Born from the remnants of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 2002, the African Union has spent two decades facing a number of challenges that it is still far from overcoming. While the balance sheet of the continental organization is far from being as gloomy as some critics would have us believe, it is nonetheless true that it is still a long way from the aspirations it set itself at the time of its creation. Today, it faces a number of imperfections that unable to perform as expected, and justify the criticism it is often subjected to. This article first describes the fundamentals and aspirations that the African Union set itself at the time of its creation, and then analyzes its structural and leadership problems.
The Objectives of the AU
When it was created, the African Union set itself a number of missions, both political and economic. Most of its objectives relate to security, the sovereignty of its member countries, the continent’s economic integration and the promotion of good governance. In detail, these objectives include
– Achieving greater unity and solidarity between African countries and peoples;
– Defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its member states;
– Accelerate the political and socio-economic integration of the continent;
– Promote and defend common African positions on issues of interest to the continent and its peoples;
– Encourage international cooperation
– Promote peace, security and stability on the continent;
– Promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance;
– Promote and protect human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other relevant human rights instruments.
But given these objectives, the African Union has struggled to live up to expectations. The organization faces a number of challenges which it is unable to overcome, and which at times undermine its credibility. In particular, there is a lack of willingness on the part of member states to relinquish part of their sovereignty so that the decisions the African Union is supposed to take to optimize its efficiency and ensure its objectives can be effective.
Structural Problems
According to academics Ueli Staeger and Babatunde Fagbayibo, “the AU was created in 2002 to replace the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Its institutions include the AU Commission, the Pan-African Parliament and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, but the real power lies with the Assembly, made up of Heads of State and Government”. They add: “the Assembly has refused to transfer significant powers to any of the AU organs. For example, the Pan-African Parliament has no binding legislative powers. Nor can the AU Commission compel member states to comply with AU rules. Most member states refuse to comply with the decisions of the Court of Human Rights”. This phenomenon is undoubtedly one of the Organization’s major concerns. Because of the way it is structured, it has difficulty in asserting its authority and imposing itself on member states. In fact, the African Union has no means of exercising supranational powers binding on member states.
This imperfection, linked above all to the hegemony of the Heads of State within the Union’s organizational chart and which undermines the Organization’s performance, is at the root of several criticisms. “The critics are to be found in African opinion itself. That’s where the critics are pretty harsh on the AU. They say, for example, that it’s a ‘union of heads of state’ that protects each other,” points out journalist Seidik Abba, who explains, on the other hand, that “this is perfectly normal. If you ask Romanians or other Europeans what they think of the European Union, you’re likely to hear the same criticisms”. The weakness of bodies such as the Parliament and the Commission prevents the organization from being as effective as it should be, and as long as the member states (the Conference of Heads of State and Government in this case) do not relinquish some of their sovereignty to guarantee the Union’s decision-making legitimacy, it will remain incapable of taking relevant decisions and, above all, having them implemented. At the last AU summit, Commission Chairman Moussa Faki Muhammad criticized the unwillingness of member states to abide by African Union decisions. “Over the last three years, 2021, 2022 and 2023, 93% of African Union decisions have not been implemented,” he said.
Lack of Leadership and Weakness in Conflict Resolution
If there is one major challenge that remains the backbone of the African Union, it is the conflicts and security crises that plague the continent and over which the organization shows little authority. Firstly, there is the terrorism that has plagued the Sahel for over 10 years, as well as Mozambique and the east of the continent, notably Somalia. Despite the efforts made, armed terrorist groups continue to gain ground, notably Daesh and Al Qaeda. Then there are the intra-state conflicts and wars in Libya, and especially in Sudan, where over 15,000 people have been killed in the past year in a war between the Rapid Intervention Forces and the army; there’s the question of the Western Sahara, which is also a source of diplomatic crises between Rabat and Algiers; but above all there’s eastern DR Congo, where civilians are often massacred in the conflict between the M23 rebel group and the Kinshasa government. A number of reports have pointed to Rwanda’s support for the M23, in particular for Kigali’s stranglehold on some of the country’s wealth. While the conflict has been raging since 2022, the African Union is still unable to put effective peacekeeping forces on the ground or to sanction Rwanda to dissuade it from its support for the M23.
In its report on the 37th summit of AU Heads of State, the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) made the same comments on the organization’s weakness and ineffectiveness: “The summit failed to give decisive direction to crisis management. Africa is therefore wondering when the DRC, Sudan and the Sahel will finally be taken into consideration by African heads of state and government, and on what issues the AU Conference should focus its attention, when interests differ. For many Africans, the increasingly obvious absence of strong leadership in crisis management seems to indicate a certain weariness or waning in the quest for stability with regard to the ideal of ‘The Africa We Want'”.
The promotion of economic and political integration that Africans expect from the African Union is far from complete. There has certainly been progress since the birth of the Union, notably in providing a framework for policy exchange and harmonization that can be further optimized. In conflict zones such as Somalia, or in the context of stability in Guinea-Bissau, the AU has managed to be effective. It has also strengthened the legitimacy and assertiveness of sub-regional organizations. As Seidik Abba maintains, “some things can be criticized, and there can be frustration over certain issues. But we must also point out the improvements, the progress and the advances, and I think that the African Union is a framework that we must keep, because it enables us to have common positions”.