Monday, 27 May 2013

THE UNMAKING OF NIGERIA GOVERNORS FORUM

Rotimi-Amaechi-2705.jpg - Rotimi-Amaechi-2705.jpg
Rotimi Amaechi
With the crisis now trailing the re-election of the Rivers State Governor, Hon. Rotimi Amaechi, as chairman of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum and the emergence of his Plateau State counterpart, Chief Jonah Jang, as factional chairman of the forum, the Nigerian governors may have put their own ‘baby’ in serious but avoidable danger.

The tension in Abuja last Friday was palpable. It was a battle of the governors and the president. A lot was no doubt at stake as the governors subjected themselves to democratic test, the first of its kind in the history of the forum. On the one side was President Goodluck Jonathan and his loyal governor-friends while on the other side of the pitch was the Rivers State Governor and incumbent chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF), Hon. Rotimi Amaechi, and his team.

In contention was the NGF chairmanship seat. While Amaechi sought re-election against the wish of the establishment, the president and his team craved for change in an obvious distaste for the Amaechi leadership. The president and his men considered this a battle of political survival, the outcome of which would dictate the shape of things to come. On the contrary, Amaechi and his camp would rather the struggle was informed by the need to entrench democratic tenets, albeit at their micro level, believing it would ultimately have a defining effect on the larger polity. And so, the stage was set.

Preceding the Friday election was an array of shenanigans, horse-trading, mudslinging and even threats that rattled the ordinary observer. Particularly hit by this untoward trend was Amaechi and his state, Rivers. The Governor was literally stripped of touch with the police such that portended grave security implications for the state. The state House of Assembly was not spared in the onslaught. The supremacy battle also informed the shutting down of Obio/Akpor local government area of the state by the police, which though later promised to act properly.

Unfortunately, such manifestations were instructive for Amaechi. Even when many people had canvassed that he stepped down and gave peace a chance, political analysts knew that any such thing would be suicidal, politically. He was faced with a somewhat mean opposition which would stop at nothing to decimate him and whatever he represents. These and more were the reasons the tension was nerve racking in the capital city last Friday.

The NGF…A Background
For the records, the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) is a coalition of the elected Governors of the country’s 36 States and it is by formation, a non-partisan association which seeks to promote unity, good governance, better understanding and co-operation among the States as well as ensure a healthy and beneficial relationship between the States and other tiers of government.

The Forum was established in 1999 following a multi-party conference of all the 36 democratically elected Governors. Subsequently, the forum was registered under Part C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, (CAMA), 1990, and draws its legality from Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Since 1999 that it was established, the forum has had many chairmen starting with Alhaji Abdullahi Adamu, former governor of Nasarawa State who was in office from 1999 to 2004 and succeeded by Victor Attah of Akwa Ibom State, from 2004 to 2006, who in turn handed over to    Mr. Lucky Igbinedion of Edo State in 2006. Igbinedion was in office till 2007 when another election held. 

Afterwards, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki, former Kwara State governor took over in 2007 and was there till 2011 when Amaechi took over.

From leadership to leadership, the NGF has its vision and mission which guide its activities and dictate its positions on issues of national interest. While the vision statement illustrates, in a single sentence, “an effective, proactive, inclusive, non-partisan forum which actively fosters, promotes and sustains democratic values, good governance and sustainable development in Nigeria,” its mission statement clearly seeks “to provide a platform for collaboration amongst the Executive Governors on matters of public policy; to promote good governance, sharing of good practice and to enhance cooperation at State level and with other arms of government and society.”

Ahead of Last Friday’s Election

Since it was certain that more than a passing interest was at stake, the two camps had swung into action in the bid to outdo each other. This was characterised by the various meetings held ahead of the poll where it was expected that the discontent amongst the govermors would have been contained.

First was the meeting of the Northern State Governors’ Forum which held at the lodge of its chairman, Governor Babangida Aliyu of Niger State but ended in a deadlock because the Katsina State Governor, Ibrahim Shema, and his Bauchi State counterpart, Isa Yuguda, refused to step down.

