Monitoring the Monitor: Elections at the African Union
The pre-selection period in the run-up to the all-important elections of the leadership of the African Union Commission, in January 2012 reveal the minimal attention given to it by the AU member states.
Mehari Taddele Maru, Programme
Head, African Conflict Prevention Programme, ISS Addis Ababa Office
With the many elections held in 2011, Africa witnessed what one may
call a ‘generational progression on democracy’. Ironically, the nominations for
the elections at the African Union Commission (AU Commission), which takes
place in January 2012, reflects no such trend.
Africa`s progress in holding more democratic elections constitutes
the single most important driver of the consolidation of democratisation in
Africa. In this regard, the AU and other institutions of international
governance played, and will continue to play, a very meaningful role by
supporting and monitoring elections in many African countries.
Now it is time to closely monitor the election monitor—the AU
itself. A very important agenda item of
the January 2012 AU Summit is the election of the Chairpersons and
Commissioners of the AU Commission. Given that the Commission is increasingly
emerging as one of the key players in Africa, this election could make a
significant difference in the consolidation of democracy and peace in
Africa. Indeed, if the right persons are
elected as leaders, the Commission could easily become the driver of change we
would like it to be. Without a fundamental change in governments, Regional
Economic Communities (RECs) and the AU, the achievement of the AU vision of a
peaceful, prosperous, and integrated Africa will remain elusive. Of course,
this is only if the necessary consideration and diligence is accorded to the
election process within the AU. Rather, the current election process indicates
the opposite.
The first step in the
election process of the chairpersons and the Commissioners is for the member
states of the AU to forward the names of their candidates in response to calls
by the Legal Counsel of the
Commission. The Counsel then prepares a list of nominations from the member
states. Based on this list,
pre-selection processes at regional level are conducted to identify candidates
for each region. The elections are based on the
famous AU regional geographic distribution formula. Each of the five regions of
Africa is entitled to propose two candidates for the ten portfolios of the
Commission. At least one of the candidates for each region should be a female
candidate. This makes a total of twenty candidates of which at least ten must
be female. The regions, from which the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are
nominated, can only propose one candidate each for commissioner positions. These selected regional candidates
form the continental pool of candidates, which the Legal Counsel prepares with
a team of consultants. The team of consultants is composed of two independent
experts from each region who verify if the candidates fulfil the required
criteria and other elements such as the regional geographic distribution. A
central pre-selection process begins with the consideration of the pool of
candidates and report of the team of consultants by a ministerial meeting
composed of two ministers from each region. The ministerial meeting in turn
submits the list of candidates for election by the Executive Council and the
Assembly. Currently, a ministerial meeting is considering the report of the
team of consultants.
To the consternation of many observers, the number and qualifications
of the candidates and the manner with which the member states proposed their
candidatures indicates the minimal attention governments have placed on the
election of the AU Commissioners. Despite
repeated calls, by the Legal Counsel since August 2011, member states forward
only 34 names of candidates. This includes 2
for the post of Chairperson, 1 for Deputy Chairperson, 8 for Political affairs,
7 for Social affairs, 4 for Peace and Security, 3 candidates each for
Infrastructure and Energy, and Trade and Industry; 2 each for the remaining
departments (Economic Affairs, and Rural Economy and Agriculture, Human
Resources, Science and Technology). Some countries have nominated more than
their share. Cameroon with 8 candidates, Botswana and Chad with 3 nominations
each, and Zimbabwe with 2 candidates lead the most active group of countries
seeking election for their candidates. Ethiopia, Algeria, Egypt, Kenya, Gabon,
Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Benin, Ghana, DRC, Nigeria, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Seychelles, and Mali have
each proposed one candidate. Cameroon, with
the highest number of candidates, actually was forced to drop more than five of
its nominees. Now, the team of consultants has selected 26 candidates out of
the 34.
The increase in the number of nominations for the departments of the
Political and Social Affairs creates optimism that African governments are
taking shared values and social development seriously. For the first ten years
of the AU, peace and security has taken pride of place on the AU agenda, far
more than the remaining three strategic pillars. In this regard, the AU equated
with the Department of Peace and Security. As justifiable as it is, the focus
on the Peace and Security pillar should not be at the expense of other pillars
such as Shared Values and Integration and Development, and Capacity Building of
the Union. As revealed from the recent election-related violence and uprisings,
‘hard’ security is better achieved through ‘soft’ security such as pro-poor development,
employment, justice, human rights, fair and free elections, trade and
integration. The shift of focus from peace and security to shared values and
development, without diminishing the importance of the other pillars,
guarantees sustainable peace and security in Africa.
Without a contender, the Deputy Chairperson, Mr Erastus Mwencha, faces practically a vote-of-confidence. In order to stay in his
post, he needs the support of two-third the members of the Assembly. If not,
another call for nominations will be necessary. Chairperson, Dr Jean Ping, will
face Dr Nkosazana Zuma, a long-serving minister from South Africa. Come
January, the leadership of President Jacob Zuma and his foreign policy will be
indirectly used as the basis for the election and put to the vote by African
leaders. For many Africans, President Zuma’s foreign policy and leadership role
in the AU was seen at best as surprisingly incoherent and at worst
‘disastrous’. It is to be recalled that many African leaders criticized
President Zuma’s foreign policy direction as capricious particularly in
relation to the Cote d’Ivoire crisis, the UN Security Council resolutions on
Libya, multiplicity of voices of South Africa in Addis Ababa and New York, the
response to the famine in the Horn of Africa, his leadership in supporting the
AU missions in Somalia and Darfur among others. In addition to this, Dr Jean
Ping enjoys the benefits of incumbency, and remains strong as he enjoys the
support of most countries from Western, Northern and Eastern regions of
Africa.
Compared to the previous AU Commission
elections, the 2012 election is the least competitive. In 2008, there were
close to 47 candidates and 73 in 2004. These are symptomatic of the low
consideration bestowed on the election. Some member states forwarded only the
names of candidates without the necessary documentation, such as curricula
vitae and statement of vision/purpose seeking to be elected. Most of the
current candidates are consultants or staff members who have worked or are
still working in some capacity at the AU Commission. As a result, most of the
candidates are self-nominees. As revealed by countries like Cameroon, many
member states approve personal requests of their nationals for nomination and
forward names without due consideration of relevant rules such as limits on
number of candidature. They also fail to take prospects for success into
account. Member states and their RECs should have taken the AU Commission
elections as an extension of their national and regional foreign policy
direction. Symptomatic of the little importance member states place on the AU,
the elections are considered inconsequential. In a nutshell, with such a lack
of seriousness of purpose and urgency on the side of member states, the
elections of the AU Commission will not be sufficiently competitive to bring
out the best of African leadership. With substantive involvement of the RECs
and a more stringent nomination process at national level, the AU organs may
get the right leadership. In this regard, it is important for the African
governments to note that an integrated,
prosperous and peaceful Africa cannot be achieved without taking the AU Commission
seriously
