The African Union (AU) turned 60 on May 25, counting from the formation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 1963 to its reconstitution as the AU in 2002 to date. Such a milestone as a diamond jubilee is usually an occasion for celebration of its achievements, and time for reflection, taking stock, and planning for the years ahead.

I did not hear much of either from the usual commentators on matters African or ordinary Africans, although there was a lot of commentary. There was very little praise indeed. Few seem to have any fond memories or memorable moments of these past 60 years as one would expect from older people, who happen to be the majority of those commenting on this important anniversary.

Instead, I heard a recitation of a litany of failures. No kind words, sometimes, in fact, very strong ones. In general, they amounted to dismissal, condemnation, and even mockery of the organisation.

I think this was a little unfair. We should give the founding fathers of the OAU some credit. At the very least we should recognise the organisation for having seen the light of day in the first place, survived many testing moments along the way, and transformed itself into the AU, which has retained some relevance, even if not always universally acknowledged.

We might be kinder in our assessment if we consider, for instance, the circumstances of the founding of the OAU. Disparate states, 32 at the time, fresh from decolonising and at different stages of statehood or nationhood. Different colonial backgrounds with a continuing colonial influence. A most diverse group of leaders; monarchs and republicans, radicals, moderates and archconservatives, idealists and pragmatists, philosophers and clueless bumblers, and the rash and impatient sort and the calm and gradualist type. All.

Gathering them in one place and getting them to focus on a single issue was already a great achievement. Getting them to agree on anything was a tremendous success. They did on the idea of the unity of Africa and its eventual realisation. It was a compromise between two positions: unity now or building blocks for eventual unity.

Compromise has been at the heart of the OAU/AU. Critics sometimes think that this is one of its major weaknesses. There is too much of it and positions are such a watered-down version of original proposals that they are practically worth little.

That anything was possible in Addis Ababa in 1963 must have been due to the genius of some of the leaders gathered there, the clarity of thought and vision and persuasive power of others, and perhaps the dire realisation that none could stand alone.

Indeed, the OAU/AU has survived long enough to celebrate its 60th birthday because the continent has had leaders of this sort at different stages in its life who have kept it together and remained focused on the ultimate goal. You might think in this regard of the earlier statesmen like Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, then later the likes of Thabo Mbeki and Olusegun Obasanjo, and today, our very own Paul Kagame, among many others.

It is generally agreed that the AU may not have had spectacular achievements, but it has kept the idea and possibility, and even inevitability of African unity alive.

In the interim, before that happens, it has adopted certain measures towards that goal. For instance, it sets periodic targets in different sectors, like health, agriculture intended to raise the living standards of Africans. Most of these are goals that express the aspiration of Africans and are certainly achievable. There is even the grand one – Agenda 63: the Africa we want.

However, most of these have not been universally met. Some governments, in fact, simply ignore them. Therein lies an inherent weakness: the absence of a mechanism to ensure that resolutions are implemented. Still, the targets remain a reference point for the direction the continental body wishes to take.

We should also not forget one of the most important decisions the OAU took at its founding: the principle of the inviolability of boundaries, as they existed at independence. For some, this was its most enduring success. For others, its most glaring failure. On the whole, though, with the exception of one or two cases, this principle has been largely respected and has kept the peace around the continent.

Imagine what would have happened with a rush to redraw boundaries, irrational though most of them are. We would have been thrown back to pre-colonial state formation and destructive wars.

There are, however, countries constructed by colonialism that have failed to grow into states or nations and have no business pretending that they are. There is one such country in our neighbourhood, inadequately governed or misgoverned, inherently unstable and extends its instability to the entire region, and often gets the attention and resources of the rest of the continent diverted from worthier causes.

Such countries should probably be better off breaking apart and reconstituting in some other form or the parts remaining separate.

On some very important matters, African countries have often found a common purpose and spoken with one voice. But even, then there are some discordant voices, foot-dragging, and even betrayal. Eventually, something gets done, of course, later and slower than hoped.

For an example of this, we can point to the liberation of southern Africa and more recently the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

On balance, the AU has made some significant steps, but still few, towards the idea of continental unity. One thing is certain. It has kept the goal of Africa’s progress and unity firmly on the agenda. A valid criticism, of course, is we are taking too long at the aspirational phase and must therefore move faster to the actualisation stage.