Good Governance: Borrowing From the EU For AU

By Tunji Ajibade*

Europe often sets the pace. That includes economics and politics. Its continental union, the EU, didn't start out with the latter in the closing years of the 1950s.

It did with the former. Economy of scale was a strong motive. But it wasn't the only one. A political union was left in the bag. That time, going it alone economically was deemed to be to the disadvantage of small nations. A large economic community made sense. It did to European nations that stood no chance of competing with the likes of United States of America which economy was a raging bull in the post-war years.

Yet some nations remained suspicious of such an association. Britain was one. It stayed out for many years. The possibility of losing its national sovereignty was the concern. Then the political union card was brought out of the bag and the EU was born. 'One Europe' that does things from a central point, have standardized rules, effectively a continental state is in the making. The EU has become a politico-economic model that other continents are copying. Africa is one of them.

When the AU was ushered into existence a couple of years back, travelling on the EU highway was the intention. When it met last year, however, majority of its members shied away from forging ahead full steam to form the United States of Africa that some AU leaders called for.

Old talk of integrating first at the regional level and gradually move on to a united continent was the shell into African leaders retreated. Last June, the Southern African region's SADC made much noise about the efforts it is making towards integrating specified matters at its own end. West Africa's ECOWAS sang much the same when its leaders met weeks back. In East Africa, the drumbeat has the same tone and rhythm. When fifty-three members of the AU gathered in Egypt days back, bread and butter issues such as an AU court and something close to the same with respect to human rights were at the two ends of their menu list. And there were a host of other issues ranging from water to Darfur in-between. But Zimbabwe overshadowed them all. The situation in that Southern African country was such that a UN Deputy Secretary General came to lecture AU leaders about it. Accepting what Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe had done in his country would send a dangerous signal across the African continent, she had warned.

It was not as if African leaders were blind to what happened in Zimbabwe. But they were such set of leaders that they could not tell Mugabe to stay away from their gathering. In fact, when the host of the AU meeting, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt spoke, he mentioned every flash spot on the continent but left out Zimbabwe. The vocal Zambian president who had condemned what happened in Zimbabwe before he arrived Egypt for the meeting took ill and ended up in hospital bed. Liberia's woman president made her displeasure known. Botswana's president too did the same. Kenya's Prime Minister, Rhaila Odinga, a victim of the ruling party gimmicks in his own country and speaking from Nairobi lambasted AU leaders for allowing Mugabe to sit with them. Other leaders were less direct. It is understandable. Only a few of them have good democratic credentials.

In the end, AU leaders only resolved that Mugabe talk to the opposition, share power with them and come up with a government of national unity. But would it be headed by Mugabe? In that case a formula is already provided for other sit-tight rulers across the continent.

It worth pointing out that what happened in the present context is larger than Zimbabwe. For how AU deals with political and political transition problem such as this will affect whatever the union sets out to achieve. It's clear that all other items on AU's menu list for integration can't come through when the leadership invites political instability by their failure to adhere to civilized democratic standards.

What meaningful integration can AU achieve in economic and social or human rights terms when its member states are trouble spots, made so by the unending rule of the likes of Cameroon's Paul Biya, Chad's Idris Derby, Burkina Faso's Blaise Compaore, Gambia's Yaya Jammeh, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Uganda's Yoweri Museveni, Kenya's Mwai Kibaki, and Zimbabwe's Mugabe among others.

Staying put in power by any means apart from the wishes of the people is one thing EU member states have overcome. It's a major factor in whatever progress the union has made in other areas in their move toward one Europe. The AU cannot wish it away. It's strange how the African continent copies good things only to conveniently bastardize them. Peer review mechanism was an idea in the early days of AU. It was closely linked with the New Partnership for Africa (NEPAD) arrangement. It was meant to checkmate excesses, set minimum standard of governance as well as monitor progress made in agreed areas among AU members.

Significantly, the leaders that initiated it were the first to break the rules. Nigeria's former President Olusegun Obasanjo who was at the forefront of NEPAD initiative, for instance, tried to extend his term in office. He could have got away with it. He didn't. Others did. Many still do - by using diverse gimmicks. But must they be allowed to get away with it? This is where some form of standard simply needs to be set and stuck to by AU.

The EU begrudges no European leader the right to rule for long periods. How they came about their democratic mandate is what borders Brussels. It is difficult for any politician to fraudulently tamper with the electoral process. All in all however, who stays or goes out of office is decided in free and fair elections. It is the wish of the people that prevails. Free and fair elections as well as performance are two factors that have come together to produce the quality of governance enjoyed by EU members.

If there must be a turn around in everything negative Failure on the part of members should be met with stiff sanctions. The EU ensures this. It is one reason Turkey is still out in the cold. The argument among African leaders that foot-drag, claiming they want to resolve blatant misrule by their fellows the African way is a waste of everyone's time. This laid-back approach should discarded.

*The Writer can be reached at,[email protected]