When Elizabeth II ascended the throne 50 years ago, Britain's African possessions were larger than the entire United States. Today Britain has no African empire. Yet the queen herself remains popular throughout the continent. Africa's post-colonial realities help us understand why.

Extensive celebrations will be held across Britain this year to celebrate the queen's Golden Jubilee. Her 50-year reign has seen the United Kingdom transformed beyond all recognition, from the head of the world's greatest empire, to a member of the European Union. The demographic makeup of the country differs greatly from when she became queen, and the morals and way of life of the people have been radically altered.

Much appreciation will be showered on Queen Elizabeth II, whose position as head of state for 50 years has greatly contributed to the nation's stability during a period of radical change.

During the celebrations, it is unlikely that much attention will be given to the queen's African role. At one time each of Britain's African possessions had its own parliament with Queen Elizabeth as head of state-reflecting the political system evolved over centuries in the mother country, often called "the mother of parliaments."

In a continent that has since become a byword for political instability, Britain's African territories were outstanding examples of political stability. Often overlooked today is the fact that those nations around the world that have shared in the British system of government have enjoyed political stability for centuries.

Without political stability, there can be no economic progress. Sadly, since independence, most African nations have gone backwards economically. At least one reason for this has been a lack of political stability. No country in Africa has developed a political model that works as well as the British colonial political system.

Perhaps this is one reason for what the British publication The Economist has referred to as Africa's continued fascination with Britain's monarchy, a fascination the publication does not share, having called for the abolition of the institution in Britain itself.

Major changes in postwar Africa

After World War II, Britain's royal family toured their African possessions to say thank you for their vital contributions to the allied war effort. Wherever they went, they were mobbed by millions of their subjects, who at that time still gloried in being part of "the empire upon which the sun never set."

It was to be the last such tour before the African world was turned upside down. Present on the tour were King George VI and his wife, Queen Elizabeth, parents of the present monarch. They were accompanied by their two daughters, princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

While in Johannesburg, South Africa, in the year that preceded the coming to power of the Afrikaner Nationalist Party that introduced apartheid, Princess Elizabeth turned 21. On her birthday she broadcast by radio to the nations of the British Empire and Commonwealth.

It was to be less than four months before Britain started dismantling her empire by granting independence to India and Pakistan. In her broadcast, Princess Elizabeth dedicated her life to the service "of the great imperial family to which we all belong," the prophesied commonwealth of nations which had been the world's foremost power for much more than a century. Few at that time realized the end was near.

Less than five years later the princess was again in Africa, this time accompanied by her husband, having married in November 1947, a few months after that first tour. During a visit to Kenya Colony's Treetops game reserve, the 25-year-old princess became queen following the death of her father.

Britain's African possessions still seemed secure. Members of the royal family were always warmly received wherever they went. A year later loyal African troops who had helped fight World War II in the jungles of the Far East and the deserts of the Sahara were in Elizabeth's coronation procession through the streets of London.

Meanwhile, African nations were moving forward. World War II had seen attitudes change. Fighting alongside British soldiers had altered perceptions. No longer were Africans content to be subservient to their British rulers; they now saw themselves as equals. African nationalist movements were to spring up throughout the continent.

The franchise was widened in many countries enabling more people to vote. Although the franchise in Britain's colonies was designed to be nondiscriminatory, before the Second World War parliaments were usually dominated by peoples of European descent. This was changing rapidly. Only two years after the queen's coronation, Britain's most progressive African colony, the Gold Coast (now Ghana) was negotiating for independence. Its African chief minister (prime minister), Kwame Nkrumah, was in London drawing up a proposed constitution for the new nation of Ghana.

The independence model to be introduced was the one that had worked successfully in other former colonies, notably Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. All had opted for "dominion" status, whereby their countries became completely independent of British control, but retained loyalty to the British monarch as their own head of state, thereby sharing in the benefits of the most stable political system in the world, one which dates back to 1688.

These independent nations, all constitutional monarchies, formed the British Commonwealth, often described at the time even by non-members like the United States as "an association of free peoples." The Commonwealth was renowned for its political stability, the rule of law and the basic freedoms (of speech, the press and religion) granted to all citizens. Sadly, this was all about to change.

Changes affect the Commonwealth

In fact, change had already started. Two years after independence from Great Britain, the Indian government had expressed its desire to remove the British monarch as India's head of state but, at the same time, had emphasized its desire to remain in the British Commonwealth.

A formula had been worked out that would enable India to become a republic but retain its membership in the Commonwealth recognizing the monarch as "Head of the Commonwealth," a title the queen still holds. The groundwork for significant change had been laid. Regrettably, dictatorships were to follow independence in many of Britain's former colonies, with resulting negative economic effects, the breakdown of law and order and loss of freedoms.

