Previous| Next | Content| Main |Home
The African Union: The Challenge for Civil Society
Ian Taylor*
The African Union was launched in July 2002, effectively replacing the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) which had been the premier continental organisation in Africa. For much of its existence the OAU had, in effect, acted as the “trade union of the African heads-of-state” and had, unfortunately, largely lost much of its credibility. That this was a tragedy is in no doubt: Africa needs unity and strong and disciplined leadership willing to take hard decisions pertaining to both domestic governance and Africa’s involvement in global political and economic affairs. In the era of globalisation and the hegemony of neo-liberalism, this is perhaps now more imperative than ever before. This article will briefly touch on some of the challenges facing the African Union (AU) as it leads (at least nominally) Africa into the Twenty-first Century.
First, however, the AU needs to be contextualised. Why was the OAU deemed defunct and what impulses led to its reincarnation as the African Union? One of the main criticisms of the OAU was that its Charter was, in the post-Cold War era when democratisation and human rights (largely, admittedly, Western-defined) were in the fore, out-of-date. In particular, its narrowly defined concept of sovereignty was seen to, in practice, protect dictators hiding behind the principle of non-interference. This principle, drawn up in the 1960s at a time of Great Power machinations and continued imperialist adventures in Africa, was understandable from its particular historical origins. However, it was used by both African leaders and their various extra-African allies, be they capitalist or socialist, to bolster the position of incumbent elites, often against international sanction. The net effect of this for the average African citizen was largely negative as it was widely observed that this principle, originally designed to prevent outside interference in the era of decolonisation and the Cold War, was exploited to defend autocrats, often against their own people. It was perhaps this, more than anything else, that made the OAU suspect in the eyes of many, particularly as “non-interference” meant that the OAU only played a very limited role in quelling Africa’s conflicts.
This is not to join the chorus of critics who happily denounce the OAU as a joke best buried. Despite its shortcomings, the OAU did make a contribution to Africa. Of its secretary-generals, the last, Salim Ahmed Salim, and its first, Diallo Telli, will surely be remembered as the most energetic and creative: Telli for nurturing the nascent organisation at a very difficult period politically and Salim for creating the Conflict Prevention and Conflict Resolution Mechanism and for taking stern measures against member-states with serious arrears. Salim also performed much of the groundwork in the transformation of the OAU into the Africa Union, a task not easily performed.
The African Union Is Born
On 26 April 2001, Nigeria became the 36th Member State to deposit its instrument of ratification, concluding the two-thirds requirement of OAU members for the Constitutive Act of the AU to enter into force in May 2001. The Constitutive Act replaced the Charter of the OAU, though it remained operative for a transitional period until 10 July 2002, for the purpose of enabling the OAU to undertake the necessary measures regarding devolution of its assets and liabilities to the Union. Finally, in July 2002, South Africa hosted the inaugural Summit of the Assembly of the African Union in Durban. At this Summit, President Thabo Mbeki became the first leader to preside over the new Union.
This new body will continue to be based in Addis Ababa, the spiritual and in fact physical home of African unity. Like the OAU, the AU aims to unify the 53 African member states politically, socially and economically and will be loosely modelled on the European Union. But, like its predecessor, the Africa Union is an ambitious project fraught with all sorts of difficulties. It is difficult, for example, to see how such vitally needed unity will be achieved, given the current tensions that continue to wrack Africa. Furthermore, ideas for the African Union include creating an African parliament and a court of justice, but presently it is quite difficult to see how the AU can be democratic and have a parliament if many of its constituent member-states are not. The role of civil society, discussed below, in promoting civic involvement and democratic input will be crucial in this regard.
Fundamentally, there is an urgent task to achieve greater economic unity and integration. Such regionalisation will, if past experience of regional initiatives elsewhere are anything to go by, eventually entail the creation of a common currency, a unified central bank and ultimately actual economic union. As a first stepping stone the current regional economic blocs, such as ECOWAS, SADC and COMESA need to be rationalised and made more efficient. Yet, at present, many African countries still conduct more trade with their former colonial masters than with each other, a situation that continues to foster dependence on outsiders and which hampers African integration and unity. If the African Union makes any serious inroads into ending this situation, for instance by ensuring that trade within Africa is easier, then it will have achieved something concrete and positive. Already, the logic of African regionalisation seems to be to construct regional blocs on the continent with the aim of merging these into one big African economy. It is to be admitted that bringing four or five groups together is probably easier than having to bargain and discuss with 53 separate countries. But, overlap between regional blocs remains a major problem within Africa: the case of COMESA and SADC probably being the first case to come to mind. Such duplication of efforts and resources should be and will be a task that the AU needs to settle as soon as possible. However, the overall economic philosophy being advanced by key actors within the AU, not least the current chair, needs interrogation.
Globalisation and the African Union: Can Neo-liberalism “Work” for Africa?
