The global petition sponsored by the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation based out of Vancouver, British Columbia, which is advocating free movement of the citizens of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK in each others' countries -- has garnered an astonishing 60,000 signatures plus in just a few days. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by this. This is not about symbolism after all, but about freedom, which people can easily get their heads around. Do you support unfettered access to four countries that have so much in common, shared struggles, cousinage, the same language, similar political institutions and a shared head of state? Yes, please! Where do I sign up? More than 90% in an online poll of 70,000 people said they would jump at the chance. Who in their right mind would be against such a thing?



In some ways this is not a new free mobility scheme but the restoration of an old one, as Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and the citizens of the UK used to enjoy unrestricted freedom of movement when they were all British subjects under the Crown. When imperialism fell out of fashion and the Crown fragmented along national lines, these rights were gradually rescinded as the Commonwealth realms diverged politically, culturally and economically in the 1960s. Consequently, the monarchy entered a long period of uncertainty, and was almost fatally undermined by the subsequent closed system of assertive post-imperial nationalism.



Much no wonder the monarchy has suffered these past fifty years. I mean, if Australians who shared the same head of state with Britons could not even enter the UK with appropriate decorum, nor Canada for that matter, but were told to cue in the foreigner's line, then what good was a shared monarchy anyways? What tangible benefits did it bring? In such circumstances, it was difficult to dispel (still is difficult to dispel) the notion that we were/are headed by a foreign monarch. That is because we do not have a national monarchy, but a supranational one, which is true for Canadians and Australians, as it is for the English and Scots. How could a fundamentally supranational monarchy adequately reflect national aspirations in an age of assertive nationalism? The answer is, it couldn't then and it still can't now.



A shared monarchy can only thrive if the nations that share it feel they are part of something bigger, some shared undertaking, who enjoy at least a few perks of membership, and not just something symbolic. In a relentlessly utilitarian age, it must have real meaning and bring real benefits to people. I must say the contemporary revival and reconvergence of the English-speaking realms is one of the most interesting trend lines taking place in the 21st century. The modern networks of human communication have already given rise to a single online English-speaking civilization that transcends distance, geography and the exclusivity of the nation-state. At the end of the day, culture is more important than geography. For nations that share the same culture and the same level of socio-economic development, I believe the free mobility of citizens only makes eminent sense, and that it's only a matter of time before this initative succeeds.