Ghana is typical of this trend.

Even before independence, Kwame Nkrumah told his British advisors that he could "ride a coach and horses" through the constitution once his country was independent. This is exactly what he did, with other nations following in Ghana's footsteps.

On March 6, 1957, the modern nation of Ghana was born. Tens of thousands of people carried placards bearing the words "Elizabeth and Nkrumah forever," reflecting their commitment to their new nation and the monarchy that it wished to retain. Two years later Nkrumah proposed abolishing that tie. A referendum was held. Many older people will tell you the vote was rigged.

Nkrumah became president, the tie with the crown abolished. One year later parliament proclaimed Nkrumah "president for life." A year after that, parliament was abolished. In only four years Ghana's parliamentary democracy that had given the country stability for a century was no more. At the same time, one of the wealthiest African nations was bankrupt following government mismanagement and endemic corruption. Ghana and the rest of Africa were well on the way to disaster.

Following the loss of the Suez Canal in 1956, Britain rapidly dismantled its African empire. The Conservative British prime minister, Harold MacMillan, addressing the South African parliament in Cape Town, warned that "the winds of change" were sweeping across Africa. Not wanting those changes, South Africa left the Commonwealth and ended its tie with the queen. With the end of apartheid in 1994 it rejoined the organization as a republic.

The neighboring self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia, fearful of the rapid changes in Africa that inevitably led to dictatorship, corruption and nepotism, with an accompanying "white flight" as skilled Europeans fled from civil wars or chaos, unilaterally declared itself independent of Great Britain in November 1965, while trying to remain loyal to the Crown.

This ill-fated attempt at halting the tide of history led to seven years of bloody civil war and the ultimate birth of Zimbabwe. One of the most prosperous nations of Africa in colonial times, Zimbabwe is today the world's most rapidly declining economy as it descends into dictatorship and economic chaos.

Changing role for the queen

Is there any wonder that African nations and other countries in the Commonwealth continue to be fascinated by Queen Elizabeth II? Older people remember a time of political stability and economic progress, of law and order and guaranteed freedoms. It wasn't perfect, certainly-only the Kingdom of God will bring perfect government to the earth. The problem is that nothing better has replaced it.

Perhaps a Ghanaian market woman summed it up best when I opened my wallet to buy some produce. She saw there a British bank note with the queen's portrait on it. "Ah, Queen Elizabeth," she said. "She used to be our queen, too. Since then we have had many, many presidents, coups and military dictatorships. And we are worse off. In England, they still have Queen Elizabeth."

The queen continues to play a role in Africa and elsewhere, visiting Commonwealth nations on the continent and in other places whenever local circumstances make this possible. At the biannual Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference to be held in March in Sydney, Australia, every single head of government of the 54-nation Commonwealth will have a private audience with the queen. This includes African leaders who also see the queen on visits to London.

Ironically, the queen seems to be more appreciated in Africa than in those countries where she is still head of state, notably the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some of the islands of the Caribbean and Pacific.

These countries have continued to enjoy political stability as constitutional monarchies on the British model, stability that is largely taken for granted by many of their citizens. Even The Economist, at the forefront of advocating the abolishing of the monarchy in Australia, derisively referring to the queen as "Elizabeth the Last," wrote in its latest yearbook that the introduction of a republic in Australia "would probably require an extensive rewrite of the constitution if it were not to introduce the danger of an over-powerful head of state" (The World in 2002, p. 42).

In other words, political instability would likely be the outcome of removing the hereditary monarch as head of state, exactly what has already happened in dozens of nations that were also once a part of the British Empire.

Often underappreciated, even at home in England, is the primary purpose of the restoration of the monarchy in the 17th century-the desire on the part of the people never to experience another dictatorship, whether royal or republican, which was England's experience during the reign of Charles I and under the ill-fated republic of 1649-60. America's founding fathers were to attempt another republic more than a century later with weaker central government, a system that has worked well for the United States but that many observers feel has not been successfully adopted anywhere else, including Africa.

As for Africa, hope for this dying continent lies in the future when African countries will once again come under a constitutional monarchy. This time it will be a perfect government that will last forever. The King will be Jesus Christ, the constitution the laws of God. You can read about this future constitutional monarchy in your Bible. Note the following verses:

"Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever" (Isaiah 9:7).

"'He [Jesus Christ] will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.' For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem" (Isaiah 2:3).

What's behind the surprising rise and sudden decline of the British Empire? For a deeper understanding of the British Commonwealth in Bible prophecy, be sure to request our free booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy. WNP