Check out our NEW online marketplace.

Africa: Leaders Consider Continental Integration

By Jackie Forman

July 7, 2007

Continental integration is currently one of the most popular topics in African political discourse.  Over sixty years ago, Kwame Nkrumah, former Ghanaian president, theorized about integration.  He and his colleagues criticized the national borders that Europeans created during the years of colonization, borders which often divided families, tribes, and communities.  These artificial boundaries determined laws and politics all over the continent for more than a hundred years, and now, activists, politicians, and diplomats are suggesting a new system in which the unity of Africa supersedes the successes (or failures) of individual African countries.

Members of the Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC) of the African Union have been holding a series of summits in Accra, Ghana to discuss and eventually formulate policies surrounding integration.  In 1999, the African Union replaced its predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), to speed up the process of integration, as well as “to rid the continent of the remaining vestiges of colonization and apartheid; to promote unity and solidarity among African States; to coordinate and intensify cooperation for development; to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States and to promote international cooperation within the framework of the United Nations” [1].  Despite the fact that the Union directly addresses the issue of integration, some leaders see it as ineffective and thus have devised specific models to further pursue the issue.  Currently, three models exist, and they are: the United States of Africa (USA), the African Union Government, and the Union of African States.  President Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya is at present one of the foremost advocates for the United States of Africa.  This model, which demands an African government immediately, is based on Nkrumah’s ideas and has been considered radical.  Dr. Chris Landsberg, Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, explains that the downside to the United States of Africa theory under Gaddafi’s leadership is that it “does not talk of democracy, values, human rights and governance.”  Leaders of the movement for the African Union Government, the second model, hope to establish the union by 2015 and have a president that serves for a three year renewable term.  Under this model, the 15 continental institutions that the AU created would be transformed into the 55th state in Africa, “and the rest of the states [would] cede some sovereignty and functions to it.”  Former Nigerian President Olesegun Obasanjo leads this movement.  Finally, advocates of the third design, the Union of African States, hope to do just that – transform Africa into a union of states that “subscrib[e] to common goals and values.”  This model, which South African President Thabo Mbeki promotes, most mirrors the format of the African Union.  One of the top priorities of the Union of African States is improving executive, judicial, and financial/technical institutions over an extended period of time [2]. 

While most people can agree that some form of cooperation would be beneficial to all of Africa, they disagree on how to execute such a plan.  Proponents of the theory argue that integration is the only way to solve the seemingly endless challenges that Africa faces, and thus the sooner this form of government is established, the better [3].  President Gaddafi stated that a United States of Africa would serve the interests of powers such as Europe, America, and Asia for the convenience of working with “regional groupings rather than individual countries” [4].  He cited this fact as an advantage, but some worry that “one Africa” would make the continent more susceptible to the greed and exploitation of those very foreign powers.  Others are concerned that a focus on continental unity would result in the abandonment of crucial existing problems in individual countries, like the genocide in Darfur.   Critics are cynical of African leaders’ ability to unite and work together when they have faced confrontation and opposition toward each other in the past.  Skeptics do not necessarily oppose integration, but rather they hope for a more gradual process [5].

The IIJD recognizes that the ineffective governments of Africa essentially perpetuate Africa’s development crisis, and without functional systems of governance, Africa’s problems will persist.  In addressing this development crisis, the IIJD recommends for African leaders to bridge national borders to strengthen the central government.  Thus the IIJD might support an integration initiative since such a system would force countries to take accountability for their own justice systems and political processes.  Integration would help to oppose the corruption that is presently rampant. 

At the same time, however, the IIJD promotes justice and development within the countries of Africa, and therefore might be hesitant to support the initiative because of the aforementioned concern: lack of attention to individual countries and forefront issues due to a narrow focus on the larger continental government.  The IIJD hopes that, in the process of developing an integrated government, individual governments will still take full accountability for justice and human rights issues in their own countries.

Integration might ultimately be one potential solution to Africa’s problems.  Nevertheless, it is a process that must be approached with thoughtfulness and patience in order to be carried out effectively.