 |
| 'África Rising' |
A lot has been said about
Africa’s rising and potential as a key player in global economics and
development. Analysts point to the vast potential Africa has in terms of its
abundant resources, natural and including human resources. Its leaders, well
aware of this, have moved to augment this ‘Africa Rising’ notion by instituting
various regional blocs to aid and abet the collective realisation of Africa’s
development. However, these regional
blocs continue to play more a decorative role in Africa’s as well as the global
political dynamics as opposed to a more proactive role in collectively addressing
the myriad challenges confronting Africa’s development.
When the Organization
of African Unity (OAU) was formed in 1963, the OAU
Charter recognised the following as its main objectives:
- promote the unity and solidarity of African states,
- coordinate and intensify their cooperation and efforts to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa,
- safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States,
- rid the continent of colonisation and apartheid,
- promote international cooperation within the United Nations framework,
- harmonise members’ political, diplomatic, economic, educational, cultural, health, welfare, scientific, technical and defence policies.
| OAU - formed in 1963 Source: crwflags.com |
The OAU
members then were alive to the fact that Africa’s overall development had to be
underpinned on its economic development. They therefore saw economic
integration as a pre-requisite to the realisation of this broad goal of
Africa’s development. They also understood that any integration could not be
achieved initially at the macro-level, but rather had
to start with integration at a sub-regional level, through the creation of regional
economic communities (RECs). The final OAU
Summit of 2001 reaffirmed the status of the various RECs
then present, acknowledging the role they stood to play in the formulation and
actualisation of programmes of the OAU
successor bloc, the African Union (AU), which
gained formal recognition in 2002.
The development of Africa however
ought to be viewed not in isolation but broadly within the framework of overall
global development. This brings into question the varied interests from various
quarters that presently have a direct and indirect stake in Africa’s
development. Key amongst these are the citizens of Africa themselves and their
leadership as well as other global players, notably those that have and are
trying to have a notable footprint on Africa from an economic perspective. This
piece will however not delve into the intricacies and dynamics of Africa’s
relations with the latter group but rather seeks to speak to the undeniable
stake that African citizens and leaders have on the development of their
continent. This, as particularly viewed from the perspective of the role of the
various RECs
as recognised by the AU itself.
AU and NEPAD
 |
| NEPAD - has it really achieved its goals? Source: nepad.org |
The transition
from the OAU to the AU was not an event but a process that was necessitated
by the fact of changing times and dynamics since the OAU’s
formation in 1963. The AU heads of states and governments realised then that
their task of carrying on the development of Africa within a new and changing
context needed to be underpinned on renewed and streamlined commitments that
were alive to new realities in global relations and general outlook. This in a
way necessitated the adoption of the New Partnership
for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), ratified by the AU in 2002. NEPAD sought
in essence, to further the quest for Africa’s development within the context of
new lived realities prevailing at various levels. Thus, it identified its broad
goals to include the reduction of poverty (itself a key cause and effect of
Africa’s underdevelopment), charting a sustainable development path for Africa,
halting the marginalization of Africa (from a global perspective) and the empowerment
of women.
The Partnership went a notch
further and provides for a comprehensive integrated development plan that talks
to the key political, social and economic issues of the continent. The
establishment of an independent secretariat for NEPAD and the
eventual adoption of the NEPAD Planning
and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD Agency) in February 2010, coming as an
outcome of the integration of NEPAD into AU
structures and processes, points to the centrality of NEPAD in the
future of the AU.
 |
| APRM - Peer review or African Brotherhood? Source: saiia.org.za |
In identifying and determining
that peace, security, democracy, and good economic and corporate governance are
preconditions for sustainable development and growth, the AU through NEPAD has
demonstrated that it is very much alive to the reality that the bulk of
Africa’s current challenges boil down to one key factor – bad political
governance. It is this realisation which inherently spawned the proposal to
have a system of voluntary peer review that is premised on the setting of and
adherence to codes and standards of governance. The first AU Summit in Durban 2002 (which was also
the final OAU Summit) thus adopted the NEPAD African Peer Review Mechanism
(APRM). This in my view stands out as a succinct admission on the part of
Africa’s leaders that the collective goal of Africa’s development cannot be
achieved without having a mechanism of ‘calling to order’ those leaders who may
from time to time renege on the crucial responsibility of taking Africa
forward, and not backwards.
