WHAT’S the first thing that leaps into your mind when someone mentions the Commonwealth? Grainy black-and-white footage of the British military attempting to quell an uprising from the indigenous population of some small African state? The Queen looking on uneasily as the residents of one of the South Sea islands perform a native dance in various stages of undress? A sprinter from the Falkland Islands trailing in six seconds behind the rest of the field in the 100m?

For some, it’s probably all of the above, but for many, it’ll be nothing at all, which makes it all the more incongruous that every four years, we all get rather excited about a sporting event that brings together competitors from a group of nations that share nothing more fundamental than once having been colonised by the British. And some of them can’t even point to that.

“The Commonwealth is an irrelevance, and we will be in no rush to rejoin,” said Fijian foreign minister Inoke Kubuabola last year, three years after his nation had been suspended from the grouping of 53 countries in the wake of a military coup.

The sentiment is shared by a number of political and economic commentators, who view the Commonwealth as an out-of-touch relic of a bygone age, bolstering British self-importance and evoking unpleasant memories of Empire.

The group has no executive authority, no powers to set or alter laws, no meaningful budget to allow it to play a leading world role, no mechanism to allow it to confer trade privileges and no democratic representation other than the irregular meetings of heads of state that tend to descend into a series of unseemly squabbles.

At best, it is a powerless talking shop, at worst, a complete waste of money in states that can often ill afford to be spending a fortune to send their ministers or civil servants to meetings and workshops on the other side of the world.

Yet the Commonwealth endures and, if anything, its popularity only continues to increase. Mozambique and Rwanda applied to join the grouping despite having no historical links to the British Empire, and were duly admitted in 1994 and 2009 respectively. South Sudan recently expressed a desire to join, with Israel and Palestine also rumoured to be preparing applications.

So what is the appeal to such countries, who are already members of the United Nations and various regional groupings in their own part of the world?

Respectability for a start, something that is a double-edged sword for Commonwealth leaders, who must weigh historical alliances and friendships against the founding principles of the group that include “promotion of representative democracy and individual liberty” and “the pursuit of equality and opposition to racism”.

Human rights issues have dominated discussions between Commonwealth heads of state for many years now, and while there has been exasperation expressed in some quarters at a slowness to respond to unfolding events, punitive action has had an effect.

South Africa’s exile during the era of apartheid was seen as a powerful political statement, while Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002, with Robert Mugabe’s government formally withdrawing the following year.

The UN has never adopted a similarly strong stance against countries who violate human rights, and while some might question the effect of Commonwealth suspension, there is no doubt it removes a legitimising factor that some states turn to in order to justify unpalatable actions.

The response to Sri Lanka’s hosting of the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was instructive in terms of the body’s ability to turn a spotlight on areas of political life that might otherwise be ignored. The summit took place despite Sri Lanka’s alleged human rights violations, but the hosts were regularly reminded of their democratic failings.

On a more positive note, the Commonwealth affords small nations a voice in a global setting they might otherwise not have. Bilateral trade deals are commonplace at Commonwealth level, and a member like Malaysia or Nigeria, emerging economies without a seat at the top table of world power, might use the organisation as a means of influencing bodies like the G8 or World Trade Organisation that have genuine global clout.

Given that most of the Commonwealth countries share a legal or constitutional framework, it can also be an arena for social and political reform, with states at a relatively early stage of their democratic development learning lessons – good and bad – from those who are more advanced.

Economically, the grouping is also significant. A recent study by the Royal Commonwealth Society suggested the links within the group create a “Commonwealth effect” that makes it 20 per cent cheaper to do business with a fellow member.

According to UKTI, British businesses have around £100bn invested in other Commonwealth countries, with inward investment from other Commonwealth states worth around £40bn to the UK economy. Those are not inconsequential figures.

Whether they are sufficient to help sustain the Commonwealth in the future remains to be seen, but as Glasgow prepares to host the 20th instalment of the Commonwealth (formerly the Empire) Games, the grouping continues to confound those who repeatedly predict its demise.

Archaic? Undoubtedly. An anachronism? Probably. But to describe the Commonwealth as an irrelevance is to do a disservice to a body that continues to unite almost a quarter of the countries in the world.

Who is in the Commonwealth?

Antigua, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Zambia.