Maybe Yar Adua will become a Robin Hood in exchange for the PDP robbery of votes.

The innaugural speech, on Tuesday, by Nigeria’s newly sworn in President, Alhaji Umar Musa Yar’ Adua, was not a speech that will make it to the list of even ‘1000 great speeches’ one has ever heard.

But with following words he defined his Presidency:

‘I will set a worthy personal example as your president.

‘No matter what obstacles confront us, I have confidence and faith in our ability to overcome them. After all, we are Nigerians! We are a resourceful and enterprising people, and we have it within us to make our country a better place. To that end I offer myself as a servant-leader. I will be a listener and doer, and serve with humility.

‘To fulfill our ambitions, all our leaders at all levels whether a local government councilor or state governor, senator or cabinet minister must change our style and our attitude. We must act at all times with humility, courage, and forthrightness. I ask you, fellow citizens, to join me in rebuilding our Nigerian family, one that defines the success of one by the happiness of many.

‘I ask you to set aside negative attitudes, and concentrate all our energies on getting to our common destination. All hands must be on deck.

‘Let us join together to ease the pains of today while working for the gains of tomorrow. Let us set aside cynicism and strive for the good society that we know is within our reach. Let us discard the habit of low expectations of ourselves as well as of our leaders.

‘Let us stop justifying every shortcoming with that unacceptable phrase 'the Nigerian Factor' as if to be a Nigerian is to settle for less. Let us recapture the mood of optimism that defined us at the dawn of independence, that legendary can-do spirit that marked our Nigerianess. Let us join together, now, to build a society worthy of our children. We have the talent. We have the intelligence. We have the ability.

‘The challenge is great. The goal is clear. The time is now.’

No one who knows Umar Yar’ Adua would have been surprised that the speech was not earth shattering. The man’s personality is not given to any speeches, small or big let alone flamboyance or dramatic gestures.

If a Man who has been a Governor of one of Nigeria’s 36 states for the past 8 years could still remain anonymous to the public in a country where even Local councillors not to talk of State governors and Ministers, will never let you forget ‘who I am’ it should tell us something about the man. It is not just that many people did not know him he appears unwilling to allow many people into his inner recesses, hence not many can say this is what makes him thick. This quality has made many to underestimate him. Instead too much attention is placed on his main sponsor, General Olushegun Obasanjo and how he imposed Yar Adua as a candidate and used ‘do or die’ machinations to ensure his election.

There is a democratic need to continue to challenge the credibility of the process but as at 72 hours ago Umar Musa Yar’ Adua is the President of Nigeria, de facto and de jure. We cannot be blaming any problems on Obasanjo anymore . As the Americans say : the buck stops at Yar’ Adua’s desk now.

Whatever role Obasanjo played in getting him to Aso Rock people in power are not known for showing too much gratitude. Look at Chiluba and Mwanawasa in Zambia or Muluzi and his successor in Malawi and long before that Ahmadu Ahidjo and Paul Biya in Cameroun.

Or reflect on the role the English Noble wannabe, Charles Njonjo, played in facilitating President Arap Moi’s takeover in 1978 and how they dramatically fell out with ‘little known’ and supposedly ‘unremarkable Moi’ who out-manoeuvred not just Njonjo, but also those within and outside KANU who thought they were better than him.

Even Obasanjo was ‘imposed’ on Nigerians by the generals and in particular the so-called Hausa-Fulani power elite. Although he is a Yoruba but was not the choice of his kinsmen and women, but it suited the interests of the ruling elites of Nigeria.

Obasanjo soon declared himself against both the political and military cliques that engineered his transition from ‘prisoner to president’ who in their arrogance (typified by IBB and Atiku) thought he would just be a pawn in their hands. Yar’ Adua therefore is not the first ‘unknown’ to become president of Nigeria. Even the first Prime Minster of the federation, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa was a reluctant leader. Obasanjo in both his first regime as a military Head of state (1976-1979) and rebirth as a born again civilianised general (1999-2003) was a leader ‘against my personal wishes and desire’.

It was his second term (2003) and the sad attempt at a third term that he wanted the crown directly for himself. The worst of all the underestimated heads of state in Nigeria was General Sani ‘Viagra’ Abacha whom everyone believed could not ‘rule Nigeria for one day’. For over 5 years he remained in power through share indifference and mendacity.

If Obasanjo could use state power to transform himself from a political nonentity into a political gladiator that cornered and wasted his sponsors so can Yar’ Adua. In order for Yar’ Adua to gain any credibility he has to show himself as his own man. And all indications are that he will do that because the few glimpses into the man’s past being shared by the very few people who had been close enough suggest that he is that type of Man.

However he is unlikely to show his independence in any confrontational way. He will just ease Obasanjo into the sidelines while still publicly paying handsome tributes to his legacy, much the same way that Moi institutionalised his personal rule while claiming he was following in the full steps of Mzee Kenyatta (Nyayo!). There is nothing in the speech that will indicate any significant policy shift from Obasanjo’s market–driven neo-liberal reform agenda, stabilising the system, controlling corruption and rebuilding the deplorable infrastructure of the country and transforming economic growth into development that may deliver on the bread and butter issues to Nigeria’s overwhelming ‘poverty amongst plenty’ population. That is what the official mantra has been.

What Yar’ Adua brings to the table is contained in the first line in the concluding sections of his very brief speech that I quoted above: ‘I will set a worthy personal example as your president.’ He has set himself to succeed or fail through his own example. He has a record of being relatively above board which was one of the factors that favoured him above his more flamboyant rivals. He delivered a competent welfare administration in Katsina state.

He will need to do more than that as president before he succeeds in turning the huge debits on credibility that he is starting with and begin to build up political capital that may gain the grudging respect of disillusioned Nigerians who have always yearned for credible leadership under whom they could all feel proud again to be Nigerians.

The ‘election’ was certainly not the democratic expression of Nigerians. The paradox though is that I believe very strongly that Yar’ Adua could have won. I do not think many Nigerians believe that either Buhari or Atiku ‘won’. Therefore both could not have been denied what they did not win. The PDP denied Nigerians including PDP supporters the opportunity to vote. Instead of a democratic mandate Yar’ Adua is now saddled with Stolen goods. The only reparation that may redeem him now is to deliver on the bread and butter issues and launder the electoral robbery into a Robin Hood turn around!

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the deputy director of the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

I was travelling in Germany all of last week, 13-20 May 2007, like a politician on a whistle stop campaign. My journey had begun in Nairobi. I went via Amstadam to Hamburg. From Hamburg, I travelled by road to Rostock then off by train to the beautiful Gothe town of Weimar, from where we again got on the train to Bonn via Frankfurt.

This is not election year in Germany. Even if it were, I could not be campaigning for a seat in the Bundestag, or the European parliament, since I am neither a German nor a European citizen.

But it was a campaign of a sort. I was participating in various pre-G8 summit activities and events organised by the UN Millennium Campaign in Germany, in partnership with other civil society and NGO groups, including the Catholic church, and even elements of the private sector who support the global campaign against poverty.

