The African Union: Quest for Relevance
The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) or in its new guise as the African Union (AU) celebrates 50 years on the 25th of May this year. It is a fifty years that has seen it struggle for relevance just as its members have within that time fought for different causes, the most important being independence.
The celebrations which coincide with the union's head of states summit have been themed as "Pan Africanism and African Rennaisance"; and therein lies the AU's problems. The theme aptly captures the issues I have for a long time been having with the AU, issues which have seen it compromised in its ability to assert itself over the affairs of the continent. It appears the union is caught between advancing a Pan-Africanist agenda while trying (unsuccessfully) to tend to Africa's dynamism, growth and the problems that come with the same.
The AU has tried but failed to maintain its Pan-African mandate as espoused by its founders while dealing with the inevitable dynamism of growing African economies greatly influenced by globalization. The organisation needs to re-invent itself if it is going to prove relevant to Africa's and indeed the world's current issues.
Session is called to order!
Understandably it was inevitable that emancipation from colonial rule dominated the early years of the organisation. With colonial rule disposed off (at times in bloody circumstances), it would appear the AU was left reeling with an identity crisis, which was filled by an overtly leftist agenda. It was the age of the great dictators, the Kenneth Kaundas, Nkhrumahs and others who clearly overstayed their welcome and even more tellingly did not decipher the winds of change leading to the falling of the Berlin Wall, which has symbolically come to represent the end of communism as a major economic model.
Of course other countries such as Ethiopia have persisted with the communist ideology albeit in a more modified version and the jury is still out on the efficacy of the same. Some suffering from serious bouts of nostalgia and led by Libya's considerable influence under the late dictator Ghaddafi sought to resurrect that brand of Pan-Africanism to the extent of advocating for a United States of Africa. An idea which at the time I found quite appealing. But then I was a student, drunk with leftist theories. However, the failure of the United States of Africa project proved one thing: Africa had moved on, the AU on the other hand, hand't.
It is this failure on the part of the AU that has seen its stance on key issues involving Africa compromised. For example, they failed to stamp their authority on the electoral malpractices that characterised the Kenyan general election in 2007, failed to deal with Zimbabwe when Mugabe evidently lost the 2009 election, opting to endorse piecemeal solutions such as Governments of National Unity (GNU). By giving credence to GNU's, the AU was basically saying the GNU was the way to go if someone refuses to accept the results of a democratic process. In effect undermining the same democratic values they are supposed to promote.
As if that was not enough, the AU suspended Madagascar following the forceful deposing of Mark Ravalomanana and Andry Rajoelina assuming power. Madagascar remains suspended from the union but I doubt if they care. Rather than being the norm, time has proved that Madagascar actually is the exception. The AU has turned a blind eye to the issues in Eritrea, Sudan, Uganda, Zimbabwe and even in Ethiopia where its headquarters are.
How inconsistent can you get? The organisation has stood by and watched as Somalia degenerated into anarchy, had to be cajoled into sending troops in Mali following a siege by Islamist in Northern Mali and that was after France, Mali's former colonial power, had already engaged the Islamist Militants.
Of course it is difficult to assert yourself when member states have a claim to sovereignty however that should not stop the union from speaking out on blatant undemocratic tendencies among its members. Africa should not leave it to the International Criminal Court to speak out on human rights abuses, it should not be up to the World Bank and Transparency International to speak out against corruption. The African Union should make itself relevant to Africa's issues now.
You can only dose yourself on the nostalgia of freedom fighting for so long. There comes a time when you have to confront the present. It is good that Kenneth Kaunda and other "freedom fighters" are being honoured. It is good that the great speeches of the likes of Nkrumah and Nyerere are being reprised.
However when the dust is settled, when the banquet hall has gone empty, when it is time to look into the mirror, the AU will have to answer this question.
"Could you please justify your existence and what value are you adding to Africa now?".
The celebrations which coincide with the union's head of states summit have been themed as "Pan Africanism and African Rennaisance"; and therein lies the AU's problems. The theme aptly captures the issues I have for a long time been having with the AU, issues which have seen it compromised in its ability to assert itself over the affairs of the continent. It appears the union is caught between advancing a Pan-Africanist agenda while trying (unsuccessfully) to tend to Africa's dynamism, growth and the problems that come with the same.
The AU has tried but failed to maintain its Pan-African mandate as espoused by its founders while dealing with the inevitable dynamism of growing African economies greatly influenced by globalization. The organisation needs to re-invent itself if it is going to prove relevant to Africa's and indeed the world's current issues.
Session is called to order!
Understandably it was inevitable that emancipation from colonial rule dominated the early years of the organisation. With colonial rule disposed off (at times in bloody circumstances), it would appear the AU was left reeling with an identity crisis, which was filled by an overtly leftist agenda. It was the age of the great dictators, the Kenneth Kaundas, Nkhrumahs and others who clearly overstayed their welcome and even more tellingly did not decipher the winds of change leading to the falling of the Berlin Wall, which has symbolically come to represent the end of communism as a major economic model.
Of course other countries such as Ethiopia have persisted with the communist ideology albeit in a more modified version and the jury is still out on the efficacy of the same. Some suffering from serious bouts of nostalgia and led by Libya's considerable influence under the late dictator Ghaddafi sought to resurrect that brand of Pan-Africanism to the extent of advocating for a United States of Africa. An idea which at the time I found quite appealing. But then I was a student, drunk with leftist theories. However, the failure of the United States of Africa project proved one thing: Africa had moved on, the AU on the other hand, hand't.
It is this failure on the part of the AU that has seen its stance on key issues involving Africa compromised. For example, they failed to stamp their authority on the electoral malpractices that characterised the Kenyan general election in 2007, failed to deal with Zimbabwe when Mugabe evidently lost the 2009 election, opting to endorse piecemeal solutions such as Governments of National Unity (GNU). By giving credence to GNU's, the AU was basically saying the GNU was the way to go if someone refuses to accept the results of a democratic process. In effect undermining the same democratic values they are supposed to promote.
As if that was not enough, the AU suspended Madagascar following the forceful deposing of Mark Ravalomanana and Andry Rajoelina assuming power. Madagascar remains suspended from the union but I doubt if they care. Rather than being the norm, time has proved that Madagascar actually is the exception. The AU has turned a blind eye to the issues in Eritrea, Sudan, Uganda, Zimbabwe and even in Ethiopia where its headquarters are.
How inconsistent can you get? The organisation has stood by and watched as Somalia degenerated into anarchy, had to be cajoled into sending troops in Mali following a siege by Islamist in Northern Mali and that was after France, Mali's former colonial power, had already engaged the Islamist Militants.
Of course it is difficult to assert yourself when member states have a claim to sovereignty however that should not stop the union from speaking out on blatant undemocratic tendencies among its members. Africa should not leave it to the International Criminal Court to speak out on human rights abuses, it should not be up to the World Bank and Transparency International to speak out against corruption. The African Union should make itself relevant to Africa's issues now.
You can only dose yourself on the nostalgia of freedom fighting for so long. There comes a time when you have to confront the present. It is good that Kenneth Kaunda and other "freedom fighters" are being honoured. It is good that the great speeches of the likes of Nkrumah and Nyerere are being reprised.
However when the dust is settled, when the banquet hall has gone empty, when it is time to look into the mirror, the AU will have to answer this question.
"Could you please justify your existence and what value are you adding to Africa now?".
Comments
Post a Comment