For a year that began with great promise for diva power, the diminishing presence of women in the run-up to this year’s elections is a disturbing reminder of the uphill task women face in making their presence felt on Kenya's political scene. Earlier in the year, women candidates coalesced around Charity Ngilu and other bigwigs to root for their increased representation at the civic and parliamentary levels.

As Africa’s leaders met in Accra, Ghana, last week to consider ways of consolidating continental unity through increased trade, pertinent questions were being raised over the impact that a new trade arrangement between the European Union and the 75-member ACP trading bloc will have on regional integration.

The idea of a United States of Africa is the visionary outcome of a Pan African Unity. Gichinga Ndirangu presents the case for a United States of Africa and points out some of the major stumbling blocks that need to be overcome before Nkrumah’s dream of a united Africa becomes a reality.

At the upcoming African Union summit in Accra, Ghana, a proposal seeking to establish a continental union government will be debated. Accra is a symbolic, if not significant host for this debate. It was here that Ghana’s founding father, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, first pitched for Pan African unity in his famous exhortation that Ghana’s independence counted for less unless, and until, the entire continent was liberated. It was Nkrumah’s view that in the absence of forging a common united front, Africa would remain shackled to neo-colonialism.

It was the period preceding the re-launch of the African Union in 2002 which witnessed renewed debate on Pan African unity. Libyan strongman, Muammar Gaddafi, then an intractable opponent of western imperialism, challenged African leaders to unite across common purpose and chart their destiny unshackled by the West. Gaddafi rooted for increased trade amongst Africans, the creation of common continental institutions including a federal government and the free flow of persons across borders. At its relaunch in Durban, the African Union took the sails out of Libya, reaffirming its commitment to the Pan African vision without unveiling a specific roadmap. The leadership of some of the continent’s key leaders – South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki, Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo, Algeria’s Bouteflika and Senegal’s Sane Wade – initiated instead the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), which was seen as an attempt to develop a policy framework towards a unified vision on Africa’s development and bolster, in part, Pan Africanism. NEPAD’s vision was, however, restricted, being more intent on resource mobilization than on its vision for Africa’s social and political cohesion. Conversely, this year’s proposal for a union government revisits the attempts to consolidate Pan African political, social and economic integration and establishes important benchmarks in laying out a renewed vision for continental unity.

The hope, though not assured, across Africa, is that this year’s debate will move the pan-African vision of Nkrumah beyond its fifty-year stagnation. There is no doubt that this is a debate whose time has come, not least because the union government proposal finally reaffirms the quest for uniting Africa’s people across a common thread of shared values and joint purpose. Within the debate, there are many critical voices that claim to welcome the idea of African unity but caution that the hour for Pan African federalism has yet to come. In addition, Afro-pessimists within the ranks of the African Union are driven by the zeal to consolidate national sovereignty and regional hegemony rather than an outright rejection of the Pan African vision.

While hopes are high, consensus on this proposal will take time and effort given the disparity in positions as well as the high demands that will be placed upon each State to realize a union government. The AU proposal wants the union government created as a transitional arrangement preceding full political integration under the banner of the ‘United States of Africa’. This transitional arrangement implies that realizing the actual Pan Africa vision calls for more work, consultation and buy-in. Even then, the transitional vision is bold in its intent and envisions the establishment of parliamentary and judicial systems, common continental financial institutions and standardized monetary policies and procedures, among others. It is these preliminary propositions that Africa’s leaders will be called upon to give thought and focus to at the June summit in Accra.

After many years of internecine conflict within and between states, the need to harness Africa’s potential around a unity of purpose is a necessary and overarching imperative. At the heart of it, the proposal for a union government must be directed towards Africa’s transformation through creative and well-thought out strategies that advance integration and not the isolation or balkanization of any country or region.

The proposal should be used to catalyze developmental policies and programmes that are people-centred and rooted in the finest of African traditions, culture and values. The ideal of a people-centered and united Africa is one that must be welcome and advanced. It is also a prerequisite in an increasingly globalized world that has demonstrated the value in consolidating shared interests that drive policy formulation and implementation.