Many of my colleagues had doubts and wondered if it was a good use of my time and energy. One cynical colleague even suggested that I was perhaps just going just for the trip. Another who knew that this could not be the case, and that I definitely could not be going there for the weather, consoled the others with a more philosophical doubt: 'Tajudeen is a servant of lost causes who believes that he can make stones hear!'

Their cynicism is not without foundation. It is not that they do not know the significance of the most important club of the richest countries in the world. They are very much aware that G8 countries dominate global trade, commerce, finance, global institutions, corporations and disproportionately use, misuse and abuse global resources; and that against this stark reality, the rest of us look like poor tenants living on the fringes of the real estate of the G8 countries.

Rather their scepticism is based on painful lessons from previous G8 summits. Their expectation now is 'not to expect anything at all'. That way, they protect themselves against disappointment. It is not that they do not believe that there are many things this club of the world’s most powerful countries could do about the world’s problems, from poverty to pollution; but that they no longer hold their breath that they will.

I call these non-expectations the post-Gleneagles downward spiral. The G8 summit in that Scottish town in 2005 raised so much hope that the richer countries of the world were able, ready and willing to stop treating the overwhelming majority of the poorer peoples of the world as illegal tenants; rather as fellow human beings in a shared estate that respects our common humanity with dignity.

At Gleneagles, old commitments such as those contained in the Millennium Declaration, as translated into the MDGs, were renewed, while additional promises were made to fast track the end of the extreme poverty and hunger, reform global financial and trading regimes to facilitate fairer trade, write of the odious debts of poor countries, improve both the quantity and the quality and effectiveness of aid.

2005 was even declared ‘the year of Africa’ - thanks to the discredited, soon to be ex-prime minister, Tony Blair - amidst optimism that the world would stop doing wrong to Africa and start playing fair; while African leaders would also stop doing wrong by their peoples by improving governance and increasing accountability to their own citizens.

Initially there was a buzz of activities to potentially shut up the critics and cynics. Debt relief was provided for 14 African countries that were already in the HIPC initiative. Non-HIPC African countries - Nigeria for example - had some of their debt cancelled while they paid off the rest. (Nigeria paid back more to Britain in 2005/2006 than the global total of British aid – therefore raising the question: who is aiding whom?)

But the majority of the African countries, unable to pay their debts, are still waiting on bended knees at the G8 doors. The volume of aid also increased in quantity. But the old habits of tied aid, rewarding current favoured leaders, and withholding from those out of favour, lack of coordination, non-delivery and not meeting promises are still the practice.

With hindsight, even the aid increase was soon revealed to be paper money because it was mostly debt relief. And Nigeria and Iraq swallowed a larger proportion of it.

However 2005 represented a high point in both public awareness in the G8 countries and globally about these issues, forcing political leaders to take note and recommit themselves to doing something.

Today, that something is lagging behind all expectations. Aid levels are now falling because G8 leaders are backsliding and retreating from their commitments.

And yet in the troika of trade, debt and aid, aid is the weakest link, though the most visible politically.

Aid can be doubled, tripled or quadrupled. But without further significant movement on trade and universal debt relief, the poorer countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America will continue to be trapped in the vicious cycle of structural poverty, induced and reproduced by the unequal terms of global trading regimes, imposed by the richer countries through the IMF, World Bank, EU and WTO.

Poor countries can trade their way fairly from poverty to prosperity. Aid is like emergency treatment at the scene of accident. It is well appreciated, and often timely. But it does not mean that the wounded should not go for proper medical examination. For long term development, it is not aid that these African need, but a fairer trading system and opportunity to choose their own development model.

Most African countries produce what they do not consume and largely consume what they do not produce. But the price of both what they produce and consume are determined from outside, namely the EU, G8 and now increasingly China.

Therefore Africa cannot be aided out of poverty without a fundamental reform of the unequal trade that is rigged against our producers, workers, professionals and domestic companies. Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprising, this is the one area where the G8 countries, the EU and the US have continued to conspire against the poorest peoples of the world in the stagnated so called development round – the Doha negotiations in the WTO.

If the G8 wants to renew the faith of its own citizens in their leadership of the world, and convince poor countries that they actually mean what they say, the answer is very simple: honour your own commitments.

Africa does not need new promises, but the fulfilment of old ones. Both the ones we made to ourselves through the African Union, Nepad and the MDGs, and those promised by the G8.

Everywhere I spoke, I told my German friends and other activists who care about international development, many of whom are as frustrated with their leaders’ broken promises that we are doubly disappointed with ours and the G8.

The next G8 summit in the East German town of Heiligendamm should not be business as usual, but business in the most unusual way. And that means two things: No more new promises, but the honouring of all the old ones. That would be a truly welcome surprise.

The second pan-African conference on ICT for development, education and training is scheduled to take place in the Kenyan capital Nairobi from 28 to 30 May year. It is expected to be graced by over 1,200 delegates from 81 countries around the world. Organised by ICWE GmbH and Hoffmann & Reif in collaboration with the Kenyan government, the annual conference focuses on ICT for development, education and training in Africa.

Fifty years after Ghana's independence, it is now clear that Kwame Nkrumah was 'a black star'. Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah seized opportunities to lead the countries of sub-Saharan Africa away from from colonialism. In 1957, he became the first Prime Minister of Ghana. By the time, he was overthrown in a coup in 1966 most African countries, outside the settler-dominated South, had also achieved independence.
ISBN: 9781847010100, 236pp. publ. June 2007, £14.95

Two very important meetings that will fundamentally affect the lives of all Africans, alive and those yet to be born, took place this week. Both meetings took place in South Africa. One in Durban and the other in the affluent suburb of Midrand, near Pretoria.

The first is a meeting of the Executive Council of the African Union, which consists of all the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the 53 Member states. The other is the 7th Session of the Pan African Parliament.

What is most significant about the two meetings is the agenda before them. Foreign Affairs Ministers met for final deliberations on the agenda for the forthcoming Summit of Heads of State and Governments of the Union in the first week of July in Accra, Ghana. The Summit has a one-item agenda: the United States of Africa.

In addition to other items on the agenda of the Pan African Parliament was the only chance it would have to discuss and pronounce itself on the matter before the Summit – namely, the United States of Africa.

But how many Africans know about these meetings? Of those who know how, many care? And among those who care, how many can influence the process?

It is not too late to inform yourself and also to influence the process because, whether we like it or not, their decision or non-decisions will impact on our lives and the future of our children.

There is no longer a debate about the desirability of full integration of Africa. The powerlessness of most of our states, our marginalization in global trade, finance, the shame of our states competing for who is lowest at the bottom of most human development indexes have won the argument in favour of unity.

However, as in the anti-colonial and immediate independence struggles leading to the formation of the OAU, there are disagreements about how far and how fast we should move on the road to unity. One would have thought that these debates were settled in the process leading to the restructuring of the OAU and its transformation into the African Union. But these divisions have continued to rear their heads and undermine the capacity of the states to fast track unity.