Africa’s RECs and the Quest for Uniform Standards
The existence of various RECs
on the African continent should ideally be looked at from the perspective and
goal of accelerating the collective realisation of the development of Africa.
The most obvious reason for having RECs
in the first place is to foster greater cooperation and assistance amongst member
states in realising economic growth and eventually prosperity for all. The more
fundamental yet not so obvious reason is to foster and ensure genuine peer
review amongst member states – this basing on the realisation that a
retardation of this goal on the part of one member state amounts to a
retardation on the overall development of other member states as well. It thus
becomes important for all member states, from respective RECs
and collectively as the AU, to be alive to the
fact that it is only self-defeating if one or more member states are left to
freely set themselves on a self-retardation course, without there being
mechanisms to reprimand each other, within the ambit of set codes and
standards.
 |
| African elections seem to be a source of so much strife. Source: fpif.org |
The whole essence of having
regional instruments, statutes and policies is to ensure that member states
collectively set out a pseudo-uniform course for development, tinkered only
through the intricacies of domestication at the individual nation state level,
alive to each national context in question. Thus as an example, the AU adopted the African
Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance as a key instrument to set
standards for the conduct of elections in member states. This after the
realisation and acknowledging the centrality of elections to the attainment of
democracy and good governance on the continent. It remains fact that the
inconsistent conduct of elections on the continent has spawned riots, civil
wars and other negativities that have only worked to retard the economic growth
and development of individual member nations, ultimately affecting Africa as a
whole.
And the AU leadership is very much alive to this reality.
This is why they have been careful enough to note and include in the majority
of such regional instruments, sanctions for member states in cases where
certain codes and standards are not adhered to. For example, the same Charter
on Democracy, Elections and Governance is very succinct in noting: “If an
incumbent government refuses to relinquish power after a free and fair election
has been held this action will also be sanctioned by the AU”. It goes on to
further note: “Any amendment or revision of the constitution or legal
instruments which infringe on the principles of democratic change of government
will also invite sanctions from the AU”. The above two extract from the Charter
are indicative of the causes of two crises that the AU and its constitutive
blocs have gone on to be ceased with albeit at great cost too – Zimbabwe (in
2008) and Burundi (2015).
It is therefore sad and quite
telling of the approach that the AU has taken
in burdening itself with adopting such concisely worded statutes which it
cannot live up to, in realising that member states adhere to and are bound by
the regional statutes that African leaders pride themselves in coming up with.
It is only suggestive of an approach where such statutes are only decorative
and meant to paint a picture of an organised AU
that is alive to the global context of representative democracy as the ideal
model of governance to steer economic growth and development on the continent.
Their actions however, seem to speak of an AU
leadership that is not genuinely geared to drive economic growth and
development for the continent. As individual cases at various national levels
will show, the various actions and inactions of leaders on the continent,
individually and collectively under the auspices of various RECs,
are suggestive of a leadership not competent enough to steer the continental
ship through the murky waters of global strife and competing interests, on a
clear path to sustainable growth and development.
