IT is “embarrassing” the UK is still involved in the Commonwealth and should step back from it, activists have suggested.

On Wednesday King Charles arrived in Samoa where he is presiding over a gathering of Commonwealth presidents and prime ministers for the first time in his reign.

It takes place against a backdrop of the UK Government announcing there will be no reparations paid out to countries affected by the slave trade, while all three candidates for the secretary-general of the Commonwealth are all in favour of reparatory justice, with many fearing the situation will spark a rift between the UK and other member states.

There are also questions around the continuing relevance of the organisation in modern day society given it began in the early 20th century as a way for Britain to maintain some imperial power while avoiding widespread revolution against colonial rule.

There are 56 countries part of the Commonwealth today, almost all of which were formerly under British rule.

Tristan Gray, treasurer of Scottish anti-monarchy group Our Republic, told The National he believes the UK is “clinging to an imperial past” by continuing its involvement in the Commonwealth and feels other members would be much more at ease if the UK stepped back.

READ MORE: Anti-monarchy group to protest at upcoming Labour Budget

He said: “All they are doing is reminding everyone how much being part of the Empire was the worst thing that happened to most of them.

“I think the Commonwealth still exists at all because it is useful to the countries that make it up beyond the UK to have those alliances, especially if you look at Africa – it’s groups of countries in Africa who are neighbours and that gives them an extra platform for diplomacy and talking economics.

“It’s long stopped being about the UK and the fact the UK is even still involved, despite the fact the Commonwealth is supposed to be all about the British Empire from the UK’s perspective, is almost a bit embarrassing to the other states that are in it.

“I think a lot of them would be much happier if the Commonwealth was just a league of ex’s [ex-colonies] all with this common history of having been exploited and plundered by the British Empire rather than it being the UK still lauding itself around these old territories trying to relive its past glories.”

The King being the head of the Commonwealth is perhaps the most confusing aspects of the organisation. A red carpet was rolled out for him and Queen Camilla at Faleolo International Airport for his arrival, but the vast majority of Commonwealth members are now republics while others have insinuated they’d like to remove the British monarchy as head of state in the future.

(Image: PA) Meanwhile, one of the central aims of the organisation is supposedly to strengthen democracy, when countries are still required to accept the British crown as a symbol of the Commonwealth to become a member.

When India, the largest member, gained independence in 1947, it initially withdrew from the organisation. It asked to rejoin in 1949 and was re-admitted on the condition that it accepted the British crown as a symbol of the Commonwealth. Since 1949, this standard has been the status quo for membership, now based on free and voluntary cooperation.

Another aim of the Commonwealth is supposedly improving human rights, yet over half of the world’s countries where same-sex marriage is criminalised are part of the Commonwealth.

READ MORE: Commonwealth Games' history a 'significant issue', says John Swinney

Gray said he finds the idea of the Commonwealth being linked to democracy as “laughable”.

“Not only does it [the UK] try and enforce what remains of the undemocratic institutions of the British state, like the monarchy, on other members, but it also just doesn’t do anything about democracy,” he said.

“India is a good example where we’ve seen this backslide towards authoritarianism with the current leadership and Britain has been completely silent.

“At every opportunity it seems to be a case of Britain clinging to its past by any means necessary even if that means turning a blind eye to democracy. I find the idea that the Commonwealth has ever been about democracy pretty laughable.”

Adrian Swinscoe, of the Edinburgh branch of Republic, said while he sees some benefits to the Commonwealth, he suggested Britain could have a more positive role if it steps back from the organisation, at least while it still has a constitutional monarchy.

He told The National: “I’m an internationalist by instinct, so I see value in having a network you’re part of so you can collaborate and so on, but the historical legacy of the Commonwealth is just problematic.

“If we became a republic and then chose to participate in a Commonwealth, then I think we can negotiate our own role, but now, because it’s been established through this legacy of colonialism, I’m not sure we can escape that.

“It overshadows our whole participation in it. If we want to make our participation work, maybe it would be better for us to secede and then apply to rejoin if we become a republic because we can say we recognise how it came about, but we’d be saying we’re not a member of this by default, we’re pitching to become one because we see value in the countries that are part of it.”