AU election watch: the powers of the AU Commission chairperson
The current chairperson of the AU Commission has chosen to focus on long-term issues such as economic development, where the AU has less experience.
On 17 and 18 July the Heads of State of the African Union (AU) will be called upon to elect a new chairperson of the AU Commission (AUC).
This important position has evolved over the years and the chairperson has taken on more and more responsibility to drive change in Africa. However, the chairperson’s powers are often questioned by the heads of state and curbed by the legal limits set out in the AU Constitutive Act.
At the creation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), then Senegalese president Léopold Sédar Senghor stressed that ‘the secretariat would be an administrative body, not a political one, a body which implements decisions but does not make them’.
In the OAU days, every secretary general – from its first, Guinean former diplomat Diallo Telli to its last, Tanzanian diplomat Salim Ahmed Salim – fought to overcome the limitations of a position that heads of state regarded as strictly administrative.
The creation of the AU in 2002 was supposed to correct many of the flaws of the OAU. One of them was to empower the AU to ensure peace and security in Africa through intervention and peacemaking efforts. If the AU as an organisation has more power, the question can be asked whether the chairperson of the AUC enjoys a higher profile than her or his OAU predecessors.
Few executive powers
None of the powers and responsibilities of the AUC chairperson is related to policymaking |
|
According to the statutes of the AUC, the functions and responsibilities of the chairperson are ‘Chief Executive Officer; legal representative of the Union [and] Accounting Officer of the Commission’. Among his or her competencies are to ‘undertake measures aimed at promoting and popularising the objectives of the Union’ and ‘carry such other functions as may be determined by the Assembly or the Executive Council’.
None of the powers and responsibilities of the AUC chairperson is related to policymaking or defining the direction of the AU. The AU Assembly of Heads of State retains these core functions while the commission is in charge of implementing them. Despite these limitations, current Chairperson Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma has launched a number of initiatives, such as Agenda 2063, which was adopted by the AU Assembly of Heads of State.
Agenda 2063 focuses largely on developmental issues, which minimises the risk of criticism from the heads of state. To implement these initiatives, however, the chairperson has to rely on the cooperation of the rest of the commission, which is not always forthcoming. One of the reasons for this is the limited control over commissioners.
 Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma has launched a number of initiatives, such as Agenda 2063 |
|
No say over the appointment of commissioners
The AUC chairperson does not appoint commissioners, nor is he or she allowed to dismiss them. This clearly limits his or her capacity to get things done.
In 2007 an audit of the AU pointed to ‘the lack of operational clarity as to the lines of authority. Despite the provisions of Article 7 of the Statutes of the Commission that make it absolutely clear that the Chairperson is the Chief Executive Officer, the election with designated portfolios of the Commissioners by the Assembly has led to the belief that they have a complete mandate to manage their portfolios and that at best, their relationship with the Chairperson is one of primus inter pares [first among equals]’. The recommendation that the chairperson be empowered to assign portfolios has never been implemented.
Frustrations of a former head of state
The fact that the first AUC chairperson, Alpha Oumar Konaré, was a former head of state helped to raise the profile of the position. His democratic credentials improved the image of the organisation, which was often accused by outsiders of being a club for dictators with very little impact. His personality as a pan-African activist also allowed him to overcome some of the legal limitations of being chairperson of the AUC.
It was under Konaré’s watch that the above-mentioned audit report recommended giving the chairperson the authority to assign portfolios to commissioners, to monitor and manage their performances, and to rationalise departments. However, Konaré’s frustrations with the system led him to step down in 2008 after one term.
On many occasions Konaré crossed swords with his former peers. For example, during the Togolese succession crisis in 2005 Konaré was called to order and asked to put a stop to his so-called ‘megaphone diplomacy’. Former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo, the AU chairperson at the time, rebuked Konaré for appointing a special envoy to Togo without consulting him. This episode showed that being a former president does not take away from the fact that the chairperson of the commission is in essence there to implement decisions by the AU heads of state.
| On many occasions Konaré crossed swords with his former peers |
|
Two former foreign ministers in the driver’s seat
After Konaré’s tenure, two former ministers of foreign affairs were elected as chairperson: Jean Ping, a former Gabonese foreign minister, in 2008 and in 2012 Dlamini Zuma, the former South African home affairs minister who also previously held the portfolio of foreign affairs.
