If the “brother leader” were to have had his way during his presidency of the AU, Africa would now be one country under the name of the Unites States of Africa with all the trappings of a modern state, including a common currency. Whether the world is ready for another country with the name of the USA is one concern. A more immediate concern is how the financial architecture of such a super-state would be regulated. Though this may seem like pie in the sky, it is a practical and real concern. You may not be aware but in August 2003, the Association of African Central Bank Governors announced that they would be working towards a common currency for Africa by 2021.
So looking around for a model of how such a system would work would mean looking at how the EU operates the euro. Prior to the euro being introduced there was a lengthy convergence period, during which (and most famously perhaps) the pound dropped out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. More importantly though, the EU is a club of nations to which states need to apply for membership. A state will not be admitted to the EU if it does not meet the EU’s membership criteria, the underlying principle of which is that a member state must be a liberal democracy. One of the few membership criteria for the AU is that a member state should not be a colonial body — hardly the stuff to provide a common denominator for future political and economic co-operation.
Putting the virtues of liberal democracy to one side, the point to be taken from the EU experience is that if member states are going to co-operate then it means that all member states need to be of the same political type. For that reason, Spain and Portugal were only admitted to the EU once they had ceased being dictatorships. When one looks at the structure of the AU, there is no common denominator of political structure that binds the members. Membership ranges from functioning liberal democracies, such as South Africa and Botswana, to the last absolute monarchies on the continent, Morocco and Swaziland. This makes holding member states accountable for an unlawful change in regime (such as a coup d’etat) well nigh impossible, since it is not in the interests of the entire membership to restore democracy in such a state.
The lack of political cohesiveness among the members is just one problem with the vision of a United States of Africa and a common currency. The second problem is highlighted by the current economic crisis in Greece. In essence the problem with Greece is that it has flouted the rules that regulate the euro. More precisely, while some members have a double-digit public deficit as a share of GDP, others have a stock of public debt more than 100% of GDP and some have debt-financing costs that are also more than 10% of GDP. In the case of Greece, all three “deal breakers” in terms of the euro.
In order to save Greece from its financial mess, both the EU and (reportedly) Germany are preparing to step in to give the Greek government a financial lifeline.
Let’s take this latest Greek tragedy and project it onto a situation where the rules of the “afro” (or whatever the currency will be called) have been flouted and a fellow African country is heading towards bankruptcy. Being the largest economy on the African continent (in essence we are to the AU what Germany is to the EU) we would probably be expected to provide an economic lifeline in such circumstances. The question is whether we would want to provide such an economic lifeline to a dictatorship and in essence prop up such a regime when the nature of the regime goes against our political grain. Though the recent example of Zimbabwe may lead some to conclude that we would, I would argue that in some respects Zimbabwe is a special case. We need to try and keep the Zimbabwean economy ticking over in order to avoid any more refugees spilling over into South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique and Zambia and thus destabilising the entire SADC region. Whether this policy has worked successfully is another debate. But would we want to keep the government of the Central African Republic going, for example, when it is not in our political interests to do so? Though EU member states have a political interest to ensure other EU member states stick to the rules, there is no such common political interest in the case of the AU.
So do we want a common African currency? If so, in the words of the 90s rap group Snap, are you ready for this?
Morocco is not in the African Union and is not an absolute monarchy! get ur facts right!!!!!! n no 2 a common currency in africa! 2 many discrepancies!
Good argument, well put. Thanks, I feel genuinely better informed.
Isn’t Africa pretty much on US dollars and Euros already?
Haha Ladyfingers. Well said.
Maybe the African Union can exclude South Africa and Botswana until they become proper dictatorships? Well, lets hope not…
Always up for a mocking of Gaddafi although not entirely agreeing with your entire article.
Morocco not being a member of the AU because of its occupation of Western Sahara and sure it might be a constitutional monarchy but the King is head of the army, and is both the legal and spiritual head of the state, i.e. an absolute monarch.
There are already a couple of monetary unions in Africa, including our own with Namibia, Swaziland and Lesotho and the CFA franc in West Africa and Central Africa.
Then there are the parts where I agree with you, Africa as a whole is not ready. The EU itself started as a common market for steel and coal, as the basis for closer economic integration to prevent future wars after WWII or the European Wars, as I like to call them. So maybe the AU should start from a simple point, after all, it took 50 years to create the euro.
“If the “brother leader” were to have had his way during his presidency of the AU, Africa would now be one country under the name of the Unites States of Africa………..”
I think that brother leader (BL) is a little bit more intelligent than that.
BL does understand that African countries are established during a European tea party after WW1. That is almost 100 years ago and has caused much of the conflicts in Africa after previous “colonies” were given independence.
The new countries were based on the old colonial borders, ignoring tribal differences such basics as culture and language.
European borders were established by wars and negotiations but always with culture and language in mind.
Africa has may straight (artificial)border lines. Europe has not.
BL’s thinking seems to make sense in the long term. His thinking might just be a century ahead of his African brothers who prefer wealth over national/regional prosperity.
Despite the wet-dreams about a United States of Africa, it is virtually impossible.
In order for such a union to exist, the member states have to be totally committed to the tenants of democracy and accountability. This is not high on the agenda of many African countries.
What would happen when a leader should be chosen by democratic election? Probably a continent wide war, when the favourite candidate of certain groups did not win.
I vaguely recollect Thabo Mbeki making a speech to out parliament in about 2000 in which he told the assembly that they must understand that they were inherently a subordinate instrument in the greater African Union that came into effect during circa 1999. IE. They had to see themselves as an evolving State government like California or Alabama.
Later he craftily nobbled the PAP [Pan African Parliament] headquarters for Midrand thereby making Gauteng the Brussels of Africa/Azania. This is an action, [a truly long term plan] for which he has never been widely recognised his achievement having been drowned in the overall hullabaloo of the Aids denialist era
@ Benzol
Your facts are incorrect. The map of Modern Africa was drawn up at the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885 between Britain, France, Germany, Portugal & King Leopold. No African leaders were consulted let alone invited. However, this does not excuse the fact that African nations have had 60+ years of independance to change this. It is so much easier to blame Colonialism for all misfortunes.
Warren – I presume your whole article was tongue-in-cheek?
A united states of Africa is the vainglorious dream of a madman. We can’t even get SADC working properly down here. Come back in 200 years time and there might be half a chance.
It has taken the EEC nearly half a century to reach its current structure, even with largely democratic, developed or developing countries involved.
SA must never become the ATM for incompetent, corrupt, nepotistic, poverty-stricken, tribalism- riddled dictatorships to the North – even if they have oil.
@Maurice Cowley: you might be right about the original map but the map has been redrawn at times.
Anyway the date of the map does not really matter in my argument that Europe has been divided in many countries with generally homogeneous populations while Africa until today has many countries with straight borderlines disregarding the cultures and languages. One (of many) cause for eternal bickering about a newly elected president, seen as representing a tribe as the country is not -and never will be- a homogeneous country.
Trying to re-draw the map will go with many conflicts, encouraged by outsiders for many different reasons.
Europe has had over 2000 years of such wars. Africa could learn from this in an attempt to form the equivalent of the EU.
As it stands today, I see little chance of that happening.
I did not blame colonialism, I simply mentioned an administrative event which led to a non African arrangement to suit the plundering hordes from Europe.
Any attempt to make serious changes to the arrangement will be blocked by hook or by crook, directly or indirectly by the current economic powers in Africa.
Continued African wars will be on the cards unless sanity prevails and lessons from the “birth” of the EU will be taken to heart by African leaders.