It was at the meeting that some governors believed to be loyal to both Jonathan and Amaechi mooted the idea that both Shema and Yuguda should withdraw from the race and pave the way for a neutral candidate in the person of Jonah Jang of Plateau State. This idea, some believed was thrown in the mix because Jang was considered a weak candidate that would be unable to give Amaechi a good fight. But some people have dismissed the postulation saying it was a decision that came about because both Shema and Yuguda refused to shift grounds and that a weak candidate could not have polled 16 votes.

Thus, the Jang idea was allegedly mooted by the Benue State Governor, Gabriel Suswam and his Kano State counterpart, Rabiu Kwankwaso. While Suswam was loyal to the president, Kwankwaso was Amaechi’s man as far as the election was concerned. The choice of jang, therefore, might have come up genuinely to ease tension. It was the reason observers believed the idea was an error of calculation as against a deliberate attempt to pave the way for Amaechi’s re-election.

Having failed to reach an agreement at the Northern Governors’ Forum, the governors proceeded to their next meeting which held at the Akwa Ibom State Governor's Lodge being members of the PDP family. It was there that Jang was eventually presented as the consensus candidate, when it became clear that neither Shema nor Yuguda was willing to let go.

But given that the PDP governors had earlier resolved to present a common candidate that would run against Amaechi, both Shema and Yuguda then yielded to “reason” and set aside their ambition and then, the lot fell on Jang. Indeed, according to reports, Shema and Yuguda left the Akwa Ibom State lodge in the same car, an indication that their differences had been resolved.

While the PDP governors met at the Akwa Ibom lodge, the opposition governors also had their meeting at the Lagos State Governor’s Lodge where they perfected their strategy before going for the NGF election. Both Governor Babatunde Fashola and his Ekiti brother, Kayode Fayemi, were said to have gone into the “enemies camp” to campaign for Amaechi, justifying why it must not go the other way and the implications it held for the NGF. To understand the extent they went, they were the ones who allegedly informed Shema that he had been dropped for Yuguda in the bid to defeat Amaechi.

Although, the progressive governors who contended that there was nothing more in the struggle for them other than the need to preserve the sanctity of the forum, noted that the struggle to get Amaechi re-elected was a tough one which required more than just speaking to colleagues but carried out serious issue-based campaign that convinced many who later pitched tent with them and tagged along with the Amaechi leadership.

From the Lagos House, Abuja, the progressive governors left for the venue of the NGF election which was the Rivers lodge in Asokoro at about 4.40pm where others were already waiting. The opposition governors were led by Fashola.

The election proper was presided over by the director-general of the NGF, Mr. Oshisana Okauru. At the start of the exercise, there was no indication that Amaechi was going to win as his votes did not start to count until Jang had recorded 15 votes before the Rivers Governor caught up with him and then surpassed him.

Jang and the Jesters
Not a few was surprised that the outcome of the NGF election would end up in controversy. Observers may have been compelled to come to terms with the reality that the penchant for rejecting election results at whatever level is a Nigerian thing. It was in the same spirit that Jang and his colleagues turned down the result of an exercise they fully participated in.

It was evident from the excuse advanced by Jang and his team that they were not prepared for an election but an affirmation to impose a candidate- some presidential stooge on the forum. Jang, while deploring the election, argued that the result was not consistent with the fact that he had been endorsed by 18 governors from the North before voting commenced.

Hear him: “I was endorsed by 18 governors before the election. How come I did not win?" he queried, noting also that Amaechi ought to have resigned before the election. Why? Because he (Jang) was the choice of the establishment! But it did not occur to the Plateau Governor that many of his colleagues might have coasted along with him while at the same time held a completely different view from what the ‘rebel clique’ had resolved to do.

That apart, there were those who wondered why Jang whose state was constantly in crisis of insecurity and who observers alleged has not been happy with Jonathan for sometime over the handling of the security situation in his state suddenly bought into the idea of being the president’s NGF chairman. Not particularly popular amongst his colleagues by virtue of his disposition, observers described as disturbing, the fact that age was not also on his side and as such, combining the work of the NGF and the state could be too demanding of an old man except he would be there just to do a yes man’s job.

