One
Continent, two 'African Unions'.
By Takura Zhangazha.*
The failure by the African Union
to elect a new chairperson for its
Commission on January 30 this year points to a seriously divided continental
body. Had this been an election
merely based on the popularity or
campaign skills of the two candidates (Mr. Jean Ping and Ms. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma)
it would not warrant analysis beyond its own occurrence.
Unfortunately for us, as
Africans, it has greater ramifications for the current and future context of
the AU and other sub-regional bodies such as SADC, ECOWAS and EAC (East African
Community). It is also a development that has had the added consequence of embarrassing
Africa in the world by casting doubt on the ability of our African leaders to recognize the seriousness of the challenges the continent is facing.
Furthermore it indicates an
unfortunate leadership deficit at the highest level due to the AU’s failure to arrive at
consensus on as basic an issue such as who should chair the Commission (a body
which to all intents purposes is meant to be run by general consensus of member states)
So now, there shall have to be
second round of voting in June 2012 at the Malawi AU Summit. While it is yet to be seen whether Jean Ping and Dlamini-Zuma will again be
considered as candidates, it is almost
certain that their camps will be the more mobilised to ensure that their proxies
acquire the chairperson-ship.
The closeness of the vote, (29 for Ping, 23 for Dlamini-Zuma in the third round) indicates that a compromise
candidate is well nigh impossible for either camps, unless it is literally a
statesman/woman of great respect on the continent (such leaders are becoming
extinct). The reason for this is that it seems there are vested interests in
either candidate that are informed by both a ‘new scramble for Africa’ [1]and
its attendant ‘falsely universal liberal intervention’ doctrine from the
West. This is particularly true for the
Ping camp which has been referred to as being dominated by former French
colonies.
On the other hand, the Dlamini-Zuma camp, which is distinctly dominated
by Southern and East African countries, is informed (surprisingly so) by the
Mbekite African Renaissance project (though they won’t admit it) , which has as
its dictum, ‘African solutions for African problems’. This approach has been
revived by what is now seen as the embarrassing ouster and murder of Libyan
leader Muammar Gadaffi with the direct assistance of NATO and the consent of the African Union. It is also an approach
that has the backing of Russia and China who are involved in their own ‘new
scramble for Africa’.
So as it is, it appears as
though there are now two versions of the African Union even though this does
not mean they did not exist before. It had to take the election of an AU
Commission Chairperson for the divisions to become more apparent. In the
process, Africa has now allowed itself to continue being a hapless battleground
for the global powers, with either side of the AU playing to one superpower
gallery or the other.
It is however the consequences
of a sharply divided AU that are depressing. In the first instance, it means
that for the next fife months, Africa will not speak with one voice when it
comes to addressing continental and global challenges such as the crisis of
global capitalism, human rights, the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) and
climate change. Even if there was to be
agreement on paper on issues such as the Somalia famine and war, there will be limited political will to put such plans into action.
As a result the five or so
months until the next elective AU summit are going to be preoccupied by
lobbying trips on the part of the ‘two AU’s’ to try and get their new
candidates endorsed by the majority votes required. This
lobbying will also involve regular communication and currying of favours with (if not visits) either the West
or the East.
The second negative effect
of the divisions in the AU relates to the global impression that African leaders
are incapable of doing things on their own and must therefore be ‘assisted’ to
overcome their problems and challenges.
The reinforcement of this perspective is reminiscent of the colonial
narratives of the ‘dark continent’ which is there to be ‘enlightened’, can only
learn from the West and simultaneously be
exploited for its natural and human resources.
All of this will be couched in
a language of 'universalism' that has as its base the false assumption that
Africa’s historical trajectory can only now follow the path of the West
and as some western academics put it,
arrive at the liberal democratic and free market ‘end of history’.
But perhaps there is a silver
lining to the cloud that is hovering over the continent at the moment. And this
silver lining is premised on the possibility that after this recent AU summit, our leaders will reassess the
damage they are doing to our continent and get their act together by the time
they meet in Malawi in June this year. And we can only hope that at the Malawi AU summit,
they will recall the words of the great Kwame Nkrumah, ‘Africa Must Unite!’
[1]
See also Southall R, Melber H (eds)2009. A
new Scramble for Africa? Imperialism Investment and Development, UKZN
Publications, South Africa.
*Please acknowledge that this article was sourced from takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com
its makes sad reading that Africans cannot elect their own who will champion the cause of our beloved continent.I still ask myself what the african union has done in dealing with problems devilling our continenteg libya,egypt etc.Yesteryear events have pointed to the fact that Africans have failed dismally to find home-grown solutions.
ReplyDelete