Not limited to political union, the proposal for a union government will also delve into the concepts and realities of potential economic integration. Colonialism bequeathed on most African states economic inequality and social inequity which have stifled the integration of Africa’s economies to the world market. Intra-African trade has been constrained by weak policy and institutional support at national and regional levels and internal structural limitations, which have narrowed the scope of exploiting the continent’s economic opportunities to the fullest extent. While economic integration has been a key but elusive priority for Africa’s leadership since the onset of political independence, what has been lacking is the handiwork to take this goal beyond the realm of conjecture and optimism. In 1963, the Organisation of African Unity unveiled a proposal to establish a continental African common market that was expected to coalesce into a Pan-Africa community straddling the economic, social and political spheres. Both the Lagos Plan of Action and the 1991 Abuja Treaty that established the African Economic Community (AEC) spoke to the need for such an African economic union. While this level of ambition has not matured to its full intent, the African Union has continued to look upon the various Regional Economic Communities (RECs) as essential building blocs in the quest for continental economic union.

Yet within the current arrangement, there is growing concern that Africa is spreading herself thin and wide in negotiating multiple trade arrangements, which stand to undermine her own development priorities. The common view is that there is limited scope to fully harness the potential of regional integration granted that new concessions are being exerted by Africa’s trading partners.

The African Union views deepening regional economic integration as an important pillar in Africa’s structural transformation. Given the complexity of regional integration in Africa, there is widespread concern that the undue emphasis on trade liberalisation in the ongoing negotiations with the European Union (EU) and other trading power houses could scuttle rather than consolidate economic integration.

The truth is that trade and trade liberalisation are not an end in themselves but a means to help the continent respond to its development challenges. The ongoing trade negotiations between African countries and the EU have shown the complexity of consolidating economic ties amongst African countries which are already pressured into negotiating with the EU under new configurations outside their natural and traditional economic groupings. The regions currently negotiating with the EU have been severely disrupted by overlapping membership to different negotiating configurations. As a result, there is a risk of countries undertaking trade commitments with the EU to the detriment of their traditional trading partners with whom they may have different agreements at the regional level.

In today’s new global economic dispensation, there are few alternatives to economic integration as a strategy in promoting sustainable socio-economic development. It is obvious that only by closing ranks within the framework of continental level initiatives like the African Economic Community and the African Union can Africa avoid further marginalization.

The union proposal acknowledges that African governments have made determined efforts towards consolidating regional economic blocs with the active support of the AU. But the history of consolidating continental unity is limited by many factors including the lack of political will, limited awareness among a large segment of Africa’s population and increased dependence on external assistance.

The African Union must, therefore, work towards providing an appropriate framework, which strengthens partnership between national governments, peoples’ representatives, civil society and other stakeholders towards promoting the continent’s economic and social development.

A union government will, on the one hand, secure the continent’s interests while, on the other, assert its due role in global affairs and build on the continent’s collective capacity to influence world affairs from a position of unity and strength. But, the current proposal could halt in its tracks if debate is merely confined to the hallowed halls of the African Union without active buy-in from Africa’s people. Since 2002, the AU has renewed momentum towards more effective and accountable governance structures. The next frontier in consolidating continental unity must involve making concerted efforts at the national level to develop institutions and processes that will advance the desired new continental architecture and which are rooted in peoples’ popular participation. The debate must include the voices and perspectives of a wide range of Africa’s people through the involvement of key institutions such as national and regional parliaments, civil society organizations and the media. This participation will broaden and deepen the debate that is, ultimately, about the people of Africa

* Gichinga Ndirangu is a consultant with the African Union Monitor.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

The African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS) will hold an African Human Rights Book Fair in Accra, Ghana starting May 12 to 14, 2007. The book fair will take place on the occasion of the 41st Ordinary session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. It seeks to support networking amongst NGOs through exchange of materials, information sharing and publicity of activities on human rights advocacy. Attached are two brochures (English and French versions) which provide additional details on the book fair.

