United States of Africa? Not likely

Anyone who has been monitoring the African Union (AU) and the Southern African Development Community’s (SADC) response, or more importantly lack thereof, to the Zimbabwean crisis over an extended period would probably be staggered by any proposal to form a union government for the continent. Yet newly appointed chairperson Moammar Gadaffi and African leaders, currently meeting in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa, have elected to establish an independent body to create the framework for just such a federation.

Before any of you lot start panicking, if the AU’s response to other issues of importance is anything to go by, then by the time this new entity gets around to tabling anything remotely worthy of consideration, the continents will already have drifted back together again and we’ll be considering a proposal for the United States of Pangaea.

Notwithstanding and in order to enable you to understand what this is all about I have included articles from the Independent (UK) , BBC, All Africa, World Politics Review, Le Monde,Wikipedia and theMail & Guardian.

These will give you background together with a few thoughts from those in favour of, as well as those opposed to, the idea. In addition I’ve included a link to Google which keeps track of all the articles, analysis and stories that are being released onto the internet regarding this subject.

Let me start off by saying that while I am not against the idea of a United States of Africa per se, I believe that before this continent can even start to contemplate such an exercise, an enormous amount of effort is going to have to go into achieving stability within the individual countries. As things currently stand, each one represents a potential powder keg whose fuse might be lit at any time. A good example of this is Kenya, for long considered one of our most solid democracies, which exploded during their last elections.

I don’t propose to break down the ethno-nationalistic ambitions or group divisions within each country but believe it’s important to note that as a continent we have yet to learn to live under the leadership of other groups within our own countries. That coupled with a selfish refusal by an elite to hand over power via elections has left a trail of bodies scattered across a continent blessed with natural resources, good climate and vast amounts of space. As things stand Africa, instead of developing to its full potential, is riddled with cronyism and corruption with loyalty owed to elitism and dictatorships rather than ability and achievement.

Take a step back now and examine the federal concept that is currently employed by the US and the EU. Though the states enjoy autonomy they seek assistance and guidance while being bound to the federal government. In both the US and the EU each component part has individual laws and federal laws which bring about diversity at state level and uniformity at federal level. Each state which joins these unions is required to meet very stringent standards and laws as a cursory reading of Turkey’s application to join the EU demonstrates. Each union started out with a few states and invited or allowed others to join them subject to meeting their strict codes of practice and legal requirements.

This is crucial, as far as I am concerned, to the concept of a United States of Africa. A uniform code of practice and legal requirements started by 5 or 6 countries with the rest allowed to join subject to strict observance thereof.

The first question for me must be which 5 African countries would you suggest as role models or that could be bound together under a uniform set of rules? I cannot think of one genuine democracy that has had a history of ordinary transfers of power and that is not riddled with corruption, elitism or cronyism. Perhaps you lot might have a few examples.

Once you have a model you can build from there but Africa’s problem is going to be how do you create it without excluding every African country from it?

If regard is had to how the SADC and AU “dealt” with Zimbabwe then anyone who was able to decipher the standards that they applied must surely be worthy of having a crack at the Enigma codes. Why wasn’t it a case of the AU and SADC demanding a free and fair election, acceptable standards of behaviour in the build-up thereto and insisting that Mugabe immediately accept the result? Instead of watching as the people of that country were butchered and starved to death while a genocidal dictator refused to budge. The result is a country on the brink of the abyss with an economy that defies calculation and which is destabilising the entire region.

Last year, while Zimbabwe was burning to the ground, Mugabe paid a visit to the AU. If you recall the visit you would remember him lambasting the other African leaders for daring to judge him while so many of them had committed far worse atrocities than him. Imagine how bad you have to be to be a bigger thug than Bob? Yet it seemed to shut quite a few African “leaders” (by their mothers) up. Accordingly at the AU it was a question of aiming at the lowest possible denominator instead of being called to account to the highest standards being applied by your peers. It was a silent confession that many of them were no better than Mugabe and some were even worse. What a way to run a railroad.

The US and EU are a million miles from perfect and most certainly fall short of the standards they set for themselves. That said they do try and hold those who go off the straight and narrow accountable. By striving to meet higher standards you invariably improve your situation even during a crisis like a credit crunch.

In Africa we don’t even know where to start setting the standards never mind giving any thought to enforcing them. If, for example, you exclude dictators then there goes half your membership. Cronyism? Bang goes the other half.

Though the AU and SADC invariably do have certain requirements for admission, judging by the continuing membership of dictators, it appears these aren’t really considered relevant. As Bob says, if I can’t be here how come Sudan and the rest can?

This lack of stability and failure to apply and maintain standards has left an Africa rich with potential as a collection of disaster areas. Why then anyone would imagine that by joining 53 of them together would improve things is beyond me. It would more likely drag down the individual economies — the burden of carrying Bob alone would reduce us to ashes (and tears) — involve all in the umpteen conflicts that are a daily occurrence in Africa and result in the entire continent’s refugees being based in Alexandra. This while the latest ANC president explains to the now 345 million residents of Alex, how important it is to be good neighbours and understand that the fat cat posing as a leader of the latest refugees needed his country’s wealth to build his 19th palace.

In essence before anyone starts thinking of a United States of Africa best the AU and regional bodies start to introduce a set of standards that everyone complies with. The individual countries in turn start to demonstrate stability — far more important than democracy for this purpose — in order for this to work.

Dumping 53 problems together doesn’t give strength it just makes a huge mess out of lots of little messes. In addition it punishes those countries that are making strides towards better governance and are trying to get their houses in order. They would be dragged down by the spoilers and the destroyers.

Of course there would be one event worth having should this ever take place — the annual appointment of the chairperson of the United States of Africa. Picture 53 leaders with egos the size of Kilimanjaro vying for the top spot. Then picture Bob somehow managing to half-inch it on account of him winning the “who has butchered the most citizens in their country competition”!

Once in, I’d love to see how they get him out.