From an AU Commission to an Authority

(ISS)--The executive council of the African Union (AU) is meeting in Libya this week to consider proposals by the AU Commission on the implementation of the 12th AU summit decision on a proposed new AU Authority. The meeting will in particular look at: the functions of the AU Authority, the size of the Authority, the functions of the Secretaries, and the financial implications for establishing the AU Authority.

The General Assembly of the AU in January 2009 decided to set up the AU Authority to replace the current AU Commission and change its top structure. According to the Assembly decision the proposed Authority is expected to have a President, a Vice President and Secretaries with portfolios based on areas of shared competencies, as agreed upon in the previous Summit at Sharm El-Sheik. The proposed AU Authority is expected to have slightly more power than the Commission in areas of dealing with poverty, infectious diseases, education, and other legal issues.

What can one make of the proposed change from the AU Commission to the AU Authority? Is it a welcome step in the tenuous journey towards African unity and continental integration? Or it is just a cop-out to torpedo the whole integration project?

First, the probability of a change from Commission to Authority should be seized as an opportunity to institute some of the recommendations called for by the Audit Report; specifically those pertaining to the Commission’s independence and capacity. The Authority with its expanded mandate will almost certainly have the ‘exclusive right’ to initiate proposals, coordinate, implement, and monitor decisions. In so doing, the proposed Authority will certainly be much more than a Secretariat of the Union. In principle, it will be called upon to provide leadership.

Currently, the top AU policymaking organs, the General Assembly and Executive Council and to an extent the AU Commission, are still very much embedded in the domestic politics of member states. This might be the reason why the Commission in some instances has been on a collision course with the Permanent Representative Committee. Thus, it is imperative that the proposed Authority becomes independent from the various policymaking organs of the AU.

In an attempt to enhance the independence of the Authority and in the process increase the impact of its work, there is an urgent need to first and foremost create some sort for co-decision-making arrangements between the AU and other continental organs. For instance, the Pan-African Parliament should be empowered and metamorphosised into a decision-making body that represents the interest of African citizens. This will enhance the work of the Authority as it will not be subjected to political exigencies of member states alone but, rather accountable to the African people.

Beside co-decision-making, there is need to create an AU Ombudsman and an independent accounting and auditing mechanism to ensure and sustain the operational and financial health of the Commission. In a nutshell, the proposed AU Authority is a positive step towards continental integration. However, if the problems that are constraining the Commission as aptly pointed out by the AU Audit report are not addressed; and if the proposed Authority is anchored on the current institutional framework, the process will be just a name-change and will be like putting old wine in new bottles.

Moreover, Africans are uninterested in mere name changes but rather in a stronger, efficient and responsible Authority that rises above narrow member states’ interests and comprehensively addresses and advances continental interests—poverty eradication, continental integration and peace and security. That is the sort of an AU Authority that Africa yearns for.

*Chrysantus Ayangafac is a Senior Researcher in Addis Ababa with the Conflict
Prevention Programme of the Institute for Security Studies.

16/4/2009

<< Back to main