What are these positions? The first group is led by Libya and Brother Leader Muammar Gaddafi, who has been the driving force behind the fast tracking of the United States Of Africa project since 1999. This group wants the immediate union of the states with one government, common citizenship, common defence, a standing Army, Foreign Minister and a president for Africa, etc.

The Second group consists of states opposed to what they consider to be Libya’s haste and argue for gradual integration through consolidation of existing regional economic communities as the key building blocs of the Union. Initially they did not have a clear leader (since most of them could not withstand the roller coaster diplomatic, political and economic pressures from Tripoli) but carried out their anti-Libya manoeuvres through bureaucrats, ambassadors, foreign ministers and the committee systems at which Libya’s proposals are watered down and bogged down in procedural politics. And since the Libyans are not known for paying attention to details they often lose out but take consolation in all kinds of phyrhic victories.

A third group consists of those states who share many of the concerns of the cautious path of the second group, but now say that the AU is there and has enough in its Act of Union, enough authority and consensus to fast track therefore let us consolidate it before going further. This ‘AU is enough’ group is now led effectively by President Thabo Mbeki and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. Other important key players like Nigeria, Egypt, Algeria are basically either standing on the fence or trying to hold a dubious half-way house between Gaddafi’s enthusiasm and Mbeki’s cynicism. Other countries are hiding their indecision, ambiguities, hostilities or biases behind the protagonists. But this is an issue that cannot be fudged anymore.

The Durban meeting of Foreign Ministers is basically Thabo Mbeki’s fight back on the road to Accra, juxtaposing his vision directly to Gaddafi’s. The ways in which the South Africans have tabled the matter has already made this clear. Instead of the official UNITED STATES OF AFRICA they are saying AFRICAN UNION GOVERNMENT.

Personally I think we should be more original than just copying USA. But re-branding as Union Government also is neither here nor there. What is it that we expect the government, whether as a Union Government or as a United States of Africa to do?

In spite of the intrigues and manoeuvres by the various camps they share a basic weakness: they are state led and are projecting this vision without the involvement of the broad masses of their own peoples. They do not even involve their own parliaments let alone ordinary citizens. In many cases it is only the Presidency that is involved with Foreign Affairs Ministers playing guessing games.

There are already enough agreements, protocols and statutory instruments to fast track the unity project. What has been lacking is the political will by the leaders to put their money where their mouth is; and what has also been lacking is fully involving the masses. Without both of these, the grand debate will only be another sham executive posturing, which drive our peoples into inertia and cynicism.

It is not too late to reverse this wagon-less executive train threatening to run into each other from Tripoli to Pretoria. The business of Unity is too important to be left to Thabo and Gaddafi, even too important to be left to the 53 heads of state and government the peoples of Africa must have full say in it.

It is not a privilege to demand to be consulted. Rather, it is their democratic right. Otherwise the leaders are engaged in yet another futile attempt to try and shave our heads behind our backs.

In many countries people are organising to have discussions on this matter on Africa day this year: MAY 25. Join one or start one where ever you may be and demand of your president or Foreign affairs minister to debate the options and which side of the debate they are on.

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

According to Eric Masinde Aseka, the precariousness of contemporary politics of identity in Kenya seems to affirm the philosophical insights of Frantz Fanon when he states in "Black Skin, White Masks" that the colonized subject cannot make a meaning for himself.

30 African and international civil society organisations working in over 25 African countries participated in the first consultative dialogue with the pan-Africa parliament with the theme 'Building Effective Mechanisms for Civil Society Engagement with Pan-African and Regional Institutions'.

Aware of the 7th ordinary session of the pan-African parliament being held under the theme of 'African Union Government', the consultative dialogue provided an opportunity for civil society organisations to reflect on the proposal of the union government in preparation for the African Union Summit in June 2007 in Accra, Ghana.

After carefully studying the Study for the Proposal for Continental Government and the Study into the Modalities for Continental Government, it is clear that without the full involvement and participation of African women and men, the vision of a people's union will not be realised. In this regard, the pan-African parliament could play a pivotal role in catalysing informed dialogue at both continental and national levels.

Consequently, we hereby recommend to honorary members of the pan-African parliament that they undertake to:

1. Fully embrace the vision of deeper political and economic integration.
2. To inform their national assemblies and convene public consultations before the July summit.
3. Propose to the heads of states in July, clear consultation mechanisms for African citizens prior to all of the decision-making stages of the continental government.
4. Prioritise in the work of the pan-African parliament committees, the national implementation of continental legal instruments and policies.
5. Anchor the vision of a peoples union by urging the heads of states to immediately abolish visas for Africans travelling in Africa, as a precursor to the lifting of all restrictions on African men and women to reside, work and trade throughout Africa.
6. Call for rationalisation of the regional economic communities to take place at an accelerated rate so that they can become effective building blocs for continental integration.
7. Call for a clear domestic financing strategy for the proposed new functions, which may include the options of taxing air flights and other creative ways of raising revenue for the union government.

While institutional renewal and consultation within the African Union and its specialised organs is important, the immense political will needed to realise political and economic integration will only be sustained if our peoples are informed and supportive of such efforts. A public mandate is necessary for continental government to succeed.

We urge members of the pan-African parliament, in true recognition of their representative role, to champion this process. Lastly, we assure the pan-African parliament of our commitment to sustain the dialogue through regular submissions and interaction.

To sign this submission, please [email][email protected] by 09.00 GMT on Thursday May 10 2007.

Haiti’s overcrowded, understaffed and insecure prisons are powder kegs awaiting a spark. Any explosion of violence or mass prisoner escape could undermine recent steps by the government and UN peacekeepers (MINUSTAH) to combat urban gangs and organised crime, according to a new report by the International Crisis Group.

Founded in 1960, the Michigan State University (MSU) African Studies Center (ASC) is one of nine Title VI National Resource Centers on Africa designated by the US Department of Education. MSU can offer instruction in 30 African languages, with 9-12 languages taught each year. Two PhD African studies librarians staff the third largest Africana library in the nation. African Studies at MSU has been distinguished by its focus on Africa’s human needs - poverty alleviation, food security, education for development, environment and development, tropical disease, ethics of development, and gender equity.

What sense can one make of the ‘result’ of the Presidential election in Nigeria?

Local and most foreign observers are united that the elections were ‘fundamentally flawed’. The Coalition of Domestic NGOs, CSOs and Think Tanks, under The Transition Monitoring Group, TMG, that deployed 50, 000 monitors across the country has not only condemned the widespread irregularities variously reported about the election it has gone further than any other group of monitors by categorically calling for a cancellation of the results and a rerun of the vote.

The two leading Opposition candidates, retired General Muhammadu Buhari (ANPP) and embattled Vice President Abubakar Atiku (AC) and other presidential candidates (there were 24 of them!) immediately rejected the results and have declared that a new president cannot be sworn in on May 29 based on the result announced on Monday because they believed the elections were massively rigged in favour of the ruling party’s and President Obasanjo’s anointed Successor, Alhaji Umar Musa Yar ‘Adua.

The losing candidates have left open their options for taking on the PDP and addressing their grievances including using the courts, public pressure, protests and international opinion.

