The Tribune

“Mere change is not growth. Growth is the synthesis of change and continuity, and where there is no continuity there is no growth.” – CS Lewis

WHEN Elizabeth II ascended the British throne in 1952, Joseph Stalin was Premier of the Soviet Union. When she passed away a week ago, there was no longer a Soviet Union and Vladimir Putin was President of Russia.

There were 100 plus independent states in 1952. Today, there are about 195. Seventy-three years ago, humanity was still 17 years away from landing a “man” on the moon. In 2022, with the Artemis space flights, humanity will land in a few years a woman on the moon and is considering a permanent lunar presence.

As The Economist noted: “When Queen Elizabeth II inherited the throne in 1952, great swathes of the world map were bedecked in imperial red. Britain still ruled some 50 dominions, colonies and protectorates, including at least 15 in Africa, more than a dozen in the Caribbean and a merry maritime gaggle in the Pacific.

“Some seven decades later only the tiniest of places, most of them islands, are still under direct British rule, while a clutch of independent states, numbering 14 at last count, choose to keep the queen as their ceremonial monarch.”

During her 73-year reign Queen Elizabeth witnessed and participated in dramatic change in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the global commons, amidst dramatic and extraordinary transformation in politics, economics, science and every human field of endeavour.

When the Queen and South African President Nelson Mandela spoke by telephone after the shattering of apartheid and the country’s re-entry into the Commonwealth as a republic, they addressed each other by their first names.

Both evinced a largeness of spirit and graciousness that had escaped British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who refused to relent in her support of a viciously racist and murderous white South African regime. A belligerent Thatcher was often unbending and resistant to change in myriad ways as prime minister.

REBALANCING

The relationship between President and Queen also demonstrated the rebalancing of relations between the British monarch and the peoples of the world, including former colonies no longer subject to imperial domination. The British Commonwealth had become a Commonwealth of equals.

During her reign, Britain’s standing as one of the largest economies in the world continued to slip, overtaken by China, Japan and Germany, the latter a bitter enemy in two world wars. India, once a supposed jewel in the British crown, will surpass the United Kingdom as an economic power.

In an article entitled, “The Queen of the World” in The Atlantic last week, Tom McTague offered a remembrance of Elizabeth II’s global influence and presence, which sought to balance competing roles in a changing world: “In the Queen’s 1983 Christmas message, four years after Thatcher came to power, she appeared to champion the policies of India’s prime minister, Indira Gandhi, over those of her own government, adding that despite the progress that had been made on the subcontinent, ‘the greatest problem in the world today remains the gap between rich and poor countries, and we shall not begin to close this gap until we hear less about nationalism and more about interdependence.’ “

Relatedly and ironically, the Queen was on the throne when Britain entered and decades later exited the European Union. When she passed away in Scotland, many wondered how long that nation might remain in a United Kingdom.

Days before her death she invited Liz Truss to form a government. For the first time in British history the four great offices of state – prime minister, chancellor of the exchequer, foreign secretary and home secretary – would comprise not only women but also black Britons.

Elizabeth II grew in her multiple public roles. She also grew and developed as a human being.

As others have expressed, one need not be a monarchist to admire the varied extraordinary qualities of Elizabeth, the human being, who served as Elizabeth Regina: grace, devotion to duty, a lifetime of service, humility, an extraordinary sense of humour and other human qualities.

Many noted that she strived to see the best in others, eschewing facile and harsh judgmentalism, avoiding the sometimes all too easy reflexivity of imputing unfair, unkind and bad motives to others.

FLESH AND BLOOD

She was not a porcelain figure but flesh and blood who experienced her share of grief, bitter disappointment, heartbreak, anxiety and insecurity, even as she continued her service and duty in the glare of relentless scrutiny.

At a recent birthday party for a Bahamian centenarian, guests marveled at the individual celebrated by family and friends for her generosity of spirit and joyfulness.

As an observer admiringly remarked, over the 100 years the centenarian earned a doctorate in humanity, teaching others along the way about the qualities and better angels of our human nature.

Those, who like the Queen have lived a long and good life, offer similar counsel as CS Lewis: “Growth is the synthesis of change and continuity…where there is no continuity there is no growth.”

Tom McTague suggested: “The paradox of Elizabeth II’s reign was that in presiding over a shrinking empire, she became a modern global monarch... She was in a sense a democratic Queen, a progressive conservative, an aristocratic multiculturalist.” She synthesised continuity and change.

The Queen sometimes mocked some of the encrusted traditionalism of the monarchy, lamenting the many heavy monarchical garments adorned with frippery she had to wear.

Still, she understood that before one made changes it was imperative to understand what values certain rituals and procedures were designed to uphold and revivify.

She made a number of changes carefully and gradually to serve unchanging values. She appreciated the difference between reflexive traditionalism serving narrow interests, and longstanding traditions of meaning and purpose serving the common good.

Elizabeth II served as a symbol of unity in Britain, especially during times of political turmoil and upheaval. She helped to preserve the core constitutional values and traditions of parliamentary government.

In her role as Monarch she was steadfast in protecting essential institutions of state. She understood decorum and probity as vital in maintaining the dignity of her office and that of other offices of state.

She understood that certain rituals of democracy and state helped to reinforce ancient values that endure and are necessary for good governance.

CS Lewis again: “Mere change is not growth.” Unnecessary and unthinking change and disruption are deleterious to good governance.

• More next week.