Africa’s 53 Heads of State ended their first summit of the year in Addis Ababa with a strong pledge to foster democratic culture and respect for fundamental rights. But these commitments were made beneath an avalanche of concern over an apparent reluctance to reign in errant members complicit in the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms.

In recent times, this concern has revolved mostly around the deteriorating situation in Darfur. The tenuous discussion on Sudan’s suitability to chair the AU and adoption of the charter on democracy at this last summit indicated a renewed but cautious sense of affirmation by the African Union to break new ground. But it also showed the lack of clear determination to reign in members not playing by the rules and violating organizational principles clearly evident in the failure to exert clear demands on Sudan.

The decision to devote the forthcoming summit in Accra to a consideration of the proposal on Pan Africa federalism has reinforced a sense of optimism and steer that the AU is intent on breaking new ground towards consolidating continental unity. Even then, there are serious questions on the viability of some of this and other proposals. The democracy charter has for instance faced reservations from several countries while southern Africa countries have expressed strong sentiment on the union government proposal. In the circumstances, a lot of backroom negotiations will need to take place before harnessing consensus on contested issues.

The recent AU summit took place at a significant moment when the African Union Commission prepares for the homestretch on its current mandate, which expires at the end of the year. A new commission will be constituted in 2008 following the election of new commissioners with a clear mandate to steer the AU into its next phase. The summit was also the penultimate session for the current chairperson, Professor Alpha Konare, whose term expires this September. Professor Konare, a former president of Mali, is not expected to bid for a second term setting the ground for a new set of eyes to steer the organisation’s overall strategic vision and mandate.

AU needs to reflect on its performance as it seizes itself for new demands and expectations and the hankering over Sudan best exemplified the dilemma facing the AU at this critical moment rather than the new thresholds of ambition being set for the organisation. The concern to stave off a diplomatic standoff with Sudan obscured the imperative to reign in Sudan and wrench out clear commitments from Khartoum on Darfur following months of negotiations with the AU.

Hence, even though the new UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon described Darfur as “the world’s worst humanitarian disaster” and promised to make it a key priority of his leadership, the AU failed to deal tough with Sudan. Once Sudan’s bid to lead the AU was dispensed with, the Darfur crisis slowly tapered off. Here, the AU was squarely in focus over the limited capacity of its peace monitors to stem the killing and suffering of thousands of civilians in the hands of the government-backed janjaweed militia. Even though the AU has expended much energy in seeking resolution to the Darfur conflict, Africa’s leaders gathered in Addis Ababa could not extricate themselves from their collective failure to exert sufficient political pressure on Sudan. What was clearly worrying though is that as the curtains came down on the summit, no substantive ground was broken to ensure that the ill-equipped AU peace monitors were equal to the task. Neither was the contested question over the deployment of a hybrid protection force involving the African Union and UN within an agreed timetable thrashed out.

The summit also failed to win an unequivocal commitment from Khartoum to halt its military scale-up in Sudan and disarm the janjaweed even as questions abound over whether the membership of a complicit Sudan is not anathema to the AU’s determination to raise the threshold against which its members must be judged by.

Nobel peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu was spot on warning that “the African Union [had] before it a stark choice on Darfur. Be bold and stand by the people of Darfur or be weak and stand by the politicians who are making that corner of Africa a graveyard”.

The decision on Sudan’s bid was clearly a bold statement. A Sudanese presidency would have compromised the neutrality and independence of the AU’s operations in Darfur. Alioune Tine, a member of the Darfur civil society Consortium spoke for many when he warned that “African opinion will never accept a choice of Mr Bashir as president of the African Union. Such a move will discredit the institution and diminish the image of the African Union as an independent arbitrator in the eyes of the world”.