On its part the PDP and President Obasanjo and the Electoral Commission have reacted not triumphantly but by conceding that there were ‘problems’ (understatement indeed!)with the conduct of the vote but they insist that the shortcomings were not sufficient to nullify the officially declared outcome.

So far there has not been much surprise in the reaction of the various interested parties including the sporadic violent reactions in opposition strongholds where voters felt that the declared result was not in accordance with their wishes. They burnt down houses, offices and other property belonging to members of the ruling party or suspected electoral officers or members of the public just caught up on the wrong side. Soon after the security forces move in and some calmness is restored. It is almost like the authorities were planning for a short period during which the frustrated voters can vent their spleen.

So what next? How long will these controversies last? And what long term impacts will they have on the body politic of the country?

In a game that will mostly be based on ‘wait and see’ the government has more time on its hand and can afford to wait. If the Opposition chooses to go to the courts the matter will definitely be bogged down in procedural issues that may not be decided by the 29th of May when the new President will be sworn in. As it happened after the last, also very controversial election in 2003, a final verdict on the election may drag on to the Supreme Court and probably take the next three years or more and it will not have any political impact or even a legal difference.

Should they choose to go on the streets it may not yield any immediate political benefits too but definitely create more chaos, destruction and even more deaths for their supporters and innocent members of the public?

They also have to consider the reality of the power relations. Opposition will only be able to get away with public disorder and impunity in areas where they are most popular. Why make ungovernable places that are already sympathetic to you like Lagos, Kano for example.

Would you not be inviting the government to declare state of emergency and Direct PDP rule in those pockets of places where the opposition is actually in power? How will that play out with elected opposition candidates from those `areas? The critical Niger Delta has been disenfranchised for a long time that stealing their mandate again is just routine. And now they can even claim one of them is finally in Aso Rock since the new Vice President is from the Niger Delta.

The last time Nigeria had a free and fair election was June 12 1993 and the Military dictator, the Gap-toothed fiendish General I.B. Babangida and his regime annulled the result. National protests and international isolation followed forcing IBB out of power but the winner, Chief MKO Abiola, never regained his victory. Instead another military regime even more brutal than IBBs followed and Abiola died in prison. When Abacha was aided to his death in leisure the same Generals organized Abiola’s`death in prison by choking on tea served to him in the presence of a ‘visiting’ (or was it supervising?) delegation of Senior US officials including Susan Rice`, Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for Africa., Susan Rice!

The June 12 struggle that was a national campaign became isolated as a Yoruba affair in spite of the fact that Abiola would have won even without votes from Yoruba Land. Obasanjo was one of the scheming Generals who denied Abiola his mandate. Other Generals rewarded his betrayal of democracy by making him President after Abacha. And they are all now complaining about him.

The situation is different now. Neither Buhari nor Atiku can claim the same National mandate and popularity as was claimed for Abiola. They are also unable to transform the frustration of the voters into a sustainable popular struggle. A military coup is more or less out of the picture. They cannot accuse Obasanjo of favoring his ethnic group or his religious faith. So all the fault lines of Nigeria's politics are safe.

Just as the Generals gave Nigeria a President who was Yoruba in 1999 but not necessarily the preferred candidate of the Yoruba people Obasanjo has given us a President who is Hausa-Fulani Muslim but cannot be Hausa-Fulani President.

The sadness of it all is that I believe that Yar’ Adua could still have won, may be not in such ridiculous margins. But the PDP has made it look like there were no good `reasons why many Nigerians would have voted for him given the limited choice they had of really effectively choosing between three candidates. One a former General and the other a former Custom Officer and Yar ‘Adua, the only civil civilian who also had a reputation for running a decent administration in his state and also one of only a handful of the 36 state governors not known or believed not to be corrupt.

Obasanjo has `helped` Yar Adua to the gate of Aso Rock he cannot cohabit with him in it. It will now depend on him how he shoulders on. It will take more than his initial reconciliatory statements to his ``worthy opponents`` for the controversies and the credibility deficit with which he was anointed to settle.

Obasanjo turned against those who facilitated his entrance into that bastion of power therefore he cannot expect that he would be driving Yar Adua from behind. Proxy politics like opposition ganging up have both never really worked in Nigeria. One of the first things Yar Adua has to do with immediate effect is to unlearn some of his benefactor’s worst ways of doing things. Politics is about persuasion not conquering your opponents.

The International Election tourists otherwise known as Observers or Monitors will already be on their way to the next election in some other country by now, cutting and pasting, on their high powered laptops, as they go. Democracy in any country can only be guaranteed by the peoples of that country not any group of outsiders no matter how well-meaning. EU, NDI, Madeline Albright, Common wealth and whoever can say all they will their governments are not about to impose sanctions on Nigeria (not while the oil is still flowing) and their businesses are not going to withdraw under Yar Adua (they bdid not under Abacha) so it is really up to Nigerians to fight to make their interests relevant to their political dispensation as they confront an undemocratic civilian government and equally non democratic opposition political parties whose only ideology is `its our turn to chop`

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana 1 Jul 2007 - 6 Jul 2007. The conference aims "To provide an intellectual forum to debate Nkrumah's socio-political philosophy and action that changed the political landscape of Africa , as his geo-political paradigm altered the balance of power in global diplomacy."

Africa has had a troubled relationship with global migrations rooted in the horrific memories of the Atlantic slave trade, which set the foundations of the asymmetrical relations between the continent and Euroamerica subsequently reproduced and reinforced by colonialism and neocolonialism. Today, many worry about the brain drain, how Africa is apparently losing its best and brightest to the global North, a phenomenon that has accelerated since the lost developmental decades of the 1980s and 1990s.

The Pan-African Youth Leadership Forum will be a one-week program to be held in Accra, Ghana from 18–25 June 2007. Participation will be limited to 106 delegates drawn from as many as Africa’s 53 countries as possible.

I was going to write this week about which of the numerous Presidential candidates in Nigeria's Presidential elections this weekend. But so grotesque and tragic have been the monumental irregularities in the elections of last weekend that the less about them the better because they were too blatant. They do not inspire any confidence that this weekend's ones will be any better.

The sad thing is that I believe that the candidate I would have voted for if I had the vote, Umar Musa Yar Adua, would still win but the credibility deficit is so highly debited that no one will concede that he has won fairly. PDP has finally succeeded in giving 'rigging' a bad name. So political scientists in Nigeria will either have to close shop or admit that they are now ghost social scientists!

Unfortunately for me this week there is no respite from embarrassments. I have been getting many embarrassing questions these days about a number of African leaders with whom many of the mostly hostile questioners and even curious friendly critics believe I enjoy close association. The questions are embarrassing because I am supposed to have answers or insights about them but my knowledge may not be more than that of an average observer.

On top of the list of these leaders is President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni followed by a whole club of leaders generally referred to as ‘New Generation of African Leaders’ that include Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, President Issias Afworki, President Paul Kagame and others. In a class of his own among leaders about whom I get embarrassing questions is Uncle Robert Mugabe. He is not so much a New Generation leader as a now pathetic relic of a glorious liberation epoch.

