Is the AU another toothless bulldog?

By Kofi Akordor
Hopes were raised and many Africans jubilated at the birth of the African Union (AU) in Durban, South Africa, in July 2002. There were good reasons the AU was welcomed with hope and anticipation. Its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), was seen to have outlived its usefulness and had become more or less a club for African dictators who met annually to wine and dine and go home to wait for another year. Former Tanzanian President, Julius Nyerere, himself a founding member, described the OAU as a “trade union of African Heads of State”. The situation has not changed much though, as we still have leaders who belonged to the Nyerere era such as Paul Biya, Omar Bongo, Robert Mugabe, Muamar Al-Qathafi and Hosni Mubarak in power.
With the OAU’s mandate of ridding the continent of the last vestiges of colonialism and dismantling apartheid in South Africa accomplished, there was a general opinion that Africa needed a more vibrant and proactive continental body to spearhead its development agenda and give a new hope to a continent known to be home to the world’s poorest, most illiterate, ignorant, diseased and socially and politically marginalised.
The AU, it was also envisaged, would shy away from one of the weaknesses of its predecessor; that is, the non-interference in the affairs of other member states. This was seen as having undermined the promotion of democracy and made the continent a fertile ground for dictatorship and corrupt leadership to flourish.
But what sets the AU apart from the defunct OAU is that the former has been modelled along the lines of the European Union (EU), with various structures which will enable it to ultimately blossom into a Union Government of Africa.
The AU also has, as one of its pillars, the promotion of democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance in member countries. There are many who believe that the continent has lagged behind others over the past five decades mainly because of the quality of political leadership which managed affairs in the various countries during the post-independent era.
Any continental body which makes it, as a priority, the development, promotion and sustenance of democratic principles must be starting on a good note. This is where the AU’s biggest challenge lies.
The truth is that many leaders in Africa are yet to come to terms with new developments on the political landscape world-wide and are bent on using fair or foul means to win power or entrench themselves in office. Apart from electoral fraud or rigging, which has become the hallmark of most elections in Africa, a lot of the leaders, especially those belonging to the old generation, use constitutional amendments to prolong their stay in power.
General Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, who was a core member of the AU and who himself had been a respected peace broker on the continent, could not escape this canker. He tried unsuccessfully to overstay his constitutional mandate by trying to force through some amendments that would have allowed him a third term in office.
Having failed in that effort, General Obasanjo presided over one of the most controversial elections on the continent and virtually handed over to his surrogate, Umar Yar’dua, in an election described by all fair-minded persons as flawed and short of any democratic pretensions.
Before Obasanjo, other African leaders, including Sam Nujoma of Namibia, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Omar Bongo of Gabon, the late Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo and Paul Biya of Cameroon, had all pushed through several constitutional changes to facilitate their continued stay in power.
Notwithstanding these constitutional manoeuvres, the AU is currently confronted with numerous cases of rigged elections and the better it is able to resolve these issues in a more decisive manner, the greater the chances of stemming the continent from conflicts with potentially dangerous consequences.
When, in May, 2007, Nigerians went to the polls and elected Yar’dua as President, the AU was silent on what was perceived by many as a fraudulent poll. The then AU President, Ghana’s President Kufuor, a known close friend of Obasanjo’s, was mute over the illegalities. That was the first major test case for the AU. That inaction on the part of the continental body which promised so much hope for the people of Africa paved the way for more of such things to happen on the continent. That is what is happening in Kenya in East Africa right now.
On January 1, 2008, while the rest of the world exploded under bright fireworks to welcome the New Year, Africa entered the New Year on a bloody note, thanks to a 71-year-old man, Mwai Kibaki, whose determination to remain in power has plunged an otherwise peaceful and prosperous country into chaos and bloodshed. Most African leaders were unable to raise their voices to condemn the fraud in Kenya because what Kibaki did was not new to them. A lot of them came to power through the back door or retained power through rigging and, therefore, they felt uncomfortable to condemn Kibaki, who, more or less, belonged to their club of corrupt and disgruntled leaders. As some people may say, they all have cobwebs and skeletons in their wardrobes. It is, therefore, difficult for any of them to point accusing fingers at another.
The former AU President’s initial shuttle diplomacy failed to stop the bloodshed because of the entrenched positions of the two factions. As you read this, the former Secretary-General of the UN, Mr Kofi Annan, is pushing hard some peace-making initiatives which, we hope, will resolve the conflict and bring back peace to Kenya. However, whatever the outcome of Annan’s peace moves, the hundreds of lives lost will never come back to life and the property lost will never be regained.
What happened in Togo in 2005, in Nigeria in 2007 and in Kenya last year have raised doubts as to whether the AU is up to the task it has set out for itself. Many political analysts believe that the AU is, like the less functional OAU, shying away from clear cases of arbitrariness and electoral frauds which have the potential, as happened in Kenya, to plunge this continent into bigger and resource-wasting conflicts.
If really the AU has made good governance and democracy and one of its cornerstones, then it must be up and doing and face the challenge boldly where there are clear cases of poll rigging and place offending countries under sanctions and isolation.
The AU must also do well to address other trouble spots on the continent, including Darfur in The Sudan, Ethiopia, DR Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Zimbabwe and Eritrea, otherwise the difference between it and the OAU may not be clear.