March 15, 2009
Muammar Ghaddafi is perhaps the most controversial politician on the African continent today. He is most unpredictable in his sayings and deeds. He is at once progressive and reactionary; he supports democracy and he is anti-democratic; he supports murderers while at the same time supporting the cause of justice. He is pan-Arab as well as Pan-African, socialist, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist. Ghaddafi is everything; he stands for everything and therefore stands for nothing. However, recent developments since the Lockerbie incident and the compensation to victims of families in Billion of US dollar-this also shows that there is a rapprochement with the west and in particular with the United States of America, symbolized by the visit of former US Secretary of States, Condoleezza Rice to Libya.
Ghaddafi’s support for anything is informed by populism and symbolism. He loves playing to the gallery and to be seen as the lone majority on the side of the people. He does not swim with the tide. In this way, he has made others to take a more critical look at their actions. He cautioned against NEPAD’s beggar-thy-neighbour approach to the G8. In addition, he enthusiastically embraced the philosophy and concept of the African Union (AU), alas in a different way.
Many have argued that Ghaddafi’s keen interest in the AU is borne out of the fact that he had literarily become an orphan in the Arab League where his Jamahiriya or people’s socialism and radicalism have no influence or impact, and where he is not able to flout his lavish wealth on other Arab nations who similarly have oil resource. Some have further contended that Ghaddafi’s Pan-Africanism is not borne out of his lived experience and political precepts; it has been argued that many Nigerian aspiring migrants to Europe have suffered incalculable hardship and even death in the hands of Libyan authorities, when they try to go through their country.
To be sure, Ghaddafi is central to the transition from the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to AU, and he was a key financier of the projects that supported the African Union Commission (AUC) at its inception under AUC Chairman, Alfa Konare, former President of Mali. Indeed, during the OAU, he, along with Nigeria, gave the highest financial support to the liberation Committee of the OAU and the liberation fighters in Southern Africa. He had on several occasions paid the arrears of dues, owed by smaller countries of Africa to the OAU. He had flown special jets to convey Heads of states to crucial OAU/AU summits. Ghaddafi surely reads the mood of the people and the public and knows how to play to the gallery.
The document to initiate the United States of Africa has been submitted to the Summit of African heads of States at their Banjul meeting in February 2007, and at the Accra meeting in June 2007. At the pre-summit meeting in Accra, it was expected that, based on African civil society input, there will be a concrete way forward following consultations and negotiations. Alas, the AU leadership was as divided over the way forward with the Union agenda as the African continent itself. The issue is not so much that most, or even no Heads of States of Africa shared the rhetoric of an African Union, but the issue was: when should this take place? Most of the Heads of States do not want a union of sovereign states of Africa during their tenure. They still wish to enjoy their red carpet treatment, sirens and retinue of assistants and so on.
More important are those who merely believe that Ghaddafi wants to be the First President of the United States of Africa, perhaps because he is the longest serving President in the AU-he has been in power since September 1969. Moreover, by virtue of that, he is also one of the oldest serving Presidents, perhaps after Abdoulaye Wade and Hosni Mubarak. Many people are suspicious of Ghaddafi’s intention and are wary of his credentials. The claim over credentials is even more critical. The first argument is that Ghaddafi’s Libya is one of the very few countries on the continent that have refused to transit into multi-party and competitive electoral system. That Ghaddafi has remained a sit-tight leader for four decades. The argument is that Africa has turned a new leaf and now has a new face; but that Ghaddafi and Libya have refused to change neither have they borrowed from the new examples of other African countries. Second, people claim that Ghaddafi has done more political harm to the continent and that his hand is to be found in numerous civil wars and internal conflicts on the continent.
Whenever Ghaddafi wants to consummate an agenda, he mobilizes smaller and financially weak/insolvent African countries on his side. He induces them monetarily and uses rhetoric to subdue them. To attend the Accra AU Summit meeting, Ghaddafi went the entire route, by road from Tripoli to Accra. He insisted on addressing the students of University of Ghana Legon, even though they were in recess at the time. Although he was not the host, he insisted on making opening speech at the plenary session of the summit which was in clear violation of protocol. His eccentricity and maverick character endears and repels people towards him. This makes him highly controversial.
At present, there are two tendencies in the discussion of the AU project: the instantists led by Ghaddafi and Wade, and the Gradualist led by Obasanjo/Mbeki. In terms of the roadmap designed by the Makhar Sarr-led AU Committee that draft the document on the United States of Africa, whose membership also included Prof. Adele Jinadu and Eddy Maloka, the projection was that between 2006 and 2015, Africa would have actualized core benchmarks that would make a Union government possible. The Committee started from the minor issues and objects that bind Africans-issues of trans-border trade and visa, communication and culture, education and so on. These are areas that a pan-African orientation, cooperation and consensus would have deepened our Africanness, common heritage and identity.