I am not complaining about these questions because they are based on concrete political realities of my personal ideological and political positions. I supported all of these leaders, wrote and spoke positively about many of them for many years. Therefore those asking me about what is happening to these leaders now even when their intentions are hostile what they are demanding of people like me is to tell them what has happened to our Dear Leaders? For instance while the same people may ask me about what is happening in Nigeria they will never try to embarrass me by asking: What has happened to General Olushegun Obasanjo since they do not think that both he and I have any shared ideological perspectives.

I have received more questions recently about two of these leaders: Museveni and Meles. How I wish I had inside knowledge to explain to these questioners Why President Museveni who came to power promising fundamental change has now raised to the status of theory the reactionary slogan of ‘No change’! How can I explain that a president who opened up the political space in the country, introduced so many political reforms that arrested the country’s political and economic decline and historically sectarian politics is now accused by many of his former comrades of being guilty of political infanticide, killing institutions which he created because they no longer serve his political purposes? Is it the same President who refused to allow any streets to be named after him that is now inaugurating his Saddam-like Statues? How can one explain the recent attacks on the judiciary and threats to liberty and the rule of Law that is even turning sedate judges into judicial militants? And even more what about the current controversy about the Mabira forest which has pitched even many loyalists of the President and a broad section of the populace including the Buganda royalty against the President and his dwindling band of hack men and women?

As for Premier Meles he has in recent years bungled his way from one unpopular decision and action to the other. He locked up people who defeated his ruling party in the 2005 elections charging them with treason and genocide! Only two weeks ago did he start releasing some of them but a majority (including two CSO activists, Daniel and Natsenat) are still detained because they allegedly stil have case to answer after two years in detention! Those who were detained were luckier than the many demonstrators protesting the irregularities of the elections who were murdered by Security forces. How can one explain how a leader and ruling party that overthrew the Stalinist murderous regime of the Dergue / Mengistu is today as totalitarian as the regime they threw out? Unlike the NRM (which had ideological people but was never a doctrinaire group) the TPLF/ EPRDF were very ideological in the old Stalinist ways but like the NRM they have become more free market than Adam Smith!

Both Meles and Museveni are happy to be Bush's allies without any shame.

Why do leaders who promise National rebirth and inspire their compatriots to believe in them end up disappointing them?

The one answer I can give to all these and many other questions about these leaders is: STAYING TOO LONG in power. No matter how great they may be they are ordinary mortals even if their propagandists deify them. They wither, become tired but their wear and tear have serious impact on the body politic. As they say ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. When leaders become tired they tire the nation with them. It is not just in Africa, look at Britain, rudderless under Blair who is finished but refusing to go but sinking lower and lower.

But at least in Britain it is not a question of if Blair leaves, it is when and there is certainty that it may be soon after the local elections in May but definitely before the October conference of the Labour Party. Imagine if he was an African Leader, he would have dissolved the party by now and Gordon Brown (his putative successor) will either be in Jail or facing all kinds of charges, or in exile or even dead!

But one thing is clear: afrika will survive these leaders but more than that we shall overcome these obstacles. We just have to keep hope alive and continue with the struggles.

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Part of a wider initiative to re-connect the countries of the African Union (AU) with the Caribbean countries, along with African people throughout the world, this conference aims to explore the mutual benefits of closer co-operation in all aspects of life, to share the experience of overcoming slavery, colonialism and apartheid, and to maximise on the positive gains and contributions to the totality of human existence. The conference will be held at The Brit Oval, London on 24-25 April 2007.

Nigerians go to the polls this Saturday in a historic, highly contentious election. Tadjudeen contests the election may be determined more by local factors than powers of incumbency. It may also spur the opposition to unite behind a candidate against the ruling PDP at next weekend’s presidential election.

Nigerians go to the polls this Saturday in a historic, highly contentious election.

It is historic because it is the first time that an elected government will be handing over to another elected government through universal adult suffrage.

It has been highly contentious. It will leave people with negative forebodings because of the violence, generalised insecurity and uncertainties that elections continue to generate across this continent; as we try to deepen democracy beyond ‘voting without choosing’; and make a difference to the way in which we are governed politically, economically and socially.

As with any challenge faced by other African countries, the challenge facing Nigeria, by virtue of its size, is multiplied several times.

This weekend’s election is the first in a two week marathon to choose public officials for both state and federal governments of Nigeria. This Saturday, voters are choosing members for 36 state parliaments and 36 state governors. There are at least two dozen contestants for every available post. There are over 30 political parties contesting.

The resources at the disposal of many of the states are bigger than the national budgets of a majority of the member states of the African Union.

Therefore a lot at stake at these 'local' elections. It is not surprising that most of the electoral violence tends to occur at these elections, because the local elite is most visible at this level.

At this level, they can legitimately access a bigger share, second only to that of the federal government, of the nationally allocated oil revenues.

So if you do not control power at the centre, doing so at state levels is second choice. Local government is a very distant, and relatively poor third option.

At the federal level the contest is narrowed to two main parties: usually the ruling part and whatever coalition of ‘eaters’ and other foot lose opportunists on the one hand; and a coalition of opposition parties on the other.

At the state level things, are complicated by specific local conditions: personalities, historical memories and local rivalries.

The party in power at the centre always has the advantage of ‘changing political facts’ locally through all kinds of uses and abuses of the powers of incumbency.

Thus in 2003, the ruling PDP went on a rampage claiming victory in more than two thirds of the states across the country, mostly through blatant rigging, including massive votes in most of the oil-producing southern states where there were successful boycotts of the polls.

In Obasanjo’s home state, where he even lost his deposit in his own family ward in 1999, an election in which his own Yoruba people did not endorse his candidature, he was seen as sponsored by the Hausa–Fulani north.

The PDP reversed the course by giving Obasanjo more votes than there were registered voters! An election petition later nullified the result, but with no effect on the presidency.

However in at least one state, e.g. Imo, the rigged results were overturned, and the legitimate winning opposition party regained the governorship.

In two other states, Lagos and Kano - the two most populous, metropolitan states with very conscious civic populations, the leading opposition parties, AD and ANPP respectively, were sufficiently vigilant and organised in a balance of terror against the PDP, so as to ensure that there victories were not stolen.

At Saturday’s elections, the PDP may attempt to sweep everything again. But the party is no longer as formidable as it appears, in spite of its control of the state machinery.

First, its umbrella symbol is now so tattered that it no longer holds its various factions together. It is bitterly divided between Obasanjo loyalists, Atiku supporters and all kinds of anti-Baba PDP grandees. Those who did not defect with Atiku have gone to other parties.

Secondly, Atiku’s group had control over most of the party's financial machinery which was used to rig the PDP to power, notably in 2003. Therefore Obasanjo’s people do not have monopoly over the manipulations. Hence the mortal fear of having Atiku on the ballot, and risk having to content with his counter-rigging infrastructure.

