African Unity Without Foundations Is a Political Illusion

 

One of the most persistent analytical errors in discussions on African integration is the assumption that unity can be engineered through grand institutional designs alone—a single currency, open borders, or continent-wide economic blocs. This thinking, while well intentioned, mistakes outcomes for prerequisites. In reality, Africa’s central challenge is not the absence of ambitious integration projects, but the absence of a shared political foundation capable of sustaining them.

The dominant narrative suggests that Africa should simply “do what Europe did”: adopt a common currency, allow free movement of people, and centralize decision-making through supranational institutions. Yet this comparison overlooks a fundamental difference. European integration was not merely a technical or economic exercise; it was a deeply political project rooted in a shared post-war consensus, stable state institutions, and relatively predictable systems of governance. Africa, by contrast, continues to struggle with fragile political settlements, abrupt regime changes, and inconsistent national priorities.

Unity Requires Shared Purpose, Not Shared Slogans

 Political unity cannot precede political consensus. Many African states do not yet share a common vision of governance, development, or even constitutional order. Frequent changes of government—often through coups d’état rather than elections—undermine long-term planning and policy continuity. A government that comes to power through force is rarely invested in continental commitments negotiated by its predecessor. As a result, regional and continental projects are repeatedly stalled, renegotiated, or abandoned altogether.

Recent examples illustrate this clearly. In West Africa, military takeovers in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have disrupted ECOWAS cohesion and weakened collective security mechanisms. Sanctions, withdrawals, and counter-alliances have replaced cooperation. In such an environment, the idea of advancing toward deeper political or monetary integration is not just unrealistic—it is detached from political reality.

Before Africa can speak meaningfully of a single currency or borderless movement, it must first answer a more basic question: what common political values bind its states together? Without agreement on constitutionalism, civilian rule, and accountability, unity remains rhetorical rather than practical.

 The European Comparison: A Misused Analogy

Europe’s integration is often cited as proof that unity is achievable, but this analogy is frequently misapplied. The European Union was built gradually, over decades, among states that already had strong institutions, functioning bureaucracies, and a shared fear of returning to war. Crucially, European states voluntarily surrendered aspects of their sovereignty because they trusted both their own institutions and those of their neighbors.

Even then, Europe’s unity is far from perfect. Brexit exposed the fragility of the European project, and ongoing tensions over migration, fiscal policy, and energy security show that integration is reversible. If Europe—with its institutional depth and political stability—struggles to maintain cohesion, Africa cannot shortcut the process by adopting similar structures without similar foundations.

 The African Union: Unity Without Ownership

 The African Union (AU) is often presented as the institutional embodiment of African unity. Yet its chronic underfunding reveals a deeper problem: lack of political ownership. Many member states fail to meet their financial obligations, forcing the AU to rely heavily on external donors, including the European Union, China, and other partners.

This dependency carries political consequences. The old adage applies with uncomfortable accuracy: who feeds you, controls you. When a significant portion of an organization’s budget comes from external actors, its autonomy is inevitably constrained. Policy priorities shift, agendas are influenced, and the space for genuinely independent decision-making narrows.

A union that cannot finance its peacekeeping missions, election observation efforts, or development initiatives from its own resources cannot credibly claim to represent continental sovereignty. True unity begins with self-financing. Until African states are willing to fully fund their common institutions, the promise of an independent and united Africa will remain aspirational.

 

                     Integration Is a Political Process, Not a Technical One

African integration debates are often framed in technocratic terms—trade volumes, tariff reductions, currency convergence criteria. These matter, but they are secondary. Integration is first and foremost a political process. It requires trust between states, predictability in governance, and leaders willing to subordinate short-term national interests to long-term collective gains.

Practical progress is more likely to emerge from incremental cooperation among politically aligned states rather than continent-wide schemes imposed from above. The East African Community’s relative success in trade facilitation and mobility, compared to other regions, reflects not just economic logic but stronger political coordination among its members.

Conclusion: From Illusion to Institution

African unity cannot be declared into existence. It must be built—slowly, politically, and honestly. Without stable governments, shared values, and self-funded institutions, projects such as a single currency or fully open borders risk becoming symbols of ambition rather than engines of transformation.

The challenge, therefore, is not to abandon the dream of unity, but to ground it in reality. Africa does not need bigger slogans; it needs deeper foundations. Until those foundations are laid, unity will remain an idea celebrated in speeches, but absent in practice.