My faith in Africa is not blind
A PAN-AFRICANIST VIEW<br><br>Many people and mostly Africans ask me why I am such an optimistic African. Could it be because I am such an incredible optimist or I am so sentimental about Africa that I could not allow anything, including the very grim realities that surround us, to stand in the way
A PAN-AFRICANIST VIEW
Dr. Tajudeen
Many people and mostly Africans ask me why I am such an optimistic African. Could it be because I am such an incredible optimist or I am so sentimental about Africa that I could not allow anything, including the very grim realities that surround us, to stand in the way of my enthusiasm? Nowhere does my Afro optimism come in for more hammering than in my support for the AU.
However, my faith in Africa is not because of blind faith in leaders (some of whom may occasionally inspire but often disappoint in the end, especially as they remain in power longer than their sell-by-dates) but a very selfish one. I have faith in myself. If an African believes that Africa is hopeless, it means you accept that you are a hopeless person too because Africa is you and I, our hopes, dreams, fears, insecurities and expectations.
IF Africa is such a hopeless continent, why is the Chinese leader crisscrossing this continent twice in the last six months? Why is the West so fearful of the Chinese aggressive eco-diplomacy in Africa? Why are there more foreign immigrants and companies (many of them doing very well) across the continent today than there were under colonialism? Many of us do not just trust or have faith in ourselves and trust even less anything that involves our governments.
Hence in spite of many shifts, mostly positive, at the level of charter, improving attitudes and changing political environment, many Africans still look at the African Union as not different from the old OAU. From summit to summit, they look for evidence to justify their prejudice and biases that it is a change of name only. No recent summit has been more controversial than the last one (8th Ordinary Summit) held in Addis.
The fact that Sudan was denied for the second time the opportunity to chair the Union was sniggered at by many critics because of other decisions taken by the summit. Chief among these is the election of Ethiopia’s increasingly authoritarian and sectarian Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, as the chairperson of NEPAD, which also makes him the Chair of the Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee and responsible for the African Peer Review Mechanism. One can criticise this decision without losing focus of the significance of the progressive consensus on Sudan.
Not only was Sudan rejected, the choice of Ghana was a more progressive choice than what happened the last time in Khartoum, where Sudan was rejected in favour of another dictator, Sasou Nguesso, of Congo Brazzaville because of sensitivity to the unwritten practice of zonal rotation of host country between the five regions of the continent. In Khartoum, Congo-B was the only Central and East African country ready to offer to host and hence it was given the chance.
In Addis, there were countries from the region including Ethiopia, Rwanda and Tanzania, who bided but were passed over in favour of Ghana. In a year in which Ghana celebrates the 50th anniversary of its Independence from colonialism that inspired other Africans to get rid of their colonial overlords under the indomitable Osagyefo, Kwame Nkrumah, that decision was both a tribute to that great African, an affirmation of solidarity with Ghana’s relative peace and stability in a democratic environment and a testimony to our not forgetting our history.
If rejecting Sudan in favour of Ghana was a high point of progressive consensus, the choice of Ethiopia to chair NEPAD was a very low point of least common denominator consensus. It points to areas that still need to be worked on as the AU moves forward. While the Constitutive Act of Union that established the AU is quite clear about the standards required to be members and conditions under which the Union can invoke some of the provisions to ‘interfere’ in the so called internal affairs of member states, there are no guidelines about standards required for a member to remain member. It is very much like a family where you are a life member by blood and no matter what a rotten apple you become, you remain part of the clan even in death. We need some amendment in this respect.
Membership should not be permanently automatic. There must be conditions and standards below which members should not fall in order to remain members. Even if they cannot be suspended or dismissed, there must be some symbolic sanctions like not holding positions to encourage them to clean up their act. For NEPAD, that has been the butt of many criticisms and jeers, especially the Peer Review Mechanism, which has invited more consternation by electing Ethiopia as its chairperson.
How can an African country occupying another African country be heading the APRM? How can a country that has locked up political opponents of the government who have committed no ‘crime’ other than winning elections organised by the same government, be the one in charge of enforcing standards of governance on the continent? For those who dismiss NEPAD’s Peer Review as nothing but a white wash, the chairmanship of Prime Minister Meles has given them more ammunition than they can use to discredit it. But Meles’ election is a manifestation of wider problems with NEPAD and its continuing uneasy relationship with the AU.
Nigeria, which has chaired the Steering Committee since its inception, has up to now not subjected itself to the full Peer Review. South Africa which inspired NEPAD and continue to fund and host it and unwilling to cede control to AU has also not completed its Peer Review. Most of the members of the 15-state Steering Committee have not done so either. In fact only three states, Rwanda, Ghana and Kenya have submitted themselves for others to judge. This is not good enough.