Observers also see the rejection of the result as un-gubernatorial and unbefitting of their persons as leaders at their respective levels. They not only participated in the exercise by choice, the process was transparent and devoid of any abracadabra that could have necessitated their revolt. They were no more than timely examples of what leadership ought not to be in decent climes, observers noted.

Sadly, the old man and his younger colleagues have begun to tread on a path that would eventually unmake the forum and completely run it aground but place them in ‘vantage position’ in history. Following an unstatesmanly press conference where Jang illegally declared himself chairman of the forum, the deviant governors are believed to have bought into the killing of their ‘baby’ since their attempt to abort the pregnancy after the baby had been born was rebuffed, albeit democratically.

Unknown to them, what Governors Jang, Godswill Akpabio, Olusegun Mimiko, Isa Yuguda, Peter Obi, Gabriel Suswam, Liyel Imoke, Seriake Dickson and the likes are doing to NGF is not peculiar to that forum alone; their actions sure have representative implications on the body polity, the repercussion of which they have deliberately looked away from.

Mimiko’s Disappointing Showing
Worthy of mention in all of this was the attitudinal disposition of the Ondo State Governor, Olusegun Mimiko, who reportedly withdrew from the election into the position of NGF vice chairman. Mimiko stunned many to say the least. Obviously, Mimiko had done this to please the president and show that he was with him 100 per cent. But coming from a Governor who enjoyed unequalled public goodwill on the grounds of perceived democratic credentials, he was one of those who acted in bad faith and below expectations of a man of his office and standing, knowing full well that beyond personal interest, the sanctity of the NGF should be uppermost.

It is believed that while the Ondo Governor has a right to choice which he duly exercised during the NGF election, he should have backed that up with integrity that conform to leadership expectations. But he chose not only to proclaim failure by identifying with bad losers who ignored the spirit of sportsmanship, he also sought to make good, what was clearly bad in the estimation of every rational mind. Mimiko, it was believed, failed democracy and trampled on its tenets. As a product of struggle, he betrayed basic expectations even though he reserves the right to contest or not.

Sulking ‘Governor Generous’

The Akwa Ibom State Governor, Godswill Akpabio, would have really surprised many and probably upped his rating if he had acted otherwise. By blindly pursuing a failed project and fighting a lost battle, he was believed to have acted true to type. What many also found appalling about the Governor of the oil-rich state was the manner in which he carried on with disregard to whatever relationship that existed between him and his colleagues, especially Amaechi. He took it too personal and at the risk of all other things.

It was bad enough that they lost the election in the glare of their colleagues and presiding officers; Akpabio regrouped his clique and disowned the process they all partook of. The dishonourable part of the drama was the resolution they started brandishing immediately they lost. They were too much in a haste to check the list, perhaps for last minute perfection and failed to strike out the name of their Yobe State counterpart, Ibrahim Geidam, who was absent.

This was why many held the view that the time may have come for Akpabio to review his demeanor, especially his dropping of the name and relationship with the president and relate with reality as it were. The Governor, many believe, is not only conceited, but carries on as if he has some special privileges that are open to him alone by doing the president’s bidding.
By going ahead the next day of the NGF election to propose an alternative platform for their rebellious group at a meeting which held at the Benue State lodge on Saturday, even when he had been compensated with the moribund PDP Governors Forum, Akpabio obviously needs to slow down and stop acting god on behalf of the president. It was sad that he could not do a thorough analysis of the situation to ascertain that a rubberstamp NGF would be one of the legacies of his generation of governors. That he has not seen it that way shows the quality of leadership he represents in terms of intellectual credentials.

Progressive Governors and their Politics
For yet another unsolicited opportunity, the progressive governors lived up to their billings as truly progressive. It is still fresh in memories how the governors who have now come together to form a merger party- the All Progressives Congress (APC) visited the crisis ravaged Borno State and took the shine off the president. The move was both politically expedient and psychologically imperative. It came at a time the people of the state needed all the moral support to survive the oppression of insurgents that had literally seized control of their area. Their visit yielded result as the president was forced to immediately slate a visit there.

