There is something disturbing about African intellectuals and commentators on public issues. They love criticising everything. It is, of course, important and necessary to be critical and point out wrong and propose workable alternatives, or even advise caution as long as this is done with objectivity. However, one gets the impression that some of our intellectuals love criticism for its own sake. For the past one year, commentary about the reforms of the African Union (AU) has revealed this sort of mixed criticism. When they were first proposed, they were hailed as necessary, in fact long overdue. Along the way, it began to be said that they were perhaps too bold and even misdirected. Today, misgivings are being expressed about their very survival. In a sense the fate of the reforms mirrors the history of Africa’s attempt at unity and more efficiency, alternately blowing hot and cold, holding much promise but with despair never very far away.. In the first place, the reforms were intended to correct what was seen as weaknesses in the AU. They were a response to widespread criticism about bureaucratic inefficiency, funding problems and consequent dependency on foreign donors, poor record of implementation of resolutions, and the view of the AU as a big men’s talking shop with little relevance for ordinary Africans. African leaders tasked Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame with the reform of the AU so as to make it more effective, efficient and responsive to African citizens’ needs. He, in turn, picked a team of eminently qualified Africans to help him with the assignment.. The team was universally acknowledged as the best for the task and indeed was dubbed the dream team. They went to work immediately and produced proposals which were presented to AU summits. For the year that President Kagame was chair of the AU we heard nothing but praise for this effort.. Ordinary Africans hailed them as the best thing to happen to Africa in a long time. Commentators too welcomed them as injection of new energy into the life of the AU. Occasionally, they held back on their full endorsement and warned (some perhaps wished) that there would be a pushback from some quarters. They warned that the bigger powers did not like a more powerful AU Commission and that some of the smaller countries would find it difficult to meet their financial contributions.. They said that the egos of some leaders would stand in the way of effective reforms as many were averse to ceding any amount of authority to the continental body. All these were, of course, valid concerns that had to be taken into account but did not in any way mean that the reforms were doomed. And so the efforts to make the AU more effective continued. Then towards the end of President Kagame’s tenure as AU Chair and since he handed over to President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, we have been hearing a different tune. The question now is about sustainability of the reforms. Some commentators even suggested that influential former leaders think the reforms are wrong since they want to turn the AU into what it was not meant to be. This new tune about whether the momentum of the reforms can be maintained or whether they can even survive reflects several major concerns. One reflects a positive view that they matter. The concern for their sustainability is therefore informed by the fear that they might not survive, be slowed down, or suffer neglect. Another is the concern that there are conditions within some countries, especially among the leadership, which militate against their implementation. This can be taken as the realistic view held by those who want them to succeed but are aware of the obstacles. Then there is that which reflects a wish for the reforms to fail because some do not like them or the person championing them. This may be said to be the irrational position. All this is also a comment about Africans. There are still many who pay lip service to matters of African unity and integration and even dignity. All talk about building institutions that further this cause remains just that, talk. Some leaders still want to be kings and are therefore not willing to share power with any continental institution. Often this unwillingness is presented as protection of national sovereignty. There is also a tendency to associate the reforms with an individual, and like or dislike them because of their attitude to that individual. Whatever the attitude of African leaders towards the AU reforms or what commentators say about them, it is clear that ordinary Africans appreciate and want them to work. If they want them to succeed, they must make them their own and drive them or force their leaders to implement them. After all they were meant for them. @jrwagatare The views expressed in this article are of the author.