Thirdly, Obasanjo does not know how to make friends, although he is field-marshal in manufacturing enemies by the seconds. He has caused more disenchantment in his ranks through the whimsical way he imposed governorship candidates in many states.

In one state Obasanjo imposed the fourth-placed candidate, while in other states, the names of winning candidates were substituted with Aso Rock favorites. Two of those went to court to have the decision quashed, and were successful.

But rather than reinstate them, Obasanjo’s party declared that they will not be contesting in the states. They expelled the victorious candidates in order to deny them the PDP platform. All these will militate against PDP at state level.

By no means are the other parties any more democratic than the PDP: most of them will rig where they can, and are able to.

What this all means is that this Saturday’s elections may be determined more by local factors than the powers of incumbency, whether at local or federal levels. The opposition parties may do better than feared. They may also spur the opposition to unite against the PDP at next weekend’s presidential election behind a candidate best placed to challenge the PDP candidate, Umar Musa Yar Adua, who remains the front runner.

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Issa Shivji continues the debate on the creation of a 'United States of Africa'. Drawing on past experience and present initiatives of regional cooperation in East Africa, he suggests that the economic focus should be at the level of production – capital and labour, rather than on trade. Politically, it should be people-centred rather than state-oriented.

The African Union has set the stage for a critical debate on pan-African unity. This has deep resonance with the nationalist struggles that ushered in Africa’s independence. At that time, the defining theme and rallying cry of the nationalists - from Nkrumah, Nyerere, Banda to Babu - was pan-Africanism. African nationalism by definition, they argued, could not be anything other than pan-Africanism.

The current pan-Africa debate presents an opportune moment for the continent to confront some of the key challenges facing it, among which is imperialism. African nationalism was born in the struggle against imperialism. It could only be sustained as long as it remained anti-imperialist.

Today, few of our countries can claim to be truly independent. We have no power to make the most basic of our own decisions. Our sovereignty is sold to the highest bidder. Our foreign policy is aligned with the super-power. Our laws - ‘made in the IMF’ - are thrust on our parliamentarians. The multinationals wring out of us outrageous concessions in agreements, which are ‘top secret’, even from the elected representatives of the people.

The current quest for pan-African unity must acknowledge the threat, and not shy away from the challenge posed by imperialism. As globalisation, an even more vicious form of imperialism, engulfs us we need to return to the roots of our independence: the great post-war nationalist movement which resulted in the independence of more than 50 African countries.

Today, as we sink deep into the uncharted seas of globalisation, and let the shylocks and sharks of the global market devour our resources and dictate our policies, our societies are being torn asunder along various parochial fault lines of ethnicity, race, region and clan. If ever there were a time to rekindle the dream and vision of pan-Africanism, then that time is now.

Even as Africa trails its focus on pan-African unity, one sees reason for hope and promise in continuing efforts towards regional integration. There are deep historical underpinnings behind the quest towards regional unity. Pan-Africanist visionaries such as Nkrumah and Nyerere foresaw the dangers of becoming independent alone.

Mwalimu was for instance prepared to delay the independence of Tanganyika if the four East African countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar) could do it as a federal unit. The ongoing efforts towards regional integration must therefore be weighed in the context of pan-Africanism.

In East Africa, the heads of state have already decided to revive the East African Co-operation and a treaty has already been agreed. Consultations have now been initiated seeking the people's views on the creation of an East African federation.

The East African Community, the predecessor of the East African Co-operation, collapsed in the 1970s under the strain of state differences and bitter rivalry among vested interests.

This time round, one hopes that the lessons have been learnt and that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. The objective must be to place cooperation on a firmer foundation by adopting better and durable approaches to the issue of unity.

As Africa moves towards consolidating pan-African unity, there are lessons that can be drawn both from past experience and present initiative towards consolidating regional cooperation in East Africa.

The old cooperation was characterised by two major thrusts. On the economic plane, it was trade centred. While on the political plane, it was state driven. Its overall approach was economic rather than political.

A useful lesson to the pan-African vision is that economic unity needs to be based on a complementarity of structures. Countries can only cooperate when the issue of economic unity is approached politically. For instance, a common approach to fixing the prices of agricultural exports or repayment of debts can be a genuine basis for cooperation. This requires political decisions.

In the case of East Africa, the structures of production in the three countries were competitive rather than complimentary. Being export oriented economies, the three entities exported almost similar agricultural crops. They competed in wooing the same investors to invest in import-substitution industrialisation. The three countries were thus rivals in the international market rather than cooperators, which rendered their unity fragile.

The pan-Africa enterprise can draw three vital lessons from the East African experience. First, the approach should be explicitly political. Second, on the economic plane, the foundation of unity should be at the level of production – capital and labour; rather than trade. Thirdly, on the political level, it should be people-centred rather than state-oriented.

Another region where forging genuine cooperation can greatly support the pan-Africa vision is in the Great Lakes region. Within a larger political grouping, it is perhaps easier and more feasible to control civil wars which have spilled over into border wars between countries in this region. A project resulting in peace in this region would dramatically boost genuine pan-Africanism and bring the dream of African unity closer.

Pan-Africa unity can provide space for increased interaction especially in areas such as human resource development to benefit countries in need. Countries in re-orientation such as Rwanda for instance could benefit from the talent pool available in other countries in much the same way as happened in the 1960s when Nigeria sent many of its magistrates to support Tanzania’s judiciary.

The same could be applied in higher education. Rwanda is in the process of rebuilding its university. UK universities are fast bidding for donor funds to send their teams of experts, advisors, professors and so on. Such opportunities should be consciously used to create practical ways of cooperation rather than being left to be manipulated by big powers. Such cooperation and assistance among ourselves would be mutually beneficial and in the interest of the ideal of African unity.

Cooperation at every level – regional or continental – must provide an enabling framework for the involvement of civil society and other stakeholders. The rationale is simple. Cooperation at all these levels is too important to be left to heads of state alone. The immediate area heads of state identify for cooperation is defence and security, mostly their own of course.

Left to their devices, states can break unity either owing to pressure from international powers or narrow visions of local vested interests. Africa’s people must therefore not leave the pursuit of pan-African unity to their states and politicians. Only when Africa’s people are united can pan-African unity be sustained. They must widen their horizons to take into account new conditions and possibilities.

While, indeed, we must have sufficient will and sentiment to promote African unity, we must at the same time be prudent to protect and enhance our national interests. However, both these – pan-Africanism and nationalism – should be placed in the larger interests of the majority, and not succumb to narrow factional motives, or the greed of groups and classes. The interest of the large majority – the popular classes – should be the litmus test.

African unity as an expression of pan-Africanism is not only a desirable vision for Africa at this stage of our development, but a necessity. It is a necessity because left on our own, we are likely to become - and are increasingly becoming - pawns on the geopolitical and military chessboard of the imperial powers, under the hegemony of the most militarised and ruthless superpower in the history of mankind.

• Issa G. Shivji was, until his recent retirement, Professor of Law at the University of Dar es Salaam where he has been teaching since 1970. He has authored over a dozen books and numerous articles. His books include Class Struggles in Tanzania (1976), The Concept of Human Rights in Africa (1989) and Not Yet Democracy: Reforming Land Tenure in Tanzania (1998).

