This scenario straddles the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but includes a bit more of the latter, so I'm putting it here. The 1885 date is chosen because it was the year of Lal Mohun Ghose's first, unsuccessful run for Parliament, which is, as far as I know, the first time a colonial subject ran for election.
Although Britain had no designated parliamentary seats representing the colonies during this (or any other) period, there was nothing to stop colonial British subjects from running in a British constituency, and if they could convince enough people to vote for them, they were eligible to be elected. This happened three times of which I'm aware, with all the successful candidates being Indian Parsis:
So how do we get some more? Ideally, I'd like it to be expected that every Parliament would have five or six colonial members, and for the successful candidates to include West Indians, Malays and Africans as well as Indians.
Race prejudice is a problem, but as shown by the above three, not an insuperable one. Granted, Indian Parsis are probably among the colonial subjects that British voters would have found least alien - they were pretty solidly middle-class and educated - and Africans would have a harder time. A West Indian, though, might manage well enough - there was a growing nonwhite intelligentsia, and many of them were sufficiently British in their education and manner to have a chance of connecting with the voters. And once enough Indians and Barbadians had been elected, even an African might not seem so much of a step.
Successful candidates would also have to live in the UK for long periods and become involved in party organizations there, but this also isn't a problem - plenty of colonial subjects did reside in Britain as students, businessmen and professionals. It's easy to see some of these becoming party workers, building connections and eventually standing as candidates - as Naoroji, Bhownaggree and Saklatvala in fact did.
Maybe what we need is an organized effort to elect candidates from the colonies - say, an influential group in India that sponsors Indians in British parliamentary constituencies, and which provides support (financial or otherwise) to one of the national parties in exchange for access to the political system. In effect, this would be a colonial branch of whatever party it supports. Presumably, those who join such organizations would be the ones who want greater integration into the empire, or to fight for their rights as British subjects, as opposed to seeking home rule or independence, although Naoroji is a counterexample.
Assuming this could be pulled off, and every Parliament had a few colonial subjects in it, what would be the effect? Would this be accepted as a natural consequence of having an empire? Would there be more impetus for home rule in the colonies in order to keep the British and colonial political spheres separate, or would there be more of a movement to integrate the empire? Is there a chance that any of the proposals for an imperial parliament might take off?
- Dadabhai Naoroji: ran unsuccessfully as a Liberal for Holborn in 1886, was elected in Finsbury Central in 1892 with a majority of five, and was defeated for re-election in 1895. Some of his speeches during the 1886 election campaign can be found here;
- Mancherjee Bhownaggree, elected in Bethnal Green Northeast as a Conservative in 1895, re-elected in 1900, defeated in 1906;
- Shapurji Saklatvala, elected as a Communist-Labour candidate in Battersea North in 1922, defeated in 1923, elected again in 1924 as a Communist without Labour endorsement, defeated for re-election in 1929, and attempted unsuccessful comebacks in a 1930 by-election and the 1931 general election.
So how do we get some more? Ideally, I'd like it to be expected that every Parliament would have five or six colonial members, and for the successful candidates to include West Indians, Malays and Africans as well as Indians.
Race prejudice is a problem, but as shown by the above three, not an insuperable one. Granted, Indian Parsis are probably among the colonial subjects that British voters would have found least alien - they were pretty solidly middle-class and educated - and Africans would have a harder time. A West Indian, though, might manage well enough - there was a growing nonwhite intelligentsia, and many of them were sufficiently British in their education and manner to have a chance of connecting with the voters. And once enough Indians and Barbadians had been elected, even an African might not seem so much of a step.
Successful candidates would also have to live in the UK for long periods and become involved in party organizations there, but this also isn't a problem - plenty of colonial subjects did reside in Britain as students, businessmen and professionals. It's easy to see some of these becoming party workers, building connections and eventually standing as candidates - as Naoroji, Bhownaggree and Saklatvala in fact did.
Maybe what we need is an organized effort to elect candidates from the colonies - say, an influential group in India that sponsors Indians in British parliamentary constituencies, and which provides support (financial or otherwise) to one of the national parties in exchange for access to the political system. In effect, this would be a colonial branch of whatever party it supports. Presumably, those who join such organizations would be the ones who want greater integration into the empire, or to fight for their rights as British subjects, as opposed to seeking home rule or independence, although Naoroji is a counterexample.
Assuming this could be pulled off, and every Parliament had a few colonial subjects in it, what would be the effect? Would this be accepted as a natural consequence of having an empire? Would there be more impetus for home rule in the colonies in order to keep the British and colonial political spheres separate, or would there be more of a movement to integrate the empire? Is there a chance that any of the proposals for an imperial parliament might take off?