Ghaddafi risks sensationalizing the African Union project and in the process trivializing it or making it unattractive to core stakeholders; people who would have been enthusiastic to deepen the project. There is a lot to be done and a lot to gain in the African Union project, but less of action and more of rhetoric and showmanship will not pay. The issues involved in the African Union are serious, deep and substantive. They go beyond an individual, but there is a possibility that personal aggrandizement and personality ego may overshadow the entire project. Ghaddafi comes with a huge baggage of problems and contradictions. This assertion may look trivial or petty, but it is not. Ghaddafi is not the most liked personality on the continent; his approach to issues is often not orthodox or mainstream. This will offend many people and on that account alone, many leaders and followers may be put off.
How should we proceed on the African Union project? There is need for all hands to be on deck, less rhetoric and more seriousness. Pettiness and small-mindedness must give way to a focus on the issues. What are the issues: Africa is underdeveloped and disunited; this has made it a pawn in the hands of western powers and institutions. Africa is a primary producing economy; it has a lot to gain from a bigger internal market and collective bargaining capacity. Africa can do with better economic policies and some form of protectionism. Africa can do better with a collective security approach, harmonized monetary, banking and financial system. Africa can do better by letting their people share a common purpose and a common destiny because they share a common heritage.
Getting Africa started on the union project requires mobilization and concerted campaign. The people need a message and a language that preaches unity of the African people, the common heritage of the black race and all the virtues of pan-Africanism. People need to understand what it entails and the challenge of being pan-African. This ideological challenge is yet to be understood not to talk of being tackled. Many leaders too are keen about the paraphernalia and perquisites of office, and many simply feel that their petty privileges matter to them most than any union agenda. Nevertheless, we should realize that we are pursuing a millennium agenda on which the future of Africa is to be built or determined. African leaders have two options to the African people: fulfill their ambition or betray it.
The challenge now is how to get the African leaders serious. This challenge will begin with a reorganization of the African Union Commission (AUC) and the retinue of Commissioners whose sole aim is to merely politic on behalf of the individual country. That is not good enough. Additionally, AU programs, just like those of many other Regional Economic Communities (RECs) such as ECOWAS, are heavily donor-driven and donor-depended. That is also not good. The implication of these two claims is that, the AU finds itself implementing programmes that are not directly relevant or beneficial to the consummation of the Union agenda. If the African Union must achieve the union project, it must be determined to fund itself and claim ownership of its programs; the AU need to get the right caliber personalities or experts- not simply based on quota but merit to head and coordinate key schedules at the AUC.
Ghaddafi must be careful not to over-dramatize, neither must he engage in a macabre dance. He should not make the project of African Union one of self-positioning and personal aggrandizement. AU is not and should not be reduced to a personality show. It is a serious agenda over which we need to think through concrete strategies that will fast-track the Union Project.
Ghaddafi’s support for anything is informed by populism and symbolism. He loves playing to the gallery and to be seen as the lone majority on the side of the people. He does not swim with the tide. In this way, he has made others to take a more critical look at their actions. He cautioned against NEPAD’s beggar-thy-neighbour approach to the G8. In addition, he enthusiastically embraced the philosophy and concept of the African Union (AU), alas in a different way.
Many have argued that Ghaddafi’s keen interest in the AU is borne out of the fact that he had literarily become an orphan in the Arab League where his Jamahiriya or people’s socialism and radicalism have no influence or impact, and where he is not able to flout his lavish wealth on other Arab nations who similarly have oil resource. Some have further contended that Ghaddafi’s Pan-Africanism is not borne out of his lived experience and political precepts; it has been argued that many Nigerian aspiring migrants to Europe have suffered incalculable hardship and even death in the hands of Libyan authorities, when they try to go through their country.
To be sure, Ghaddafi is central to the transition from the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to AU, and he was a key financier of the projects that supported the African Union Commission (AUC) at its inception under AUC Chairman, Alfa Konare, former President of Mali. Indeed, during the OAU, he, along with Nigeria, gave the highest financial support to the liberation Committee of the OAU and the liberation fighters in Southern Africa. He had on several occasions paid the arrears of dues, owed by smaller countries of Africa to the OAU. He had flown special jets to convey Heads of states to crucial OAU/AU summits. Ghaddafi surely reads the mood of the people and the public and knows how to play to the gallery.
The document to initiate the United States of Africa has been submitted to the Summit of African heads of States at their Banjul meeting in February 2007, and at the Accra meeting in June 2007. At the pre-summit meeting in Accra, it was expected that, based on African civil society input, there will be a concrete way forward following consultations and negotiations. Alas, the AU leadership was as divided over the way forward with the Union agenda as the African continent itself. The issue is not so much that most, or even no Heads of States of Africa shared the rhetoric of an African Union, but the issue was: when should this take place? Most of the Heads of States do not want a union of sovereign states of Africa during their tenure. They still wish to enjoy their red carpet treatment, sirens and retinue of assistants and so on.