Countries that cannot submit themselves to the scrutiny of their peers should not chair or steer the group. Countries that fail the test should also not be allowed otherwise why should anybody bother to join or comply?
Dr. Tajudeen
Many people and mostly Africans ask me why I am such an optimistic African. Could it be because I am such an incredible optimist or I am so sentimental about Africa that I could not allow anything, including the very grim realities that surround us, to stand in the way of my enthusiasm? Nowhere does my Afro optimism come in for more hammering than in my support for the AU.
However, my faith in Africa is not because of blind faith in leaders (some of whom may occasionally inspire but often disappoint in the end, especially as they remain in power longer than their sell-by-dates) but a very selfish one. I have faith in myself. If an African believes that Africa is hopeless, it means you accept that you are a hopeless person too because Africa is you and I, our hopes, dreams, fears, insecurities and expectations.
IF Africa is such a hopeless continent, why is the Chinese leader crisscrossing this continent twice in the last six months? Why is the West so fearful of the Chinese aggressive eco-diplomacy in Africa? Why are there more foreign immigrants and companies (many of them doing very well) across the continent today than there were under colonialism? Many of us do not just trust or have faith in ourselves and trust even less anything that involves our governments.
Hence in spite of many shifts, mostly positive, at the level of charter, improving attitudes and changing political environment, many Africans still look at the African Union as not different from the old OAU. From summit to summit, they look for evidence to justify their prejudice and biases that it is a change of name only. No recent summit has been more controversial than the last one (8th Ordinary Summit) held in Addis.
The fact that Sudan was denied for the second time the opportunity to chair the Union was sniggered at by many critics because of other decisions taken by the summit. Chief among these is the election of Ethiopia’s increasingly authoritarian and sectarian Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, as the chairperson of NEPAD, which also makes him the Chair of the Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee and responsible for the African Peer Review Mechanism. One can criticise this decision without losing focus of the significance of the progressive consensus on Sudan.
Not only was Sudan rejected, the choice of Ghana was a more progressive choice than what happened the last time in Khartoum, where Sudan was rejected in favour of another dictator, Sasou Nguesso, of Congo Brazzaville because of sensitivity to the unwritten practice of zonal rotation of host country between the five regions of the continent. In Khartoum, Congo-B was the only Central and East African country ready to offer to host and hence it was given the chance.
In Addis, there were countries from the region including Ethiopia, Rwanda and Tanzania, who bided but were passed over in favour of Ghana. In a year in which Ghana celebrates the 50th anniversary of its Independence from colonialism that inspired other Africans to get rid of their colonial overlords under the indomitable Osagyefo, Kwame Nkrumah, that decision was both a tribute to that great African, an affirmation of solidarity with Ghana’s relative peace and stability in a democratic environment and a testimony to our not forgetting our history.
If rejecting Sudan in favour of Ghana was a high point of progressive consensus, the choice of Ethiopia to chair NEPAD was a very low point of least common denominator consensus. It points to areas that still need to be worked on as the AU moves forward. While the Constitutive Act of Union that established the AU is quite clear about the standards required to be members and conditions under which the Union can invoke some of the provisions to ‘interfere’ in the so called internal affairs of member states, there are no guidelines about standards required for a member to remain member. It is very much like a family where you are a life member by blood and no matter what a rotten apple you become, you remain part of the clan even in death. We need some amendment in this respect.
Membership should not be permanently automatic. There must be conditions and standards below which members should not fall in order to remain members. Even if they cannot be suspended or dismissed, there must be some symbolic sanctions like not holding positions to encourage them to clean up their act. For NEPAD, that has been the butt of many criticisms and jeers, especially the Peer Review Mechanism, which has invited more consternation by electing Ethiopia as its chairperson.
How can an African country occupying another African country be heading the APRM? How can a country that has locked up political opponents of the government who have committed no ‘crime’ other than winning elections organised by the same government, be the one in charge of enforcing standards of governance on the continent? For those who dismiss NEPAD’s Peer Review as nothing but a white wash, the chairmanship of Prime Minister Meles has given them more ammunition than they can use to discredit it. But Meles’ election is a manifestation of wider problems with NEPAD and its continuing uneasy relationship with the AU.
Nigeria, which has chaired the Steering Committee since its inception, has up to now not subjected itself to the full Peer Review. South Africa which inspired NEPAD and continue to fund and host it and unwilling to cede control to AU has also not completed its Peer Review. Most of the members of the 15-state Steering Committee have not done so either. In fact only three states, Rwanda, Ghana and Kenya have submitted themselves for others to judge. This is not good enough.
Countries that cannot submit themselves to the scrutiny of their peers should not chair or steer the group. Countries that fail the test should also not be allowed otherwise why should anybody bother to join or comply?