Will the new African Union chair thrive?
As Burundi took over from Angola, the 2023 debate on ‘small’ countries chairing the organisation resurfaced.
During the African Union (AU) Summit, on 15 and 16 February 2026, Burundi assumed the AU rotating chairship. Given the regional rotation principle under Article 6(4) of the AU Constitutive Act, Burundi represents Central Africa.
While the country is poised to fulfil its continental duties, some observers question its ability to do so. Some argue that Burundi, with a territory of 27 834 km2 and a nominal gross domestic product of US$3.6 billion, has limited capacity to drive AU affairs effectively. This is especially so as doubts are cast on the body’s ability to address Africa’s challenges amid a severe crisis in continental and global multilateralism.
Others maintain that managing continental affairs has never been a matter of size or financial capability, but of member states collectively driving their organisation. Hence, the chair’s ability to garner support from peers and project diplomatic capacity are also factors.
Managing continental affairs has never been a matter of size or financial capability
The debate over small versus big state chairs is not new. It arose in 2023, when Comoros took the seat, prompting an Institute of Security Studies analysis that concluded that size and economic capacity are not the sole criteria for determining effective AU leadership.
Is Burundi set for success?
Several elements debunk the perception that Burundi has limited capacity to chair the AU. A brief benchmark with Comoros, provides clarity. Despite having half of Burundi’s gross domestic product and 12 times less territory, Comoros beat the odds as AU chair, driving continental affairs with tangible gains. Among others, it put burning issues such as the blue economy in the spotlight, steering crisis response in the Great Lakes region and finalising the AU’s admission to the G20.
Moreover, unlike Comoros, which had seven priorities, Burundi has three — peace and security, the theme of the year and youth, women and innovation. This indicates much greater focus and optimal use of resources, in line with the AU Assembly’s longstanding demand that the assembly bureau and the AU Commission (AUC) chairs narrow their focuses.
Similarly, Burundi brings more experience. First, it has demonstrated resolve in promoting youth affairs both nationally and continentally. As a signatory to the AU Youth Charter, it has not only incorporated the framework’s principles into its national policies but implemented them. It has also supported youth involvement in continental governance, peace and security.
In addition to its well-established role as a troop contributor to AU peace support operations, the country has been the AU special envoy for the Sahel since July 2025 and a focal country in the Great Lakes’ crisis response, hosting the International Conference for the Great Lakes Region. In addition, it benefits from a fully composed troika, with the past chair, Angola, and the incoming chair, Ghana, serving as bureau rapporteur and vice-chair, respectively.
The new chair is focusing on peace and security, the year’s theme and youth, women and innovation
This was not the case for Comoros in 2023, which dealt with a limping troika without a first vice-chair due to lack of consensus among northern African countries. The disagreement ultimately affected Mauritania’s chairship in 2024, resulting in one of the most unprepared and quietest chairships. With its credentials and priorities, Burundi could well thrive.
Areas to watch
The new chair took over in a global context of shrinking resources and growing continental portfolio, as the AU struggles with internal challenges and strives to position itself as a reliable actor in multilateral spaces. The AU chair must, therefore, display adaptability to change and be a broker among member states, the AUC and regional economic communities and mechanisms to ensure unified, consensus-based responses to Africa’s internal and global challenges.
Fewer priorities could be conducive to a successful tenure, but the chair’s focuses remain vast and diverse. Challenges in the peace and security domain alone include open conflicts, complex post-coup transitions and counter-terrorism. The theme of the year is also complex, as it includes accelerating the implementation of member states' commitments and advocating, mobilising and coordinating within AU organs and between the AU and regional communities and mechanisms on water issues. Women, youth and innovation are also multisectoral areas that demand resources and capacity. Without a streamlined workplan with clear success indicators and well-defined sub-areas, achieving tangible results over 12 months will be a test.
The last two areas demand resource mobilisation to support the tenure and strengthen coordination with the AUC chair. Despite the rotating chairship garnering interest among member states and the growing responsibilities of the incumbent, the AU has yet to allocate resources. Therefore, chairs have to gather their own resources to enhance delivery capacity. For example, Comoros budgeted US$11 million and had to solicit partners.
In addition, in the absence of coordinated management of continental affairs, the risks of disconnection and friction could be heightened to the point of diverting both bureau and AUC chairs’ attention from priorities. Limited consultations with African states through traditional procedures, like the controversial case of Macky Sall’s bid for the UN top position, could further undermine the role of the chairperson. Some good practices could be drawn from interactions between Senegal and the former AUC leadership.
Burundi should demonstrate its ability to drive consensus among member states on sensitive issues
Way forward
To ensure an effective tenure, Burundi should demonstrate its ability to drive consensus among member states on sensitive issues that have exposed fragmentation within AU organs, such as the AU Assembly and the Peace and Security Council. Chief among them have been responses to unconstitutional changes of government and divergences over the AU’s role in member-state governance. Burundi could, in its remaining 10 months of leadership, reignite the consensus that once spawned effective AU response to crises. This could be done through open and frank dialogue. It could also explore alternative decision-making tools, including voting across AU organs.
Sound resources are needed for a smooth, successful tenure. Therefore, Burundi could explore innovative fundraising options, such as ad hoc contributions from bureau members, given that steering the AU is a collective endeavour, or resorting to interested partners, as Comoros did. Beyond the short term, Burundi could set a precedent by advocating a dedicated AU budget line to sustain the bureau’s operations.
Consistent coordination with the AUC chair is needed to ensure unified management of AU affairs. The Assembly chair could achieve this through regular meetings between the bureau and the AUC chair’s office and by establishing information-sharing channels.