This came several months after the revolution the progressive governors instigated in the House of Representatives at the birth of this dispensation in 2011. It was that revolution, against the PDP zoning arrangement that threw up the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Aminu Tambuwal. Seeing ahead, they created the atmosphere for legislative independence and today, the nation is better for it.

Political affiliation aside, the progressive governors last week remained consistent in terms of their ideological standing. They understood better, the implications of the struggle for the soul of the NGF. Amaechi is PDP and they are of the opposition parties, yet, they saw the need to allow the body run independently in order to retain its allure and sanctity. That was good politics, devoid of retrogressive sentiment and in national interest. By going into the opposition camp to canvass for votes, they scored an uncommon goal and still maintained their place in national reckoning.

Reading the Handwriting
Had this report been segmented in terms of winners and losers, the number one loser in the Friday NGF election would have been the president and with collateral damage. The president played it too hard; he put so many things at stake and was not as discrete, hence he came out badly hurt.

But then, there was a lesson in it for him: the 2015 election will certainly come with an even more surprise. With a steady drop in his rating, fast fading goodwill and popularity, the president could strike as many deals as possible, what will be, will definitely be.

He should have realised that this is the age of yahoo politics which encourages voters to collect anyone’s money and elect their choice candidates. That was Mimiko’s saving grace in the October 22, 2012 election despite the subduing opposition. The president did everything humanly possible including harassment and intimidation, coupled with monetary inducement to stop Amaechi’s re-election but failed. And this was because many of the governors actually played along with him; some later reviewed their stand and acted according to their conscience.

There is no doubting the fact that Jonathan would throw his hat in the ring in 2015 but the game, even up till the day of the election would remain fluid. The 2015 election would be different and unfortunately, the president has courted too many enemies. How he intends to manage the various tendencies is up to him and his loyal governors who go about like demi-gods.

The Friday NGF election was an eye-opener and the president should learn from that, if only he could read the handwriting. Particularly instructive is the jubilation that trailed Amaechi’s re-election in some parts of the country. That didn’t come cheap and it is significant in the ensuing permutations. Therefore, his position that he had nothing to do with the crisis was an afterthought and politically naïve.
…And Amaechi Stands Tall
Obviously not new to struggle, Amaechi recorded another victory on Friday when he was returned as chairman of the NGF. It was the first time that the NGF would be this divisive and subjected itself to such a tough test. The victory, however, was not an easy bite for the Governor and his team. After weeks of persuasion, rationalisation and suasion for reason in the collective interest, Amaechi earned his victory.

But before this were the many troubles to recall. He was labeled an enemy of the president; they said he wanted the president’s job and also romancing the enemy’s camp and so was denied many things. To this battle, he lost his control of the PDP in the state even though that is now an issue left for the court to decide. His aircraft was grounded in what has come to be known as politically motivated. His assembly members were persecuted, including the speaker, Hon. Amachree Otelemaba. He was faced with threat of impeachment and even assassination. What more, the police were allegedly instructed to stop listening to him while an anti-graft agency, the Economic and Financial Crime Commission was set after him.

Amaechi had it exceptionally rough, but survived because he was not new to such battles. As speaker, he fought a similar battle. When he was going to claim his mandate as Governor in October 2007, it was a life threatening battle. And now as NGF, it was just a routine. But it shook him. He was ruffled and emotionally taunted. Yet, he took the fall and stood tall, following a resounding victory.

Interestingly, Amaechi seemed to know what was at stake and this much, he elucidated in his acceptance speech, where he described the election as transparent and added that "power belongs to God." The Rivers Governor also promised to embark on a mission to reconcile and unify the Forum, as well as "reach out to the president". That is leadership.

"Today our democracy was tested and proven. Today, the governors have spoken with one voice reaffirming our faith in democratic governance as the hope of Nigeria’s future. We remain committed to supporting our leader, the president and commander in chief of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, His Excellency, Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, to realise the development dream of all Nigerians by reducing tension, uncertainty and insecurity in our beloved country.

