Africa’s ambivalent union

The recently concluded African Union assembly of heads of state and government elected Muammar al-Gaddafi as its chairperson for the next year. To the casual observer this seems to be an odd choice given the dictator’s suppression of dissenting voices within his own country and his supporting of all manner of armed militia groups around the world. However, the election of Gaddafi was the culmination of an ongoing internal struggle to define the extent of the AU’s reach into the internal affairs of its member states. Since 2005 when the idea of a ‘United States of Africa’ was first muted by Libya there has been an ongoing, behind-the-scenes battle between those who would prefer to have a gradual transition towards a union government of Africa and those would like to launch it immediately.

In 2006 the AU debated and issued a report assessing the feasibility and desirability of a United States of Africa. In 2007, at the AU summit held in Accra, Ghana, an extensive debate between the heads of state and government on the scope and reach of the proposed Union Government of Africa descended into discord and acrimony. A last minute communiqué by the continent’s leaders was not a decisive declaration of a transition to ever deeper union but instead a watered-down compromise that proved to be empty and hollow.

At the Accra summit the fault-lines dividing the opposing positions became more pronounced. Libya and Senegal led a small coterie of ‘unionists’ who argued that deeper continental political union was urgent and necessary. The ‘gradualist’ camp, which included South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Zambia among others, argued that it would impudent to rush into a union government when the AU had not even managed to achieve the rudimentary aspects of operational efficiency. The gradualists also argued that continental integration could only be achieved by building upon the integrative processes already underway within sub-regional economic communities (RECs) – namely the Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD), the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the East African Community (EAC).

These current debates afflicting the AU are not new. The formation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), the AU’s predecessor, was marred by a similar division of interests between Kwame Nkrumah’s vision of a United States of Africa and those newly liberated post-colonial African leaders who felt that they were better off retaining their national sovereignty. The election of Gaddafi is therefore an indication that the unionist camp has decided to adopt a higher profile and will seek to use the next 12 months to make the case to push for deeper continental integration, if not lay the foundations for a full blown United States of Africa. The election was not left to chance, the Libyan regime actively campaigned behind the scenes, granted support, made pledges and cajoled other AU leaders to assure their desired electoral outcome. Gaddafi, who is no stranger to controversy, does not conceal his desire to be viewed as a pan-African elder statesman in the mould of the founding fathers of the United States of America – Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams. This caricature was reinforced when he arrived at the AU summit with a motley crew of ‘traditional’ African leaders in tow. This entourage was supposed to be the garnish in his crowning as the pan-African visionary who would lead his continent to the promised land.

Africa’s leaders demonstrated their ambivalence towards the unionist project by electing Gaddafi, whose government does not uphold the principles of democratic governance or human rights enshrined in the Constitutive Act of the African Union, nor its array of impressive declarations including the AU Protocol on Democracy, Elections and Governance. The tragedy is that the majority of African heads of state and government do not uphold these principles within their own countries, so perhaps the election of ‘one of their own’ did not pose a moral dilemma for them.

In the meantime, the AU will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis in Darfur, Somalia and Zimbabwe. The consequences of the recent election will only become clearer as the year proceeds. This interminable debate on integration may ultimately derail the African unity project, and also encumber further progress towards addressing the urgent problems that the continent’s 800-million constituency faces in terms of impoverishment, access to healthcare, education, improved infrastructure, the exploitation of natural resources and Africa’s continuing marginalisation in the global economy. Continental integration is a necessary stepping stone towards being able to address these problems. It is now clear that no African country is an island unto itself. The AU leaders will need to overcome their ambivalence and transcend their interminable debates. A leadership that is divided cannot hope to be able to convince its own citizens of the merits of continental integration.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/420/aid_to_africa_murithi.jpg

* Tim Murithi is a senior research fellow at the Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/.