The African Union is facing a legitimacy test. Across social media and public forums, Africans are asking whether the AU has moved beyond symbolism to deliver the integration and security it promises. The recurring questions are blunt: If the AU cannot advance a single currency, a unified military or a common passport, what, exactly, is the union for?
Those questions may sound harsh, but they capture a growing frustration. In one widely shared post, commenters joked that the AU should be rebranded “Western Union,” a jab at what many see as elite accommodation and external influence rather than continental self-reliance. Others accused the body of congratulating strongmen and failing citizens during rigged or violent elections. Hyperbole aside, the sentiment is clear: a widening credibility gap.
- Advertisement -
That gap matters. Institutions are not judged by their speeches but by their impact. On a continent struggling with recurring coups, contested polls, and cross-border insecurity, the AU’s value turns on whether it can protect lives, defend democratic norms and create conditions for shared prosperity. A stage for statements is not enough.
When the AU replaced the Organization of African Unity in 2002, it carried an ambitious mandate: drive economic integration, enhance peace and security, promote good governance, and represent Africa on the global stage. The aspiration was unmistakable — a postcolonial chapter defined by agency, not dependency.
Two decades on, the distance between aspiration and delivery is hard to ignore. Conflicts persist. Military takeovers have resurfaced in several regions. Elections too often generate instability rather than legitimacy. Economically, fragmentation is entrenched. The very fact that France continues to wield influence over monetary arrangements in parts of West and Central Africa through the CFA franc underscores how incomplete the project of continental monetary sovereignty remains.
At the same time, Africa hosts multiple foreign military footprints while the idea of a unified African security architecture remains more doctrine than reality. Leaders frequently invoke sovereignty to resist deeper integration, including freer movement of people, even as development demands regional scale and fluid borders for commerce, labor and ideas.
Public impatience is therefore not simply performative outrage. It reflects a sober calculus: in moments of crisis, does the AU bite when it must, or does it merely bark? As one online comment put it, “a farce talk shop cannot back or bite.” The phrasing is crude; the challenge behind it is serious.
Why has the AU struggled to turn intent into outcomes? Start with structure. Consensus-driven decision-making can dilute urgency and mask noncompliance. Financing that leans on external partners complicates autonomy. Member states guard prerogatives they pledged to pool. Regional blocs pull in different directions. And the commission in Addis Ababa often lacks the delegated authority and predictable resources to enforce what heads of state proclaim.
None of this makes the AU irrelevant. On the contrary, the union remains the continent’s only forum with continent-wide legitimacy and convening power. Dismantling it and starting anew would squander institutional memory and political capital. The task is to rebuild credibility through concrete results that matter at street level and border gates, not just at summits.
That requires moving from declarations to delivery. The union does not need more visions; it needs a disciplined agenda that narrows the gap between what it says and what citizens experience. The following priorities would begin to close that gap and recenter the AU’s purpose around security, mobility, economic scale and accountable governance:
- Enforce rules consistently. Establish clear, time-bound responses to coups and blatantly fraudulent elections, with costs that are predictable and meaningful. Sanctions, suspensions and mediation should be tied to transparent benchmarks and applied without fear or favor.
- Reduce financial dependence. Increase assessed member contributions and ring-fence core functions so the AU’s priorities are not dictated by external donors. A union that funds itself commands more leverage and trust.
- Build real security capacity. Develop a credible rapid-response capability as the nucleus of a unified African security architecture. Standardize training, logistics and command protocols so that deploying to prevent atrocities or stabilize hotspots becomes possible in weeks, not years.
- Advance free movement pragmatically. Pilot an AU travel document and expand visa-free travel among willing states, then scale by performance. Mobility is the oxygen of a continental market; fear of open borders cannot be policy.
- Lay the groundwork for a single currency the right way. Prioritize convergence — disciplined fiscal policy, interoperable payment systems and strong, independent oversight — over political timelines. Monetary sovereignty without macroeconomic credibility is a mirage.
- Strengthen the AU Commission. Professionalize appointments, enforce conflict-of-interest rules and resource oversight functions. A merit-driven, empowered commission can be the engine room that translates political decisions into operational action.
- Put citizens at the center. Open up proceedings, publish budgets and outcomes, and invite independent civic monitoring of elections and governance commitments. Legitimacy grows when citizens can see — and measure — what the AU does in their name.
- Deliver continental public goods. Focus on issues no single state can solve alone: cross-border infrastructure, emergency health readiness, digital standards and climate resilience. Tangible projects anchor trust.
None of these steps requires abandoning sovereignty. They require reimagining it for a world where power and prosperity flow to those who collaborate and scale. The irony of the current moment is that Africa’s leverage has grown — its population is young and expanding, its resources are strategic and its markets are vibrant — but the institutions charged with harnessing that leverage have not kept pace.
The anger directed at the AU is, at root, a demand for seriousness. It is a call to move beyond communiqués and embrace consequence; to treat peacekeeping, elections and economic integration not as rituals but as outcomes. It is also a warning that public patience is not infinite. An organization can endure on paper while fading in public relevance.
Symbolism still matters; voice still matters. But they are not sufficient. The AU’s comparative advantage is its continental mandate. Its mandate becomes meaningful only when it reduces the risk of conflict, expands the freedoms of movement and enterprise, and shields citizens from predation — whether by warlords, corrupt elites or external powers bargaining state by state.
The question is not whether Africa needs the African Union. It does. The question is whether the AU is willing to become the institution Africa needs: bold enough to press for a common market, clear-eyed enough to lay the foundation for a single currency, determined enough to forge a unified security capacity, and practical enough to issue a common passport that makes “African” a lived status, not a slogan.
Symbolism built the platform. Results will secure the future. The choice between relevance and ritual is now.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