“We want to pledge our steadfastness and resolve, working alongside Mr. President to better the lives of our people as we render transparent and accountable stewardship,” he said.

That Amaechi stood his ground and insisted on fighting this through also showed leadership that bears responsibility. It typified tenacity and the lesson was the importance of holding on to one’s belief even if the whole world elected to be on the other side.

Observers, however, believed that governors must see themselves beyond regional classification and push for collective agenda that would continually benefit all. It should not be about which party was in power and which one was a minority. The essence of their coming together was beyond such defining indices but the need to deliver unto the people, the promises they proclaimed as leaders.
Thus, the idea of continuously rebelling against Amaechi in order to make his second coming discomforting, may ultimately turn out counter-productive. And this may not be peculiar to Amaechi alone.

So, who’s the 19th Voter?
The NGF election has come and gone with 19 votes to 16 in favour of Amaechi. But something curious has refused to go away. While there were original 18 states by the calculation of those in Amaechi’s camp who voted for him, the 19th state has remained a ghost and no one has been able to identify which of the pro-Jonathan states ‘ported’.

Here is the voting pattern: for Amaechi were Imo, Ekiti, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Lagos, Adamawa, Borno, Osun, Jigawa, Kano, Nasarawa, Niger, Sokoto, Zamfara, Rivers, Kebbi and Kwara while those that voted Jang were Benue, Taraba, Bauchi, Plateau, Ondo, Kogi, Katsina, Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Kaduna, Bayelsa, Anambra, Delta, Ebonyi, Enugu and Abia States.

Now, the question many seek answer to is: who cast Amaechi’s 19th vote? Certainly, no one will own up to such a betrayal, especially where the understanding had been supposedly sealed, signed and delivered with a penalty in the cooler. But is there any harm in hazarding a guess?

Although, THISDAY cannot say with a degree of authority which of the states actually ported, what appears certain is that the vote has been located between Delta and Enugu States. It’s just a guess, mind you. Maybe you should do your own findings too.

culled from www.thisdaylive.com

Friday, 24 May 2013

African unity after 50 years of OAU/AU: A dream deferred?


