A New Era for the African Union
The election of Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma as AU Commission Chairperson could herald a new era for the AU. The foremost task confronting her will be to promote reconciliation with AU member states that did not vote for her.
Jakkie Cilliers, ISS Executive Director and Jide Martyns Okeke, Senior Researcher, Conflict Prevention and Risk Analysis,
Pretoria and Addis Ababa
To many
observers, the election victory of Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma against the
incumbent, Mr Jean Ping, as Chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC) at
the Summit in Addis Ababa on 15 July, came as a surprise. After several delays to the original starting
time for the elections, Dr Dlamini-Zuma secured a simple majority in the first
three rounds before clinching the vote in the fourth and final round.
Unofficial results indicate the following for Dr Dlamini-Zuma and Mr Ping
respectively: 27-24 (first round), 29-22 (second round) and 33-18 (third
round). In the confidence vote, during which the candidate with the least number
of votes is required to withdraw, Dr Dlamini-Zuma achieved more than two-thirds
with a respectable 37 out of 51 votes.
Commentators
will continue to debate the reasons that explain something of an unexpected
victory after the initial electoral deadlock during the January 2012 Summit of
the African Union (AU) in Addis Ababa. For instance, it has been speculated that
Dr Dlamini-Zuma’s victory was an outcome of South Africa’s (and SADC’s)
persistent bi-lateral efforts, involving extensive travel by senior officials to
various countries across the continent. There has been much speculation that
South Africa used ‘economic diplomacy’ to muster support from states that
initially supported Mr Ping, especially to gain support from Francophone
Central and West Africa, and it is important that these perceptions be laid to
rest as rapidly as possible. But eventually it was only necessary for two or
three countries that had voted for Mr Ping in January to change their votes to
Dr Dlamini-Zuma for her to triumph.
Whereas 53
countries voted then, only 51 were able to vote in July since an additional two
countries (Guinea Bissau and Mali) were under sanctions and barred from
participating in the elections. In addition, neither Nigerian President
Goodluck Jonathan nor Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, both opposed to
the South African candidate, attended, possibly providing something of a
leadership vacuum that eventually turned a potential stalemate to triumph for Dr
Dlamini-Zuma. Timing is everything and
above all, African leaders provided the best possible outcome for a beleaguered
AUC – a clear result that sees a highly capable, hard-working and respected
female candidate assume the leadership of the AUC.
The outcome of
the election is also positive for the global image of African states as it
demonstrated that African countries were able to overcome some of the starker
colonially inherited divisions that are often used to characterise the
continent – particularly those between so-called Francophones and Anglophones. In
the process South Africa was able to assert its role as a dominant voice in
Africa, despite much commentary to the contrary.
Heads of State also
did not amend or violate the Rules despite the claims that the failure to elect
Commissioners following the initial electoral deadlock in January created a
lame-duck AUC and strident calls by many to amend the Rules or to resort to a
political solution that would have violated the same.
The election of
the first female AUC Chairperson is a hugely positive development. It
highlights Africa’s commitment to the promotion of gender equality within the
AUC and hence will impact nationally, where much work remains to be done in
this regard. Eventually the election of two of the remaining Commissioners
(Economic Affairs, and Human Resources, Science and Technology) was deferred
because of the limited availability of male candidates for these positions and
the need to maintain the AU’s gender equality and regional representation.
Beyond these
immediate gains, the election of Dr Dlamini-Zuma has set a precedent for the
future interests of Africa’s ‘big powers’ in putting forward their own candidates
for the top position within the AUC. One such controversy was the unwritten rule
that big powers do not seek election for the position of Chairperson of the AUC
– a view contested by South Africa. In the wake of the outcome it is possible
that influential countries such as Nigeria, Algeria, Egypt, Kenya and Senegal
may nominate candidates for the 10 Commission seats in future elections.
Therefore smaller countries may struggle for representation and relevance and
have to seek more innovative ways to remain relevant within the AUC and the AU
in general. This is a trend to watch in
the future.
Accordingly, it
appears that the foremost task confronting the newly elected AUC Chairperson is
to promote reconciliation with AU member states that did not vote for her.
Without doubt, such divisions contributed to the electoral deadlock that
characterised the January Summit when South Africa led the anti-Ping alliance
and refused to vote for Mr Ping even after he had gained more votes than Dr
Dlamini-Zuma in each of the first three rounds. Eventually Mr Ping could only
gather 32 votes during the fourth and final ‘confidence round’ – three short of
the required 35. These divisions were compounded by allegations of negative
campaigning by both camps. Although Dr Dlamini-Zuma received the support of the
majority of AU member states, the fourteen countries that failed to endorse her
candidacy during the confidence vote constitute a significant minority. This
limited support for Dr Dlamini-Zuma contrasted with the full endorsement by the
Assembly of Heads of State and Government accorded to Mr Erastus Mwencha in his
re-election as Deputy Chairperson of the AUC.
Mr Mwencha, a Kenyan, was admittedly the only candidate and held in
universal high regard, but his election violated, according to some, a second
unwritten rule, namely that either the Chair or the Deputy should be
Francophone – although this ‘rule’ has also previously been violated by the
mercurial former AUC Chairperson Alpha Omar Konare. The spectre that haunts the
AU is that linguistic divisions may be replaced by extreme regionalism.
Ironically one
of the most celebrated qualities of Dr Dlamini-Zuma is that she is one of the few
survivors from the era of the former South African President, Thabo Mbeki, who
remains highly regarded in much of Africa. She has managed to connect with the
two administrations despite the deep acrimony between the two leaders (President
Jacob Zuma and former President Mbeki). Her pedigree as former South African
Foreign Minister and the very effective current Home Affairs Minister suggests
that she has much to offer in bringing both competent management and
far-sighted political leadership to the Commission.
The practical challenge facing Dr Dlamini-Zuma is
how to deliver on her reformist agenda that aims at achieving a more effective
AU, and improve on the global representivity and voice of Africa. A priority in
this respect is to promote the implementation of, and adherence to, the
numerous policies formulated by the AU and its predecessor, the Organisation of
African Unity (OAU) during the last half-century. In 2012, the AU celebrates
the first decade of its existence, the OAU having existed for a previous 40
years. In the past ten years, the continental body has made tremendous progress
in the formulation of norms geared towards political stability and economic
development in Africa. The AU has, however, not been able to effectively see to
the implementation of many of its decisions and it remains to be seen if Dr
Dlamini-Zuma will be able to improve on this poor record. Specifically, the
emphasis of the anticipated AU Strategic Plan for 2014-2017 should focus on
achieving the implementation and adherence of previous decisions and policies. Perhaps, as some have remarked, the first
decision of the next Summit of the Assembly in January 2013 would be not to
take any more decisions until its previous decisions had been implemented.