Death by Committee

July 5th, 2007

African leaders have again squandered yet another opportunity, an historic one, to lead decisively. Instead they have gone for the least common denominator, the line of least resistance, by deciding not to decide. The all-important issue of a Government of the Union that was billed as The Grand Debate at the recently concluded AU summit, has been referred to yet another committee that will report at the next summit in January in Addis Ababa.

We are all familiar with the saying that the best way to kill an idea is to form a committee about it. How many more committees do we need to make this decision?

The so-called debate itself was the result of a study presented to the Heads of State that has taken almost two years to complete. All the arguments for and against were contained in the report and the three options were clear. One, immediate formation of a Union government. Two, a gradual process leading to Union Government by consolidation of regional economic communities and economic convergence. And last, the formation of a Union Government that gives political authority to the AU in specified areas, aligns national policies to continental policies, and rationalises the RECS to become affective building blocs for the Union Government.

Wherever one stands on this debate, deciding on these issues is vital to move forward. Too many decisions, agreements, protocols have been made, agreed or signed at the continental level without any implementation at the national level. The suggestion of a Union Government was meant to give an effective legal and political framework to these agreements and a mandatory enforcement mechanism.

Unfortunately, the huge ego, razzmatazz and showmanship of the brother-leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the champion of the accelerated Union-track, has beclouded the real issues feeding the prejudice of all Gadaffi-phobic and Arab phobic and sub-Saharan obscurantists. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa who is leading the anti-Gaddafi and anti-Union Government charge, liberally exploited these sentiments to actually subvert the debate due to the interests of South African capital and its expansion across this continent without any obligation towards our social commune.

The South African manoeuvre also tapped into the deep-seated alienation of many Africans about our governments, their distrust of political leaders, and cynicism that our leaders don’t mean what they say or say what they mean.

Unfortunately, Mbeki’s neo- liberal agenda was unwittingly aided and abetted by the ambiguity displayed by Nigeria’s new President, Umar Musa Yar’ Adua. Yar’ Adua was obviously not properly briefed by his benefactor and the Nigerian foreign policy elite about a third position championed by former President Obasanjo, and supported by Uganda, Senegal and other leaders in the Heads of State committee set up to look into the issue. They were supposed to report to the Summit but with clear timelines and concrete steps about what will be Union issues, further reforms of the charter, strengthening of representational institutions like the Pan-African Parliament and also taking a decision on the RECS.

But when Yar Adua spoke in his maiden Summit address, he sounded like all he was interested in were the RECs, thereby strengthening the Mbeki supporters.

Obasanjo was too busy trying to get Yar’ Adua to Aso Rock to update him on Nigeria’s position on African and global matters. The enemies of the Union Government are not just neo-liberal governments but also must be some of the bureaucrats in the Union and NEPAD. The old OAU bureaucrats were afraid of the Union and fought its restructuring before and after the extraordinary summit in Shirte in 1999. Now they are fighting to defend the Union they opposed because we now want to reform it further to create a viable institution with political authority.

Many of them are incompetent and got their positions due to political barter and horse trading and want to maintain them at all costs. But all is not lost yet. At least no one dares to argue against the Union and the Union Government in principle any more. What they are arguing about is when and how.

Therefore, the debate in the next six months in all our countries should shift to the streets, seminar halls, parliaments, county halls and at all levels to challenge our leaders and democratise the discussion so that by the January Summit there is a clear and unambiguous message that we are ready for a Union Government with a clear timetable. South Africa is happy for its businesses to be free to exploit the rest of the continent. Their attitude is like that of Britain towards Europe. However, British reluctance did not stop the Germans and the French and other Europeans to move forward.

Those countries that are willing and ready should begin to take the necessary steps that will make unity concrete for our peoples and not wait until everybody agrees.

“Forward ever , backward never”…..Kwame Nkrumah (1909 – 1972)

………………DON’T AGONISE!…………………..ORGANISE!!……………

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pm and is filed under Thursday Postcard. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Comments posted on this site are the sole opinions of respondents, and are not reflective of the views of Justice Africa.

3 Responses to “Death by Committee”

Paul Okojie Says:
July 9th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
This was a fairly predictable outcome. Initiative of the kind being proposed requires pioneers and ideologues who inspire confidence. Fast back, think of Nassar, Modibo Keita, Sekou Toure, Nkrumah and you can see the contrast. Ghadaffi on his own cannot pull it off; in spite efforts by Taju and others, the AU needs to do something dramatic to turn things around for Africans – there are two terrains where demonstrable actions are required: Darfur and Zimbabwe. AU needs to be scoring points by now – not meetings to hold another meeting! Unless there are demonstrable achievements, the AU is in danger of going the way of the OAU.

Paul Okojie
B.F. Bankie Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Taj
Your email of the 5th July 2007 was well received. Is Pan-Africanism a theoretical construct set in stone ? Looked at historically, it represents the sum total of the broad thinking of all of us on how to unite us all, both Continent and Diaspora. None can claim possession. Ideas will come and go. We’ve both been on this issue since at least 1990.

You would agree, surely, that the genocide going on in Darfur is unacceptable. Would you accept that the state of relations in the Afro-Arab borderlands, in general, at this point in time leaves much to be desired ? I can see nothing wrong in putting Arabs, who have historically been on the offensive in the area, on guard. Thus the question ‘Pan-Africanism or Continentalism‘ encapsulates this sentiment and serves notice that demographic remodeling will no longer be tolerated, now and in the future.

I agree with you that apart from the issue of ‘race’ as you put it, we have a myriad of other issues. The main issue is raising the level of political conscientiousness amongst our people. This cannot be achieved overnight, but is a complex task, which all nations confront sooner or later. It is a task in which we need to work together, to address. We will continue to be the least regarded, until we have formed a critical mass, sharing a common view, who act, not talk.

Yes, in terms of international law, I know who are African and non-African passport holders, but that is not the issue. The issue is how to strengthen the unity of Africans globally. I have no problem with others who wish to identify with our struggle on the basis of equality and am sure there are many Arabs who fit that description.

I have never advocated expulsions from Africa. I prefer research, planning, pragmatism and common sense. The AU, which I agree with you is a counter-productive bureaucracy, should continue as a platform for Afro-Arab entente, whilst we develop our African nation , constituted by Africa south of the Sahara and the East ( Arabia, Gulf States, North Africa etc ) and West ( Americas, Europe etc ) Diasporas, with its own structure, along the lines advocated by Cheik Anta Diop.

A study of the Sudan, a borderland state, teaches that the above-mentioned issues will not go away. They are historically rooted. As time evolves one can foresee healthier co-operation, on the basis of mutual respect, in the context of the AU with Arabs who are not racists and look forward to same. Our priority needs to remain the unity of the African people, not states.
Bankie

From B.F.Bankie
Juba, South Sudan
22/7/07
Daniel Says:
November 14th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Death by Committee, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.

Explore JA

Updates

Latest Book

JA Staff Admin

Death by Committee

3 Responses to “Death by Committee”

Leave a Reply