As the AU is marking the 50th anniversary of the OAU under the theme ‘Pan-Africanism and African Renaissance’, it is necessary to subject the 50 years journey of the OAU/AU with respect to the question of unity to critical scrutiny.
To this end, it is imperative that we heed the counsel of former South African President Thabo Mbeki that in the context of the 50th anniversary of the OAU ‘We must answer some questions honestly: What progress have we made towards the achievement of the objectives set by the OAU, AU and NEPAD? What shall we do in this regard?’
This should involve an appreciation of the dismal performance of the continent on the question of African unity. Accordingly, in what follows I would like to highlight the road that post-independence leaders pursued and how it led to the betrayal of the promises of liberation and hence the dream of unity as well as the catastrophic consequence of this failure of the post-independence political class. In the process, I also hope to identify the major factors that impeded substantive progress towards the dream of the unification of people of the continent.
The OAU years during the Cold War: the case of unity betrayed?
The birth of the OAU coincides with the emergence of the Cold War, which shaped global politics and indeed the relationship of the newly independent African states to global powers. In many ways, the OAU of the Cold War period can appropriately be considered as a period that manifested the betrayal of the dream of unity.
The defeat of Nkrumah’s vision of unity in the May 1963 OAU founding conference in Addis Ababa
It should be stated that the OAU came into existence after a lengthy debate between diverse group of leaders. Indeed, in that historic month of May 1963 in Addis Ababa the 32 heads of state and government represented various forces including revolutionaries, reactionary and feudal forces, nationalists and puppets of former colonial powers. These diverse group of leaders were divided into two large blocks: the few of them supporting Nkrumah’s vision of a united states of Africa and the conservative and gradualist block that sought nothing more than a loose association.
In the ideological fight between the forces of unity and status quo, the OAU represented the victory of the forces of status quo and the defeat of Nkrumah’s vision of unity. G. G. Collins, British High Commissioner in Accra, in a 1963 memo described the defeat of Nkrumah’s vision of unity in the following terms
‘He (Nkrumah) had asked for a continental government of a Union of African States with a common foreign policy and diplomacy, common citizenship and a capital city; he got a loose organization which specifically provides for its members to be able to renounce their membership.
He had said that the Union of Africa would solve all border problems; he got a Commission of Mediation and clauses among the Principles of the Organization referring to non-interference in the internal affairs of states and to unreserved condemnation of subversive activities on the part of neighboring states.
He had asked for a continent-wide economic and industrial programme to include a common market and a common communications system, and a monetary zone with a central bank and currency; he got only a promise that commissions for matters economic and social, educational and cultural, scientific and technical might be set up.
He had asked for plans for a common system of defense; he got only the promise of a defense commission. When the conference Resolution to set up a Liberation Bureau was implemented, Ghana was not included.’
Application of ‘We the Head of State and Government’ to its limits
In the years following 1963, the OAU years of the Cold War further entrenched existing divisions and added new once. First, the expression in the commencing words of the OAU Charter ‘We the Heads of State and Government’ was applied to its limits. The OAU became no more than a trade union of heads of state and governments, many of whom became in subsequent years violent dictators, Kleptocrats, self-appointed emperors and presidents for life. As aptly portrayed in Chinua Achebe’s Anthills of the Savannah, like the colonial authorities from whom they took political power, the post-independence political class treated the masses of their people with contempt, abuse and even brut force. Whatever unity that emerged within the OAU was a unity in dictatorship, corruption and misery. As the post-independence political class used its hold on power to accumulate personal wealth, indulge in excessive abuse of power and perfect despotic and violent rule as powerfully mirrored in Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s Wizard of the Crow, the promise and hope of the liberation struggle including the dream of unity soon turned into nightmare in many of the newly independent countries.
Most, if not all, independent countries became not only poor economies but also economies dependent on their former colonial countries. As Frantz Fanon in his celebrated book The Wretched of the Earth aptly summed up,
‘the national economy of the period of independence [was] not set on a new footing. It is still concerned with the ground-nut harvest, with the cocoa crop, the olive yield. In the same way there is no change in the marketing of basic products, and not a single industry is set up in the country. We go on sending out our raw materials, we go on being Europe’s small farmers, who specializes in unfinished products’.
This economics (mainly interested in accumulation of private wealth for the political class rather than serving the interests of the masses of the population and concerned with only export of raw materials) offered no motivation to build communication and transport infrastructure that connects the countries of the continent. Similarly, the logic of this economics also ensured that there could be no chance of intra-African trade and hence possibility of economic integration.