• Please send comments to

The first and last time I ever voted in an election in Nigeria was in 1979. Ironically it was the military regime of General Olushegun Obasanjo who gave my generation (the independence kids) our first opportunity to exercise our voting rights as young adults. The military had overthrown the first civilian administration in 1966 and had retained power through more coups and counter coups for 13 years (nine of which were spent by General Yakubu Gowon including the three years of bloody civil war to ‘keep Nigeria One’, 1967-1970) until the Obasanjo regime returned the country to ‘democratic rule’ in 1979.

That election, like previous elections in Nigeria’s short lived experience of democracy as an independent country (1960-1966), was marred by violence, brazen irregularities, extreme polarization and allegations of official and unofficial bias in favour of the five registered parties.

The military regime was not seen by many as impartial observers. Their alleged partiality was not unfamiliar because, even under British colonial over-lordship, elections were rigged or tilted in favour of particular groups, regions, or ethnic interests amenable to British neo-colonialist designs. Therefore the British were never neutral about who succeeded them whether in Nigeria, Uganda or Kenya, although they miscalculated in some cases, most famously Ghana and the emergence of Nkrumah and the CPP.

Nigeria’s 1979 Presidential election, and the majority of the Governorship at the state level and also the National Parliament, were ‘won’ by the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), whose presidential candidate, a northern Hausa-Fulani Muslim, ex-school master and former Minister, Alhaji Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari became the President. The closest rival to Shagari and the NPN was veteran politician, an Ijebu-Yoruba Methodist from the South West, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN).

The Chief came from the same state, Ogun, as Obasanjo but he and his fanatical supporters predominantly among the Yoruba accused Obasanjo of ‘betraying the Yoruba’ and of being ‘an agent of the Hausa –Fulani Feudalist North’. Since Lagos is the centre of Nigeria’s financial, industrial and commercial activities and the Yoruba had historically had hegemony over the media both, Obasanjo and Shagari were pilloried, abused and put under siege in the federal capital which was under the UPN.

The Chief, himself a successful lawyer, gathered together a formidable team of lawyers and took his election petition against the electoral commission, the military government and the NPN up to the Supreme Court. But the highest court decided against him. The election of Shagari stood.

By 1983 the Shagari government /NPN was in charge of the elections. Not only did Shagari win in a ‘landslide’ across the country, but in his home state, Sokoto, he had more votes than the total population of the state! So brazen was the NPN manipulation of the votes that even Chief Awolowo, a very litigious and cantankerous old man in Nigerian politics, unrivalled up to now, did not feel the need to go to court again. He thought it a waste of time. Instead he gave up the case to God and public opinion.

Less than 4 months after those controversial elections in December 1983 the civilian regime was overthrown in yet another military coup and General Muhammadu Buhari (he is, without any sense of irony, today a leading Presidential candidate) became the military head of state.

The military remained in power for another 16 years until 1999 when the country again ‘returned’ to civilian rule under a ‘civilianized’ Obasanjo. So the story of democracy in Nigeria has become one long journey from Obasanjo to Obasanjo!

The General is again at the threshold of another historic transition in Nigeria. He was the first military leader to handover to an elected civilian President and if all goes as well as possible in spite of the current uncertainties on May 29 2007 Obasanjo will become the first ‘elected’ president to peacefully handover to another elected president.

Less than three weeks before the elections the omens do not seem to be good.

There are two sets of problems even though one has received greater media space than the other which may be more important.

The first set are political issues related to the reluctance and very active resistance of Obasanjo to leave office, the third term ‘prolongation manoeuvers’, as Nigerians call it, but which Ugandans will be more familiar with as the ‘sad term’ or ‘Ekisanja’. This has brought on a credibility deficit to his legacy and public perception of the transition processes. The worst consequence of the checkmated futile term extension is, of course, the Vice President, Atiku Abubakar’s desperate struggle to be on the ballot, and Obasanjo’s blatant ‘do or die’ stratagems to block him.

The other set of problems concern the level of technical, administrative and organizational preparedness of the Electoral Commission – aspirationally called Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. It pleads readiness, but the average Nigerian believes otherwise. The evidence on the ground does not inspire much confidence. Many of the challenges could actually be technical incompetence. But so divided is the public that many think the incompetence is deliberate and orchestrated to create chaos and secure a ‘sad term’ extension for Obasanjo.

I do not believe in this conspiracy theory about Obasanjo creating chaos in order to remain in power. There is too much obsession with Obasanjo’s shenanigans that is really frustrating to any sane person. Some of his critics are so consumed by their hatred for the man that they even behave, talk and write as though Obasanjo is the worst leader Nigeria has ever had.

Yet many of these critics were resounding in their silence while others were active collaborators under the IBB and Abacha dictatorships. A lot of the animosity against Obasanjo is self-earned because of the man’s ‘I-know-best’ and often rude public profile. However hatred for Obasanjo should not confuse one to the extent that even if there is no rainfall (or even if there is too much rain!) it could be blamed on the regime. The Atiku supporters or their fellow travelers using this line need to wake up to the stark political realities. Neither Atiku nor Obasanjo will be on the ballot.

Would this be fair to Atiku? Of course not, but what will be new about political injustices by the Nigerian political elite?

Chief MKO Abiola won the fairest and freest election ever held in that country but it was annulled and he died in prison .The world did not collapse. The dictator, Babangida, banned 15 presidential aspirants (some of them ex-Generals including Atiku’s political God Father, Shehu Musa Yar Adua) and other Plutocrats were prevented from standing. The world did not collapse on that occasion either. It will not collapse if Atiku did not stand.

Somehow the country will muddle through. There is no military option anymore therefore Nigerians have to find ways and means of making democracy to mean more than just one set of oppressors and exploiters periodically posing to be their liberators. There are hopeful signs in the growing assertiveness and clear political demands of a new generation of CSO activists who want to deepen the democratic process beyond the Donor-driven project cycle and its complimentary protest by per diem culture.

In spite of all the gathering dark clouds one can hazard very quick guesses.

One, Atiku will not be standing and has to be content with enjoying his unlikely victim status and dubious rebranding as a ‘martyr to democracy’ even if he was a chief architect in all the scams and fraud that got Obasanjo elected both in 1999 and 2003. There may not be honor among con men, but the Obasanjo–Atiku saga is a just desert for both of them.

Two, the elections will be marred by all kinds of irregularities including ‘rigging where you would have won’ by all the leading contenders. But finally the ruling class will go back to ‘business as usual’ while the masses continue ‘suffering and smiling‘ as Fela Kuti once sang, in a country where the elite is unashamedly committed to only one ideology: LOOTOCRACY (government of looters, by looters, for looters).

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned Pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

The idea of a United States of Africa is the visionary outcome of a Pan African Unity. Gichinga Ndirangu presents the case for a United States of Africa and points out some of the major stumbling blocks that need to be overcome before Nkrumah’s dream of a united Africa becomes a reality.