In the aftermath of the summit, and in the wake of a multiplicity of new and resurgent conflicts, it is feared that the AU could be fatigued and steer its energy and focus away from its priorities and visioning. In many ways, the new theatres of conflict – Chad, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Guinea and Somalia – have excised the AU’s undertaking to respect territorial sovereignty without being indifferent to systematic violation of fundamental freedoms and rights. This is in sharp contrast to its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) which turned a blind eye to conflicts under the guise of respecting the sanctity of territorial sovereignty and non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states. But a lot more is expected of the AU. The period leading up to the summit showed that the AU is increasingly being called upon to provide leadership in reaching a pedestal where governments respect the organisation’s principles in the best interest of their people.

But now the AU must audit itself to determine whether its structures fit the task before it. The organisation clearly faces a raft of internal institutional challenges which impact on its efficiency and effectiveness. The caveat is that the AU may not live up to the billing due to existing institutional constraints, which potentially impede on its capacity to deliver at this critical moment.

A substantive assessment of the AU contained in a newly published report titled Towards a People-Driven African Union: Current Obstacles and New Opportunities cites some of the internal challenges facing the AU as ” the sheer number of AU ministerial meetings, ordinary and extraordinary summits each year, commission budget shortfalls and multiplicity of national legal frameworks, incoherent institutional arrangements and unclear policies and procedures”.

Significantly, the report which was commissioned by the Africa Governance Monitoring and Advocacy Project (AfriMAP), the African Forum & Network on Debt and Development (AFRODAD) and Oxfam GB warns that the AU is only as strong as its weakest link. It warns that “most African Governments have not reformed their national institutions and processes to respond to the new continental architecture. Consequently, only a few states prepare adequately by engaging across ministries, national assemblies or civil society organisations for the AU summits”.

The creation of the African Union in 2001 created a renewed sense of optimism, which must continue to inform its future by addressing internal and external challenges, which could potentially undermine its vision.

* The writer is the acting editor/policy analyst of the AU Monitor, an e-communication facility managed by Fahamu

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The adoption of the African Union Protocol represented a significant step in affirming the commitment of governments against gender discrimination and violence. In its wake, the protocol has strengthened the motivation for African governments to align their laws and policies in line with the expectations of the protocol.

The protocol bears testament to the tremendous involvement by many civil society groups, gender and human rights activists who held vigil throughout the long wait on its adoption. More significantly, it represents the collective determination by African governments to safeguard the rights of women.

But like all good laws and policies, the greatest challenge lies in translating the fine print into concrete action and thus giving meaning to laudable intent. It is on this issue that African governments must seize opportunity and work in concert in taking the next crucial step - domesticating its provisions into national law.

At the moment, the scorecard looks fairly disappointing. Only one country - The Comoros - has ratified the Protocol to date. A minimum 14 more must ratify it in order to bring the protocol into operation. While raising this number must be a reason for persistent advocacy and challenge on individual governments, the broader concern must be that of getting all African governments to ratify the protocol. Good is no good where better can be attained and African governments must be more ambitious on numbers.

Individual governments must feel sufficiently challenged to ratify without the need for prodding or pressure. That a laudable document of this stature should remain unratified since its adoption is enough reason for concern and an urgent call to action.

Attention will also need to shift towards creating the relevant institutional mechanism on which to articulate the rights of women. That infrastructure must be empowering, innovative and one that provides an important building block in consolidating the gains made on women rights. It must also be one that challenges existing prejudices and seeks to correct traditions and practices that support retrogressive structures.

National governments must therefore broaden their view on women's rights and recognize them as indispensable to the evolution of a democratic culture. The current phase of renaissance in Africa, best exemplified by the evolution of political maturity and democratic culture, can only be strengthened more not less, by paying closer attention to the rights of women.

However, African governments must avoid the trap of tokenism and paying obeisance to women's rights without sufficiently rooting these in the policy and legislative framework. For instance, one would wish to see better prioritization on women supported by gender budgeting in planning government spending. Governments must match rhetoric and intent with resources.

Ultimately, however, the cause of women will depend in large measure, on the commitment of each one of us. In our own small ways, there is much that we can do to entrench the rights of women and thus affirm the objects of the AU protocol. That first, small step that counts in the journey of a thousand miles must start with each and everyone of us - today because tomorrow may be too late.

* Please send comments to