Second, the OAU served as a framework for entrenching the juridical sovereignty of its member states, which more often than not was used to shield the corrupt and violent system of governance perfected in many of its member states. First, shackled by its dogmatic adherence to the principle of non-intervention, the OAU became witness to the rampant miss rule and the many violations that took place in many countries including Central African Republic, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, and former Zaire. Second, in the Cairo meeting in 1964 OAU member states adopted the principle of Uti Possidetis thereby affirming the deeply arbitrary colonial division of the continent. Third, OAU members adopted legal regimes relating to tariff and customs as well as entry and exist requirements.
The above developments had two negative consequences to the unity of the continent. First, they solidified and hardened the colonial fences separating the countries and peoples of Africa, deepening the colonial division of the continent and limiting free movement of people and goods.  Second, they gave rise to a politics of indifference that blocked OAU and its member states from coming to the defense of the people of Africa who, soon after independence, forced to endure a rule as brutal as that was found under colonialism.
The Cold War added a further division between the countries of the continent, as a divided and weak Africa was soon turned into a major theatre of the Cold War. As in the past, the interventions of the Cold War by global powers on the continent proved to be destructive.
Former South African President Thabo Mbeki best captured this devastation in the following terms:
Concretely, among other things, this resulted in such negative developments as the corruption of the African independence project through the establishment of the system of neo-colonialism, the overthrow of governments which resisted this, support for the white minority and colonial regimes in Southern Africa, seen as dependable anti-communist and anti-Soviet allies, the assassination of such leaders as Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara and Eduardo Mondlane, sponsorship of such instrumentalities as UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Moçambique, support for predatory and client regimes such as those of Mobutu in the then Zaire, and of Houphouët-Boigny in Côte d’Ivoire
The above political, economic and security developments produced Africa of the 1990s.
The OAU in the 1990s: African states individually disintegrating
In his advocacy for heeding his vision of African unity, Nkrumah warned Africa that the failure to unify had serious consequences. He thus stated:
Salvation for Africa lies in unity…for in unity lies strength and I see it, African states must unite or sell themselves out to imperialist and colonialist exploiters for a mess of pottage or disintegrate individually.
The 1990s was a period when Nkrumah’s worst prophetic warning of the disintegration of African states individually was literarily born by actual events in many parts of the continent.
Thus, the immediate post-Cold War period became one of the darkest, bloodiest and bleakest of times for Africa. Outside of the slave trade and colonial era, at no other time violence have been more horrific and devastating than during this period. OAU member states were ‘disintegrating individually’ and it was as though Africa has gone ‘from the frying pan into the fire’.
In the 1990s Africa saw the descent of Somalia into protracted lawlessness and anarchy, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), formerly Zaire, into one of Africa’s brutal civil wars in which millions of people perished and Sierra Leone and Liberia civil wars that unleashed untold horor on civilian population of the two countries.
However, it was the 1994 Rwandan genocide that shock Africa to its core. In a period of one hundred days, close to 800,000 Rwandese, almost one tenth of the population of the country, were mercilessly massacred.
With none of those who scrambled for controlling the direction of the continent showing interest to come to the recue of people of the continent, ‘Africa was suddenly left to fend for itself’ as former Secretary General Kofi Annan put it. Unfortunately, the OAU, which developed into a disappointing symbol of the (dis)unity of the continent, failed terribly to do anything meaningful to avert or mitigate many of the calamities of the 1990s. As in the past, it did very little other than being witness to the brutal death, mayhem and displacement of millions of Africans and to its member states ‘disintegrating individually’.
The AU: A false dawn of African unity?
The transformation of the OAU to the AU is indeed a major development in the evolution towards achieving the ideals of pan-Africanism. As Murithi rightly pointed out the AU ‘was supposed to usher Africa into a new era of continental integration, leading to a deeper unity and a resolution of its problems.’
The transformation of the OAU to the AU involved both normative and institutional Changes.
At the normative level, under the Constitutive Act of the AU, the AU made a complete break from the OAU in two major ways. First by redefining sovereinty where by the divisive OAU principle of non-intervention was replaced by a solidaity principle of non-indifference under Article 4 (h) of the Constitutive Act.
These normative changes were also accompanied by institutional changes. This involved the establishment of decision-making and implementation structures (the AU Assembly, the Executive Council, AU PSC, PRC and the AU Commission) representative and judicial institutions (Pan-African Parliament and the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights) as well as a continental development framework taking the form of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development with its governance monitoring and review process called the African Peer Review Mechanism.
Compared to the OAU years, Africa indubitably registered some commendable progress under the AU. This is particularly true with respect to peace and security. However, the promises unfulfilled are far more than those realized. Quite a number of limitations have been witnessed in the past decade.
The most notable and widely recognised limitation of the AU system is its heavy dependence on donor funding for its activities. For example, close to 90% of the funding for AU peace and security activities comes from donor funding.