On a continent marked by presidentialism, the minister of foreign affairs often has limited powers. Traditionally, foreign policy is an area of presidential prerogative. Accordingly, a former foreign minister is less likely to assert him- or herself by going against the opinions of heads of state who are unlikely to consider him or her their equal.
From this perspective, Ping was very different from Konaré in that he took little initiative and avoided confrontation with member states. For example, Ping was accused of weakness when it came to asserting Africa’s position on the crises in Libya and Côte d’Ivoire in 2011, when in fact the commission’s inertia only mirrored the divide on these issues among AU member states.
The election of Dlamini Zuma raised expectations since her campaign was against the perceived weakness of Ping. Being a former minister of foreign affairs from South Africa contributed to this. However, her contentious election and the divide within the AU along regional and linguistic lines did not allow her to transcend her limited powers in the organisation.
Assessing the performance of the AUC chairperson from a political point of view remains challenging, because he or she is in charge of implementing policies in which he or she often played a limited role in drafting.
Greater role for the chairperson in the areas of peace and security
Peace and security are the areas where the chairperson has a measure of flexibility. According to Article 7 of the Protocol establishing the Peace and Security Council (PSC), the powers of the PSC are supposed to be exerted in conjunction with the AUC chairperson. In this framework the chairperson remains under the authority of the PSC but plays an important role in raising awareness about crisis situations. Moreover, ‘he or she ensures the implementation and the follow up of the decisions of the Council and the Assembly; and prepares comprehensive and periodic reports and documents as required, to enable the Peace and Security Council and its subsidiary bodies to perform their duties effectively’.
| Peace and security are the areas where the chairperson has a measure of flexibility |
|
Importantly, the chairperson is allowed to take action when it comes to preventive diplomacy. For example, the provisions in the PSC Protocol allowed Dlamini Zuma to appoint former OAU secretary general Edem Kodjo as a mediator in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to try to assist with a national dialogue and diffuse political tensions in the country. However, any legally binding action can only be carried out through a decision of the PSC.
Coordination with the commissioner for peace and security crucial for the chairperson
Still, the impact of the chairperson in the area of peace and security depends on the degree of coordination between the chairperson and the commissioner for peace and security. According to the PSC Protocol, the AUC chairperson ‘shall be assisted by the Commissioner in charge of Peace and Security who shall be responsible for the affairs of the Peace and Security Council’.
As stated earlier, the degree of the chairperson’s authority over the commissioner is relative. The fact that, so far, all AU commissioners for peace and security have come from Algeria – a major financial contributor of the AU – is salient. In addition, these commissioners – Said Djinnit, Ramtane Lamamra and Smail Chergui – all had in-depth knowledge and experience of African and multilateral affairs that could be useful to the chairperson.
| All AU commissioners for peace and security have come from Algeria |
|
For example, before his term as commissioner, Djinnit was chief of staff of former OAU secretary general Salim and also served as OAU assistant secretary general. Lamamra was his country’s representative to the OAU, then to the United Nations, and also the AU’s special envoy in Liberia before becoming commissioner. The incumbent, Chergui, served as Algerian representative to the AU for seven years and as director of African affairs in his ministry in Algeria.
Clearly, in this area where political authority and technical knowledge are often confounded, the experience of the commissioners have given them more flexibility in their dealings with the chairperson. With some issues the commissioner often provides the substance of the decisions while the chairperson appears as the spokesperson. Trust and a good working relationship between the chairperson and the commissioner are crucial for the success of the AU’s peace efforts.
Under the current chairperson, the emphasis on long-term responses to instability through Agenda 2063, means that the commissioner for peace and security is in charge of short-term responses.