A Stitch in Time Saves Nine
This old adage speak directly to
the major shortcoming that will be noted in the way that the AU and the major RECs
on the African continent have adopted in dealing with the various crises to
afflict member states at various times. Instead of being proactive in
safeguarding the sanctity of the AU statutes before they are violated by member
states, the various regional blocs seem to prefer employing a ‘see it later
when it escalates’ approach. This approach however has continued to cast
aspersions on the continent, fuelling and rubbing in the tag of a continent of
‘perennial conflict and strife’, which in most cases is avoidable through
religiously following and adhering to set standards and norms of governance on
the continent.
 |
| Power-sharing agreement - Former President Mbeki is credited with resolving a clear case of election theft by an incumbent president. Source:alexmagaisa.com |
In 2008, the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
was faced with an incumbent government that refused to relinquish power after
an election loss in Zimbabwe. They ostensibly kept quiet when the incumbent took a record
time before releasing election results, something that was clearly out of line
with regionally recognised norms and standards. In a clear case of unwanted
‘crocodile tears’, they eventually intervened but only after many deaths, and
to wave their fists up high in having solved the nagging ‘Zimbabwe
Question’. So for them, it had to take the loss of so many lives, to
realise that there was a problem with the conduct of elections in a member
state. Despite clear provisions for punitive sanctions against such conduct,
Zimbabwe got away with it, both at AU and SADC levels.
 |
| Getting away with 'murder' in Burundi? Source:afrikareporter.com |
Just in 2015, there were
indications early enough that President Nkurunziza of Burundi was about to
embark on a self-serving constitutional breach by seeking a third term in
office. True to their fashion, the AU and the East African Community (EAC) were mum as the
issue developed, only to act startled by the eventual deaths and displacements
that this self-serving act spawned. And now, it has even taken intervention of
the United Nations to push the antagonists on this issue to the negotiating
table. Again, this is a simple case of a member state that clearly disregarded
set provisions and for now, seems to be getting their way.
Even as South Africa and Zambia
prepare for elections in August 2016, there are already indications of a
poisoned environment that can potentially result in the whole conduct and
results of the said elections being questioned by various quarters. And you
guessed right, SADC and the AU are both mum on
the goings on in both countries. Probably their argument is non-interference in
member states’ affairs. You will be forgiven to postulate that intervention
will only come when the body bag count soars to levels too embarrassing to
remain mum. Seems a precedent has been set where only body bags warrant
intervention. Clearly, this is not the Africa that those who met on 25 May 1963
envisaged.
Being Proactive can Help AU Regain Its Credibility
I will conclude by suggesting
that it is only by reversing this trend of responding to crises on the
continent only when deaths start to soar, that the credibility of the AU and its RECs
can slowly begin to be restored. The AU ought
to be better organised and be proactive in ensuring that they rid the continent
of the tag of ‘perennial war and strife’.
Already, the AU and its constitutive bodies have instituted a
good start by coming up with regional instruments and statutes that speak to
the creation of an environment that is ideal for promoting sustainable growth
and development. What remains is to walk the talk, as set out in these statutes
and instruments. Protecting rogue leaders amongst themselves will not work to
promote an environment that is friendly and welcoming of investors. It remains
true that other world powers may from time to time seek to take advantage of
these instruments to push their own selfish ends in their struggle for world
dominance, but Africa’s leaders are better off making sure that they do not
allow for wanton interference in their domestic affairs by ensuring that they
set about clear paths for ensuring good governance on the continent, chiefly by
adhering to collectively agreed and set standards and norms.
| Foreign intervention in Africa - whither Libya? Source: hrw.org |
It is of little gain for the continent’s
leaders to pride themselves in moving in to resolve crises after they have
escalated, when the same crises could have been nipped in the bud. Unless they
can show that they are capable of dealing with issues on their own, they have
no-one to blame when the world’s super powers come in to intervene under the
guise of helping Africans to solve their problems. We have noted in the past
how this lack of forward thinking opens up the continent to destruction and
plunder of unfathomable extents. Libya today stands as a clear reminder of what
a lack of forward looking thinking can brood for Africa. And is why today we
will continue to call on Africa’s leaders to be more proactive in dealing with
problem issues on the continent.
The writer Terence Chitapi is
a member of the Management Committee of the African Democracy Forum,
representing Southern Africa. The views contained in this article are his own and
he can be contacted at tchimhavi@gmail.com