At the upcoming African Union summit in Accra, Ghana, a proposal seeking to establish a continental union government will be debated. Accra is a symbolic, if not significant host for this debate. It was here that Ghana’s founding father, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, first pitched for Pan African unity in his famous exhortation that Ghana’s independence counted for less unless, and until, the entire continent was liberated. It was Nkrumah’s view that in the absence of forging a common united front, Africa would remain shackled to neo-colonialism.

It was the period preceding the re-launch of the African Union in 2002 which witnessed renewed debate on Pan African unity. Libyan strongman, Muammar Gaddafi, then an intractable opponent of western imperialism, challenged African leaders to unite across common purpose and chart their destiny unshackled by the West. Gaddafi rooted for increased trade amongst Africans, the creation of common continental institutions including a federal government and the free flow of persons across borders. At its relaunch in Durban, the African Union took the sails out of Libya, reaffirming its commitment to the Pan African vision without unveiling a specific roadmap. The leadership of some of the continent’s key leaders – South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki, Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo, Algeria’s Bouteflika and Senegal’s Sane Wade – initiated instead the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), which was seen as an attempt to develop a policy framework towards a unified vision on Africa’s development and bolster, in part, Pan Africanism. NEPAD’s vision was, however, restricted, being more intent on resource mobilization than on its vision for Africa’s social and political cohesion. Conversely, this year’s proposal for a union government revisits the attempts to consolidate Pan African political, social and economic integration and establishes important benchmarks in laying out a renewed vision for continental unity.

The hope, though not assured, across Africa, is that this year’s debate will move the pan-African vision of Nkrumah beyond its fifty-year stagnation. There is no doubt that this is a debate whose time has come, not least because the union government proposal finally reaffirms the quest for uniting Africa’s people across a common thread of shared values and joint purpose. Within the debate, there are many critical voices that claim to welcome the idea of African unity but caution that the hour for Pan African federalism has yet to come. In addition, Afro-pessimists within the ranks of the African Union are driven by the zeal to consolidate national sovereignty and regional hegemony rather than an outright rejection of the Pan African vision.

While hopes are high, consensus on this proposal will take time and effort given the disparity in positions as well as the high demands that will be placed upon each State to realize a union government. The AU proposal wants the union government created as a transitional arrangement preceding full political integration under the banner of the ‘United States of Africa’. This transitional arrangement implies that realizing the actual Pan Africa vision calls for more work, consultation and buy-in. Even then, the transitional vision is bold in its intent and envisions the establishment of parliamentary and judicial systems, common continental financial institutions and standardized monetary policies and procedures, among others. It is these preliminary propositions that Africa’s leaders will be called upon to give thought and focus to at the June summit in Accra.

After many years of internecine conflict within and between states, the need to harness Africa’s potential around a unity of purpose is a necessary and overarching imperative. At the heart of it, the proposal for a union government must be directed towards Africa’s transformation through creative and well-thought out strategies that advance integration and not the isolation or balkanization of any country or region.

The proposal should be used to catalyze developmental policies and programmes that are people-centred and rooted in the finest of African traditions, culture and values. The ideal of a people-centered and united Africa is one that must be welcome and advanced. It is also a prerequisite in an increasingly globalized world that has demonstrated the value in consolidating shared interests that drive policy formulation and implementation.

Not limited to political union, the proposal for a union government will also delve into the concepts and realities of potential economic integration. Colonialism bequeathed on most African states economic inequality and social inequity which have stifled the integration of Africa’s economies to the world market. Intra-African trade has been constrained by weak policy and institutional support at national and regional levels and internal structural limitations, which have narrowed the scope of exploiting the continent’s economic opportunities to the fullest extent. While economic integration has been a key but elusive priority for Africa’s leadership since the onset of political independence, what has been lacking is the handiwork to take this goal beyond the realm of conjecture and optimism. In 1963, the Organisation of African Unity unveiled a proposal to establish a continental African common market that was expected to coalesce into a Pan-Africa community straddling the economic, social and political spheres. Both the Lagos Plan of Action and the 1991 Abuja Treaty that established the African Economic Community (AEC) spoke to the need for such an African economic union. While this level of ambition has not matured to its full intent, the African Union has continued to look upon the various Regional Economic Communities (RECs) as essential building blocs in the quest for continental economic union.

Yet within the current arrangement, there is growing concern that Africa is spreading herself thin and wide in negotiating multiple trade arrangements, which stand to undermine her own development priorities. The common view is that there is limited scope to fully harness the potential of regional integration granted that new concessions are being exerted by Africa’s trading partners.

The African Union views deepening regional economic integration as an important pillar in Africa’s structural transformation. Given the complexity of regional integration in Africa, there is widespread concern that the undue emphasis on trade liberalisation in the ongoing negotiations with the European Union (EU) and other trading power houses could scuttle rather than consolidate economic integration.

The truth is that trade and trade liberalisation are not an end in themselves but a means to help the continent respond to its development challenges. The ongoing trade negotiations between African countries and the EU have shown the complexity of consolidating economic ties amongst African countries which are already pressured into negotiating with the EU under new configurations outside their natural and traditional economic groupings. The regions currently negotiating with the EU have been severely disrupted by overlapping membership to different negotiating configurations. As a result, there is a risk of countries undertaking trade commitments with the EU to the detriment of their traditional trading partners with whom they may have different agreements at the regional level.

In today’s new global economic dispensation, there are few alternatives to economic integration as a strategy in promoting sustainable socio-economic development. It is obvious that only by closing ranks within the framework of continental level initiatives like the African Economic Community and the African Union can Africa avoid further marginalization.

The union proposal acknowledges that African governments have made determined efforts towards consolidating regional economic blocs with the active support of the AU. But the history of consolidating continental unity is limited by many factors including the lack of political will, limited awareness among a large segment of Africa’s population and increased dependence on external assistance.

The African Union must, therefore, work towards providing an appropriate framework, which strengthens partnership between national governments, peoples’ representatives, civil society and other stakeholders towards promoting the continent’s economic and social development.

A union government will, on the one hand, secure the continent’s interests while, on the other, assert its due role in global affairs and build on the continent’s collective capacity to influence world affairs from a position of unity and strength. But, the current proposal could halt in its tracks if debate is merely confined to the hallowed halls of the African Union without active buy-in from Africa’s people. Since 2002, the AU has renewed momentum towards more effective and accountable governance structures. The next frontier in consolidating continental unity must involve making concerted efforts at the national level to develop institutions and processes that will advance the desired new continental architecture and which are rooted in peoples’ popular participation. The debate must include the voices and perspectives of a wide range of Africa’s people through the involvement of key institutions such as national and regional parliaments, civil society organizations and the media. This participation will broaden and deepen the debate that is, ultimately, about the people of Africa

* Gichinga Ndirangu is a consultant with the African Union Monitor.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

Will Africans choose Ségolène Royal as France's first female President? Since the 19th century, many African voters have influenced French polls, but in this year's presidential elections, only inhabitants of the Indian Ocean islands Réunion and Mayotte are to cast their vote. Campaigning is already fierce.