Both the AU and the NEPAD were launched at a time when there has been a growing questioning of the basic neo-liberal philosophy that underpins contemporary capitalism, frequently cast within the catch-all term “globalisation”. Some observers may proffer the view that this juncture opens up space for Africa and that perhaps the AU (and the NEPAD) may be vehicles to advance this. However, there remain limitations to this, both externally through the workings of the powerful global market and its capitalist actors, and internally through the actions and attitudes of African elites themselves. Both observations make the engagement of civil society imperative.
It must be emphasised that on the main, what African leaders advocate when they meet with Western leaders is not a radical restructuring of the global capitalist order, but rather increased access to the world market for externally-oriented fractions. Far from stopping neo-liberal globalisation, this call actually pushes for greater integration into the global capitalist order, but on somewhat re-negotiated terms. The actual neo-liberal underpinnings of the global market are presumed to be sacrosanct. This position, an essential acceptance of the basic tenets of the ongoing world order, reflects the actuality that many elites from Africa are, in the main, just as interested in maintaining the global system as their colleagues in the North. Certainly, African elites are not passive victims and at least some fractions of such elites have been among the strongest supporters of the so-called “Washington Consensus”. In this sense, such leaders have been among the social forces that have facilitated liberalisation, despite veritable downsides for the average African.
It may be said that imagining that resistance to neo-liberalism might be located in the elites of Africa is, to put it mildly, naïve, and the potentiality of the AU as a site for any such project is highly curtailed. Defending globalisation and the advancement of specific externally-oriented interests and values, whilst ameliorating excessively negative aspects of this project, is the new message, as exemplified so clearly in the NEPAD. Yet, this is obviously problematic as there is a quite definite contradiction between, on the one hand, supporting global free trade, and on the other committing oneself to somehow changing the rules of the system to ensure greater equity. The point is that many African elites, having bought into the globalisation discourse, actively encourage an unquestioning stance towards foreign direct investment (FDI). Investment itself may not be problematic, as all developing states need capital in order to finance development, setting aside for one moment the fact that there is actually a net outflow of capital from Africa. However, it is the type of FDI that is welcomed and the manner in which this is managed and guided (or not) by the host country that is crucial. The question is, how to make those corporations engaging in FDI in Africa development-oriented? How the African Union and/or the NEPAD resolve this issue and the continued push for further liberalisation will be a crucial test for the new bodies. Neo-liberal reforms in Africa have generated considerable social conflict and there is a profound inconsistency in advancing both highly welcome democratic reform and continued economic adjustment and austerity. It is surely common sense that newly enfranchised citizens will avoid voting for further austerity!
Rhetoric vs. Reality?
But perhaps most fundamental of all, setting aside the specifics of regional integration and the overall hegemonic milieu vis-à-vis neo-liberalism, is the practical application of the AU’s founding principles. Statements of intent and Declarations are surely not enough on their own: the history of modern Africa is replete with failed institutions and initiatives. Much of these have, sadly, not been followed through and are marked by broken pledges and disappointment. Again, if the AU breaks this cycle of dashed hopes then it will have achieved something. Certainly, the people of Africa will need to hold to account the elites who have been so active in advancing the AU, particularly as it has frequently been based on the grounds that it will advance democracy in Africa. Such a commitment has been agreed and signed by African elites themselves and there can be no retreat. Even though the AU takes as its departure the European Union as the ultimate end game, the AU must be seen as an internally originated institution deserving of particular attention and scrutiny. In the same vein however, its commitments need to be measured against actual concrete action rather than accepting at face value the various pronouncements made on extremely important issues.
In this sense, an ongoing immanent critique of the AU and its claims to promote a new dawn for the continent is vital, lest the institution degenerates into another rhetorical device for elites. Civil society, intellectuals and indeed the donor community should squarely take on the AU’s bold statements regarding unity and progress and measure words with action. The very history of Pan Africanism is rooted in civil society and popular involvement: the rightfulness of the AU and its continued legitimacy in the eyes of the people of the continent will be grounded on the extent to which the new organisation both fulfils its promises and the mandate that it draws upon from each and every African citizen. In this sense, organisations based within civil society will have a critical role to play and must not shy away from this important challenge.
Ultimately, two points need to be made about the African Union. Firstly, if it did not exist it would have to be invented and so the AU is the vehicle thus chosen: it must be worked with and engaged and cannot be dismissed. Secondly, any institution can only be as strong as its members. By this we include both states and citizens. It is true that at its most basic level the AU is a compact between states. But, this does not mean that it can be left alone by activists, intellectuals and "ordinary" people: after all, it is the people that demand unity and development and it is the people that the "African" part of the African Union needs to engage if the project is to succeed. Certainly, any strategy for Africa’s renewal needs to be grounded not in the elites but in the ordinary citizens, based on basic human needs. Otherwise, such a project remains subject to a wide variety of destabilising forces, not least if elites seek to duck out from the commitments they themselves have made. In the preamble of the Constitutive Act of the AU, the role of civil society in the activities of the body is given high prominence. One of the Organs, the Economic, Social and Cultural Council, makes quite specific allowances for the incorporation of civil society into its activities. African civil society needs to rise to the challenge: the African Union is much too important to remain the property of state elites and bureaucrats and everyone must seek to contribute in whatever way they can.
* University of Botswana.