African Union: "By Their Fruits
Ye Shall Know Them"
By William E. Allen
The Perspective
June 5, 2001
The recent announcement by Salim Ahmed Salim, Secretary General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) should bring joy to Africans. Salim Ahmed Salim informed the world that African heads of state abolished the OAU. According to the Secretary General, the 38-year-old organization will be replaced by the newly-established African Union. He explained that the goal of the union was to unite the 53 African states "politically, socially and economically." Salim optimistically predicted that the union "would have a real impact on the ordinary African." This is why the announcement sounds like good news.
Indeed, a union of African states has immense potential advantages. The immediate impact on the "ordinary African," however, will be economic. Given Africa's population of more than 500 million, a common market with a single currency could provide a major lift to the many states with stagnant economies. Interstate commerce (trade between union states) could engender a "multiplier-effect" (e.g., increased demands leading to new manufacturing, etc.). The high volume of intra-African trade could also spur regional specification, with states holding comparative advantages in the production of certain goods becoming the "giants" in those areas. Certainly the African Union does hold high hopes for ordinary Africans. This is exactly why Pan-Africanism has been a popular concept with Africans on the continent and those in the diaspora. The question being asked, however, is whether these African leaders, the "founding fathers," have the character, the resolve and the honesty to establish a union that will benefit Africa's suffering masses.
The majority of the views being expressed in the media by Africans are already predicting that this new union, like its predecessor the OAU, will be another colossal disappointment to the ordinary African. Take, for instance, some of the opinions expressed on the BBC program, Focus on Africa ("Talking Point," 2-3 June 2001). One Nigerian writer called the organizers of the union a "criminal gang." A Zambian suggests the union should be renamed the "African Robbers Union." Another writer from Zimbabwe says the union is a "club of rich and corrupt leaders." An Ethiopian whose country has been the headquarters of the OAU since its founding and will also be the headquarters of the union, says both organizations are "two faces of the same coin." And a Ghanian writes that the union will fail because its organizers "came to power through the back door."
In all fairness to the "founding fathers," one could dismiss these pessimistic views on the grounds that they are made by people who are not ordinary Africans; some live in relative comfort in European and American cities. Those from the continent could rightly be called elite; after all, how many ordinary Africans are computer literate or have access to the Internet? But then the most obvious question would be, did the "founding fathers" allow the ordinary Africans in their separate countries to participate in the deliberations about the formation of the union? According to reports, 46 out of the 53 African states have already signed the "founding act of the union." Since the idea of a union was reintroduced by Libyan Strongman Maummar Gaddafi in 1999, did the various heads of state take the proposal to their respective ordinary Africans - students, academics, traders, market women, taxi drivers, farmers, etc., - for their input? All indications seem to suggest that ordinary Africans were not party to this historic decision. It could be argued that the ordinary African will still have a say because the "founding fathers" have promised to model the union after the European Union and that the final "act of the union" must be ratified by the parliament of each member nation. But the argument becomes untenable when one recognizes, in the words of an Eritrean, that the leaders of the individual EU nations are "democratic," while their African counterparts are not. For example, EU leaders encourage citizens to participate in the various discussions about the formation of their union. African leaders on the other hand, would not tolerate dissenting views from the ordinary Africans. Moreover, it is no secret that whatever African leaders propose, their parliaments usually dispose.
The "doomsayers" appear to base their forecast on the characters of the "founding fathers." They believe that the Biblical saying, "by their fruits ye shall know them," is a useful clue. The actions of the majority of the African leaders sufficiently demonstrate that they are neither democrats nor believe in the basic principle of good government. Consider the records of some of these "founding fathers." While many ordinary Africans admired Gaddafi's early uncompromising stance against Western hegemony - and his apparent generosity - his tight control over all aspects of Libyan society quickly reminds them about their own autocratic and corrupt leaders. Since seizing power in 1969, the flamboyant leader has made sure that the only views ordinary Libyans hear are those from him and the "Green Book."
Togo's Gnassingbe Eyadema, the man who hosted the 2000 OAU Conference at which time the proposal of union was "discussed," staged one of the first coups in Africa in 1967. For more than two decades, he ruthlessly suppressed opponents. In 1993, in the face of mounting international pressure, he consented to allow multiparty elections and went on to "win" his first election. The opposition has accused him of stealing the election. Earlier this year, President Frederick Chiluba of Zambia attempted to alter the constitution so that he could legally run for a third term. The constitution stipulates that he steps down after his second term. Protests by students (which the Chiluba police violently suppressed) and widespread condemnation forced Chiluba to promise to step down at the end of his current second term.
The list could go on. There is Robert Mugabe, who after two decades of one-party rule, was forced by ordinary Zimbabweans to allow multiparty elections last year. In spite of widespread violence committed by thugs from his ruling ZANU-PF (with his obvious approval), the opposition still won 57 of the 120 seats in parliament. He continues to hold on to the reigns of power while the economy slowly grinds to a halt. In the meantime life for the ordinary Zimbabwean has become a nightmare of suffering and misery. Another "founding father," Charles Taylor of Liberia is well known for murder, plunder and the sale of bloodstained diamonds. Ordinary Liberians know from experience that Taylor will butcher them if they oppose his autocracy. These "founding fathers" are no democrats.
Africans are willing to challenge some of the tendencies that can eventually lead to autocracy and corruption. Some South Africans seem to believe that the recent allegation of a "plot" to overthrow President Thabo Mbeki was an attempt by Mbeki to eliminate his growing number of critics. Nigerians are criticizing President Olusegun Obasanjo for not keeping his promise to fight corruption. They accuse him of concentrating solely on reclaiming the overseas loot of the late dictator Sani Abache, while mismanagement continues to fester at home. He is pleading with Nigerians to exercise "patience" in the fight against corruption. Some Nigerians are already talking about the next election.
The "founding fathers" of the new African Union have track records as dictators and plunderers. Indeed, there are only a few among this unsavory bunch that come from nations with some tradition of democracy and accountability (e.g., Senegal). But they are vastly outnumbered. Neither is the fact that the venerable Nelson Mandela (who spent nearly three decades in prison fighting apartheid) witnessed the organizing ceremony of the union reason for optimism. As a former statesman it is not likely he will have any meaningful impact on the course of events in the proposed union.
In sum, by their collective fruit, one can expect the "founding fathers" to continue to be autocratic, corrupt and dishonest. Consequently, the new African Union, in the words of one writer to the BBC Program, "is a good idea guaranteed to go bad."