Moreover, most AU member states do not make the diplomatic and military contributions needed for the effective implementation of the decisions they made. For example, the AU Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) consisted of troops from only Uganda and Burundi for far too long, although all PSC members were involved in the decision to deploy AMISOM. Major contributions in terms of both troops and other resources for peace operations are borne by fewer than a dozen countries on the continent.
The AU’s slow pace of achieving consensus, the failure of its relatively well-positioned member states to provide expected levels of leadership and the resultant lack of appropriate action led to both political and security vacuum. Although it started off very well, currently the AU suffers from a dearth of leadership even on the part of its most pivotal member states such as South Africa and Nigeria.
There is also huge gap between commitments that member states made and their practice on the ground. Regime security continues to trump the demands of human security to which AU member states freely subscribed under various AU instruments. In this regard, former South African President Thabo Mbeki pointed out that one of the AU’s failures is ensuring that member states ‘respect the imperatives for democratic rule as spelled out in the Constitutive Act, and related decisions, centred on the strategic perspective that the people – the African masses – must govern’.
Another major issue has been the lack of a unified voice. This is evidenced by the divergence in the policy positions that AU member states take in their capitals, in Addis Ababa and in international forums such as in New York. In this regard, one area of manifest failure President Mbeki raised was what he called ‘the shameful African disunity and indecisiveness which resulted in the debacles in Cote d’Ivoire and Libya, which put in serious doubt our ability to determine our destiny, with present and continuing serious negative consequences for our continent’.
Conclusion
The foregoing clearly illustrated that ‘this question of African unity’ encountered betrayals, failures of catastrophic consequences, missed opportunities and in some ways false dawns.
It was not anchored on a firm ideological conviction on the part of both the post-independence and subsequent political leadership of the continent. The leaders with the required conviction and vision were very few and far in between. Many others declared their conviction to African unity in public but did everything and conspired with others to exactly impede and frustrate the unification of the continent. The dream of African unification also lacked constituency among the wider public on the continent. In the years following the establishment of the OAU, it was made a reserve of a self serving political class with very limited, if any, presence in the works and practice of civil society, the media, public intellectuals of the continent.
Apart from its weak ideological and social foundations in the practice of the post-colonial African state and public, the required socio-economic infrastructure capable of facilitating its realization was also lacking. There were no transport and communication infrastructure to network and link up the countries and peoples of the continent. The solidification of the colonial fences through entrenching juridical sovereignty, sanctifying colonially carved deeply arbitrary borders, and the adoption of regulations imposing restrictions and tariffs on movement of people and goods further deepened the division inherited at independence. Lack of industrial development also mean that there existed very little for African countries to trade between themselves.
While under the AU there have been promising developments, the division and rivalry among African states are allowed to persist. Much of the current political class lacks the ideological conviction for advancing the ideal of unification with the urgency and determination it requires. Those with the position and capacity to mobilize the continent for higher level of political and socio-economic integration are divided and remain indecisive in providing the leadership expected of them. The continent has as yet to develop the required regulatory and physical infrastructure (communication and transport infrastructure, standardized trade frameworks, industrialization for producing finished products essential for intra-African trade) that facilitates economic integration and intra-regional trade.
The result is the continuing state of disunity among African states. After 50 years journey African unity still remains a dream deferred.
The major challenges to be overcome include addressing
  • the deficit in the ideological conviction of the political classes of the countries of the continent,
  • the lack of sustainable political commitment, and
  • the  current dearth of political leadership on the continent
  • the development of the required socio-economic and physical infrastructure
  • absence of societal wide awareness of and support for the unification project
Steps to be taken include
  • re-articulation and reaffirmation of the commitment for African unity as the surest means both for extricating the masses of the people from the prevailing socio-economic and political ills they find themselves in and for enabling Africa to participate in and contribute meaningfully for global development and prosperity as well as in the global quest for a just and humane world order
  • creating societal wide awareness of and constituency for African unity,
  • achieving the emergence of a coalition of countries with dedicated political leadership and commitment for pursuing the dream of African unity
  • outline a realistic and incentivised roadmap and strategy with benchmarks and realistic timelines as well as follow up mechanisms for integration
  • translating declarations and rhetoric of unity reflected in the plethora of commitments made under the AU into actions by contributing the required diplomatic and material resources to achieve the kind of integration and unification along the terms aptly put by Frantz Fanon:
The inter-African solidarity must be a solidarity of fact, a solidarity of action, a solidarity of concrete in men, in equipment, in money
Failure to achieve the above would leave countries of the continent divided by petty conflicts and struggles deferring the dream of unification for far too long. And as former South African President Thabo Mbeki warned ‘If this dream is deferred for much longer, surely, it will explode!’