More important are those who merely believe that Ghaddafi wants to be the First President of the United States of Africa, perhaps because he is the longest serving President in the AU-he has been in power since September 1969. Moreover, by virtue of that, he is also one of the oldest serving Presidents, perhaps after Abdoulaye Wade and Hosni Mubarak. Many people are suspicious of Ghaddafi’s intention and are wary of his credentials. The claim over credentials is even more critical. The first argument is that Ghaddafi’s Libya is one of the very few countries on the continent that have refused to transit into multi-party and competitive electoral system. That Ghaddafi has remained a sit-tight leader for four decades. The argument is that Africa has turned a new leaf and now has a new face; but that Ghaddafi and Libya have refused to change neither have they borrowed from the new examples of other African countries. Second, people claim that Ghaddafi has done more political harm to the continent and that his hand is to be found in numerous civil wars and internal conflicts on the continent.
Whenever Ghaddafi wants to consummate an agenda, he mobilizes smaller and financially weak/insolvent African countries on his side. He induces them monetarily and uses rhetoric to subdue them. To attend the Accra AU Summit meeting, Ghaddafi went the entire route, by road from Tripoli to Accra. He insisted on addressing the students of University of Ghana Legon, even though they were in recess at the time. Although he was not the host, he insisted on making opening speech at the plenary session of the summit which was in clear violation of protocol. His eccentricity and maverick character endears and repels people towards him. This makes him highly controversial.
At present, there are two tendencies in the discussion of the AU project: the instantists led by Ghaddafi and Wade, and the Gradualist led by Obasanjo/Mbeki. In terms of the roadmap designed by the Makhar Sarr-led AU Committee that draft the document on the United States of Africa, whose membership also included Prof. Adele Jinadu and Eddy Maloka, the projection was that between 2006 and 2015, Africa would have actualized core benchmarks that would make a Union government possible. The Committee started from the minor issues and objects that bind Africans-issues of trans-border trade and visa, communication and culture, education and so on. These are areas that a pan-African orientation, cooperation and consensus would have deepened our Africanness, common heritage and identity.
Ghaddafi risks sensationalizing the African Union project and in the process trivializing it or making it unattractive to core stakeholders; people who would have been enthusiastic to deepen the project. There is a lot to be done and a lot to gain in the African Union project, but less of action and more of rhetoric and showmanship will not pay. The issues involved in the African Union are serious, deep and substantive. They go beyond an individual, but there is a possibility that personal aggrandizement and personality ego may overshadow the entire project. Ghaddafi comes with a huge baggage of problems and contradictions. This assertion may look trivial or petty, but it is not. Ghaddafi is not the most liked personality on the continent; his approach to issues is often not orthodox or mainstream. This will offend many people and on that account alone, many leaders and followers may be put off.
How should we proceed on the African Union project? There is need for all hands to be on deck, less rhetoric and more seriousness. Pettiness and small-mindedness must give way to a focus on the issues. What are the issues: Africa is underdeveloped and disunited; this has made it a pawn in the hands of western powers and institutions. Africa is a primary producing economy; it has a lot to gain from a bigger internal market and collective bargaining capacity. Africa can do with better economic policies and some form of protectionism. Africa can do better with a collective security approach, harmonized monetary, banking and financial system. Africa can do better by letting their people share a common purpose and a common destiny because they share a common heritage.
Getting Africa started on the union project requires mobilization and concerted campaign. The people need a message and a language that preaches unity of the African people, the common heritage of the black race and all the virtues of pan-Africanism. People need to understand what it entails and the challenge of being pan-African. This ideological challenge is yet to be understood not to talk of being tackled. Many leaders too are keen about the paraphernalia and perquisites of office, and many simply feel that their petty privileges matter to them most than any union agenda. Nevertheless, we should realize that we are pursuing a millennium agenda on which the future of Africa is to be built or determined. African leaders have two options to the African people: fulfill their ambition or betray it.
The challenge now is how to get the African leaders serious. This challenge will begin with a reorganization of the African Union Commission (AUC) and the retinue of Commissioners whose sole aim is to merely politic on behalf of the individual country. That is not good enough. Additionally, AU programs, just like those of many other Regional Economic Communities (RECs) such as ECOWAS, are heavily donor-driven and donor-depended. That is also not good. The implication of these two claims is that, the AU finds itself implementing programmes that are not directly relevant or beneficial to the consummation of the Union agenda. If the African Union must achieve the union project, it must be determined to fund itself and claim ownership of its programs; the AU need to get the right caliber personalities or experts- not simply based on quota but merit to head and coordinate key schedules at the AUC.
Ghaddafi must be careful not to over-dramatize, neither must he engage in a macabre dance. He should not make the project of African Union one of self-positioning and personal aggrandizement. AU is not and should not be reduced to a personality show. It is a serious agenda over which we need to think through concrete strategies that will fast-track the Union Project.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });