views are so well known, that the apparent mystery upon which the monarchy thrives appears to have been undermined, partly by the very long reign of his mother, which may have put him in the limelight beyond anything that might have been, had he become king earlier. Clearly, the early ascension of Queen Elisabeth, coming before her 26th birthday, helped to sustain the ambiguity of the monarchy; – something which appears to be its only remaining appeal in today’s post-modern world.

To be honest, it will be naïve of anyone to think that the Queen had no political views. It is however difficult to deny that the Queen, her handlers and maybe the British press did a great job of maintaining that vagueness. Now that the Queen has been laid to rest and the period of mourning has ended, it is time for Nigeria and perhaps Ogun State began to take a close look at the antecedents of King Charles III, and commence an analytical reflection on how his words and actions may define his reign, long or short, especially with regard to how it will affect us as a people and as a nation. By some streak of coincidence, it tallies with the emergence of a new Prime Minister, whose plate is full with the never ending challenge of governance, especially at a time when Britons are lamenting the rising cost of living, something we as Nigerians have had to deal with since the mid 80s.