As alliterative as the above heading sounds, it also connotes a quest to bring together an entity that already exists, at least if not figuratively, in a loose form that needs further firming up. It is for this and other reasons that this writer posits the view that our ?union? needs to be 'unionized' formally.
The seeds of African Unity have always been under incubation, gestating throughout time as traces of this ideal were espoused by the likes of the ancient Egyptian chieftain Imhotep who lived long before Christ was born while several generations thereafter have sought to implement the dream. However, it was not until the end of World War two that the anti-colonial movements attempted to tie decolonization with African unity as espoused by Kwame Nkrumah at the dawn of Ghana?s independence as the African country south of the Sahara to achieve political self-government. Political economists would argue that this was at once a viable prospect inasmuch as it was a dangerous self-imposed hiatus, given that those whose interests were to be negated by any semblance of unity, were at once galvanized into action in order to keep the idea of what in their opinion, it has been and should always be: an idea!
Fast forward to 2007 and yet again; Ghana is in the forefront of talks to redirect the collective energies of Africans into the transformation of the idea into a reality. Ghana performs this role not because of some altruistic design on its part, but largely due to its Chairmanship of the African Union, itself borne out of the defunct OAU in 2003 to move 'the agenda' forward. It was for this reason that the Ghana hosted a single agenda summit of African leaders who expressed their views on the proposed union.
There is a lot of politics behind the African Union. This can be broadly categorized into the 'instantists/radical' approach and the 'gradualists/economic integration' approach. The former prefers what has been described as 'union government now' while the latter argues that Africa would be better off integrating economically as a stepping stone to 'ever closer' political union. The advocates of this gradualist approach include the likes of Mbeki of South Africa while the radicals are demonstrably led by Ghaddafi of Libya. It is plausible that the greatest challenge that formal unionization would face would be one based on leadership: which African leader would best reflect and epitomize the collective ideals of the African people. Would it be an individual from the old school of post-independence leaders where candidates like Mugabe remain prime candidates? Would it be the new petro-dollar gurus led by Ghaddafi? Could the renaissance leadership of the immediate post-millennium era present its case under Mbeki or would Africa have to make do with union led by a coupist/warlord/ ex-rebel leader turned president like Soro of Ivory Coast? These are legitimate questions that hopefully would enrich the leadership aspect of the arguably controversial debate.
The seeds of African Unity have always been under incubation, gestating throughout time as traces of this ideal were espoused by the likes of the ancient Egyptian chieftain Imhotep who lived long before Christ was born while several generations thereafter have sought to implement the dream. However, it was not until the end of World War two that the anti-colonial movements attempted to tie decolonization with African unity as espoused by Kwame Nkrumah at the dawn of Ghana?s independence as the African country south of the Sahara to achieve political self-government. Political economists would argue that this was at once a viable prospect inasmuch as it was a dangerous self-imposed hiatus, given that those whose interests were to be negated by any semblance of unity, were at once galvanized into action in order to keep the idea of what in their opinion, it has been and should always be: an idea!
Fast forward to 2007 and yet again; Ghana is in the forefront of talks to redirect the collective energies of Africans into the transformation of the idea into a reality. Ghana performs this role not because of some altruistic design on its part, but largely due to its Chairmanship of the African Union, itself borne out of the defunct OAU in 2003 to move 'the agenda' forward. It was for this reason that the Ghana hosted a single agenda summit of African leaders who expressed their views on the proposed union.
There is a lot of politics behind the African Union. This can be broadly categorized into the 'instantists/radical' approach and the 'gradualists/economic integration' approach. The former prefers what has been described as 'union government now' while the latter argues that Africa would be better off integrating economically as a stepping stone to 'ever closer' political union. The advocates of this gradualist approach include the likes of Mbeki of South Africa while the radicals are demonstrably led by Ghaddafi of Libya. It is plausible that the greatest challenge that formal unionization would face would be one based on leadership: which African leader would best reflect and epitomize the collective ideals of the African people. Would it be an individual from the old school of post-independence leaders where candidates like Mugabe remain prime candidates? Would it be the new petro-dollar gurus led by Ghaddafi? Could the renaissance leadership of the immediate post-millennium era present its case under Mbeki or would Africa have to make do with union led by a coupist/warlord/ ex-rebel leader turned president like Soro of Ivory Coast? These are legitimate questions that hopefully would enrich the leadership aspect of the arguably controversial debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment