Is a United Africa possible?

[DSeid]

Today's featured Wikipedia article is about the emergence of a united India in a politically integrated federalist state, and this article inspires me to wonder if such is possible or desirous for some combination of African states. It seems that many of Africa's problems today could be best addressed with a centralization of some processes and coordinated economic and educational development plans. India was able to create a functional federalism out of different ethnic groups and princely states; why not Africa? If possible, from where would you imagine leadership for such a venture would arise?

[even sven]

Africa is a much bigger place without a unifying force like Hinduism. I think that fact that India is one of the very few Hindu majority countries helps to keep them united. That said, India is hardly the model of unity with a weak central government, an active border war and secessionist movements in nearly every state.

[MrDibble]

India has had historic periods (going back to Ashoka) of being mostly united, so the notion of a unified state wasn't a foreign concept. Africa, not so much.

I can see a sort-of EU-lite model working for some parts, like the SADC states, but only in the distant future. But the largely Muslim North and largely Christian South won't ever have common ground, IMO.

Or, short answer, are there at least 2 Africans from different tribes left alive? Then no.

[Wesley Clark]

I doubt it. I don't know tons about Africa but it seems to have alot of strife and infighting in it, I don't see a federation forming out of that. But then again the EU formed out of ww2 europe. They are trying with the AU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union#Members

[David, God of Frogs]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

I can see a sort-of EU-lite model working for some parts, like the SADC states, but only in the distant future. But the largely Muslim North and largely Christian South won't ever have common ground, IMO.

What about sub-Saharan Africa as a whole?

You're probably right though that it would be a long time coming.

[DSeid]

Wes, thanks for that link.

It seems to me that the strife and infighting is partly resultant of a fairly artificial imposition of nation-state identities upon non-state social organizations ... or if not resultant of, at least independent of those state identities. Tribal and religious conflicts do not seem very positively effected by multiple corrupt state powers.

Agreed that it is hard to imagine the Muslim and Christian sections in even a loose federation with each other ... but the southern states ... putatively Christian but with strong non-Christian traditions and influences ... I like to imagine some leadership bringing them together. The image of some interAfrican cooperation does mesh with EU African aid packages, which are increasing to 0.56% of EU states' national incomes (http://www.afrol.com/articles/16420) and with the image of a future Africa that Europe wants to encourage with those monies. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/commission.../africa_en.htm) (Gotta love googling .. now I gotta read those linked articles in more depth!)

One Africa. While Africa has many faces, different histories and diverse needs, it has now collectively embarked on a path of political, economic and cultural integration of the entire continent, crystallised in the regional integration efforts promoted by Africa’s RECs and the launching of the AU and NEPAD. The EU Strategy for Africa will therefore, for the first time, address Africa as one entity. Under this Strategy, the EU will reinforce its dialogue with the pan African institutions. The Strategy will also fully exploit the potential of the recentlyrevised Cotonou Agreement, the Trade Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA) and the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, together with the European Neighbourhood Policy. These agreements cover respectively the EU’s relations with sub-Saharan African countries, South-Africa & the countries of North Africa.

[Quartz]

Africa's already united: it's a sh*thole.

[toadspittle]

I doubt it. While India, Italy, Germany, etc. may have unified separate kingdoms/fiefdoms, it seems that enormous parts of Africa have never even been adequately organized at the local kingdom level. It's one thing to bunch several somewhat-related autonomous regions/city-states together; it's another to bunch together several thousand autonomous villages/tribes. The Colonial powers tried, but their solutions were, as previously mentioned, wholly artificial and w/o much relation to whether or not the local peoples wanted to be affiliated with each other.

[Caius Preposterus]

Originally Posted by even sven

That said, India is hardly the model of unity with a weak central government,

Cite? I won't hold my breath, though, since this statement is complete nonsense.

an active border war and secessionist movements in nearly every state.

Wow. A secessionist movement in nearly every state? Please list them for me. Of course you can't, since this statement is nonsense too.

[even sven]

Dude, I only say what Frontline magazine tells me.

Originally Posted by Caius Preposterus

Cite? I won't hold my breath, though, since this statement is complete nonsense.

By weak, I don't mean bad or even that it lacks power. The Indian central government has broad powers and a strong military to enforce them. It can even dismiss state governments basically at will. But there is a reason why so many people agitate for their own state. State governments have a strong role in day-to-day life. You'll never find two states in the US or Europe with, say, the number of differences between, say Bihar and Kerala. 70% of India lives in villages, where the long arm of New Delhi rarely reaches, and people identify themselves very strongly according to their state.

Beyond that, there is some degree of instability in the government. We all know about the crisis of 1975, yeah?

Wow. A secessionist movement in nearly every state? Please list them for me. Of course you can't, since this statement is nonsense too.

Here is the wikipedia page on secessionist movements. Surely you are aware of stuff like uh that big thing that happened at the Golden temple, Tamil independence movements, the Naxalites, etc. Hell, the movements in the North East get their own wikipedia page. Here is India's list. You'll note that it is the longest...

Andhra Pradesh
Political: Jai Andhra

Arunachal Pradesh
Violent: Arunachal Dragon Force
Proposed state: Teola country

Assam
Violent: United Liberation Front of Assam, United People’s Democratic Solidarity, Koch-Rajbongshi Liberation Organisation, Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam

Bodoland
Political: National Democratic Front of Bodoland, Bodo Liberation Tiger Force
Dimaland
Political: Dima Halim Daogah

Garo
Violent: People's Liberation Front of Meghalaya, Achik National Volunteer Council
Proposed state: Achikland

Goa

Gondwana
Political: Gondwana Ganatantra Party, seeking to create a Gondi state from parts of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Maharashtra.

Kangleipak
Violent: People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak

Kamtapur
Political: Kamtapur Peoples Party (political wing of KLO)
Violent: Kamtapur Liberation Organisation, Koch-Rajbongshi Liberation Organisation

Karbi
Violent: Karbi National Volunteers
Proposed state: Karbi-Anglong

Kashmir
Violent: Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front
Political: Kashmir Independence Organization
Proposed state: Azad Kashmir

Khasi
Violent: Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council

Kuki
Violent: Kuki National Army

Nagaland
Violent: National Socialist Council of Nagalim
Government-in-exile: Government of the People’s Republic of Nagaland
Proposed state: Nagalim, or Peoples Republic of Nagaland

Manipur
Violent: Hmar People's Convention–Democrat, Manipur People’s Liberation Front, United National Liberation Front, Revolutionary People's Front of Manipur

Mizoram
Violent: Zomi Revolutionary Organization, Mizoram Farmers Liberation Force
Proposed state: Zozam

Punjab
Proposed state: Khalistan
Violent: Khalistan Commando Force–Panjwar, Babbar Khalsa International, Khalistan Zindabad Force, International Sikh Youth Federation

Rabha
Proposed state: Rhabaland
Violent: Rabha National Security Force

Rayalaseema

Reang
Violent: Bru National Liberation Front

Tamil Nadu
Violent: Tamil National Retrieval Troops, Tamil Nadu Liberation Army

Telangana
Political: Telangana Rashtra Samithi, seeking to separate Telangana from Andhra Pradesh state. Various other minor parties such as Jai Telangana Party, Telangana Communist Party, Telangana Janata Party, Telangana Praja Samithi, Telangana Rashtra Party, Telangana Rashtra Sadhana Front, Telangana Rashtra Samithi and Telangana Sadhana Samithi.

Tripura
Violent: National Liberation Front of Tripura (two factions operating), All Tripura Tiger Force

Vidarbha
Political: Vidarbha Rajya Party, Vidarbha Vikas Party, seeking to separate Vidarbha from Maharashtra.

[Caius Preposterus]

Originally Posted by even sven

By weak, I don't mean bad or even that it lacks power. The Indian central government has broad powers and a strong military to enforce them. It can even dismiss state governments basically at will.

Then you're use of the term weak in this context makes no sense. If you agree the central government is stable and strong enough to enforce its powers, then it is by definition not weak.

But there is a reason why so many people agitate for their own state. State governments have a strong role in day-to-day life. You'll never find two states in the US or Europe with, say, the number of differences between, say Bihar and Kerala.

Well, I need to clarify how you are using the term "own state." If you mean their own country, then, no, there are not "so many" people agitating. The vast majority of the population lives in the Hindi speaking states, Gujarat, and West Bengal, and there is no secession movement of any importance in any of these areas.

And, yes I will agree that there are cultural and political differences between say Kerala and Bihar, but that has nothing to do with the stability or power of the central government.

70% of India lives in villages, where the long arm of New Delhi rarely reaches, and people identify themselves very strongly according to their state.

Yeah, tell that to the people who live there. India's governmental structure is the exact reverse of the United States. The Federal government delegates whatever powers it wants for itself and lets the states pickup the rest. That means that pretty much anything you do will involve the federal government at some point.

And, no, people don't identify themselves with their states. They identify themselves by their ethnicity, which is a completely different concept. I've never heard anybody refer to themselves as a "Madhya Pradeshan."

Beyond that, there is some degree of instability in the government. We all know about the crisis of 1975, yeah?

Exactly how does this "crisis" of 30 years ago show that the central government is weak?

Here is the wikipedia page on secessionist movements. Surely you are aware of stuff like uh that big thing that happened at the Golden temple, Tamil independence movements, the Naxalites, etc. Hell, the movements in the North East get their own wikipedia page. Here is India's list. You'll note that it is the longest...

Yes, and I also noticed you have listed autonomy movements along with secession movements, which are not the same thing. You have also listed defunct movements (such as Khalistan) with currently active ones. Yes, I've heard of the Naxalites, because that is one of the only active movements with any signficiant importance (and it's not even a secessionist movement per-se). And yes, the Northeastern parts have always been agitating for some autonomy, but they comprise a fraction of the Indian population.

Anybody can declare that they're seceding. If the group has no activity, commits no attacks and can't get any votes, than I'm not going to classify them as a secession movement. You can do otherwise. It's still nonsense.

[even sven]

Hey, I don't think there is any reason to get snarky here- we're all here to learn and discuss. If you think India would be a great model for African unity, go ahead and explain. I mean no insult to India in saying that their path of being the world's largest and most diverse democracy has not been an easy one, and there are drawbacks (and benefits) that come with governing such a large area with so many religions, ethnicities, etc.

In short, the purpose behind a united Africa would be to keep the various groups from having violent fights. I don't think that India- who governs a fairly peaceful and relatively unarmed populace- has been all that successful in doing that. There have been numerous occassions of communal violence, religious violence, assassination and internal terrorism. I see no reason why armed-to-the-teeth Africa would not render this model completely useless as a government, or cause the central government to quickly slip down to martial law to keep control.

[David, God of Frogs]

Is there any reason (besides DSied noticing that one article of the day) to think that India would be the model for an African unification? While India has historical connections, and there are a lot of economic migrants from there in the South and East, that role is presently being taken over by China, as a new colonial wave of investments and people comes in from over there. So perhaps any unification would use their more strong-arm approach.

[Caius Preposterus]

Originally Posted by even sven

Hey, I don't think there is any reason to get snarky here- we're all here to learn and discuss.

Ok, I apologize for being snarky. I've been lurking here for a while, and I've seen you make definitive statements about India in other threads which I interpreted to contain an agenda. Apparently I've made a mistake, and I'll try to modify the tone of my posts.

If you think India would be a great model for African unity, go ahead and explain.

Well, I personally don't think India would make a good model for African unity. Mainly, (IMO) the reason India held together after independence was because the Congress party had charismatic leaders, crossed ethinic and religious lines, and commanded support of the overwhelming majority of the population. Had ethnic parties or religious parties been able to establish themselves and break the Congress Party's lock on politics early on, it's very possible the country might have fallen apart. Today, I don't think India is in any serious danger of this, because there are too many monetary and political interests that are allied in keeping the country together. And I personally would prefer to see it break up into something along the lines of the EU, but that's a pipe dream with no bearing on reality.

For Africa, I'm not even sure how a party could establish such widespread support, given that we're dealing with not only a number of different ethnicities, but also economic systems, political systems, ideologies, etc.

I mean no insult to India in saying that their path of being the world's largest and most diverse democracy has not been an easy one, and there are drawbacks (and benefits) that come with governing such a large area with so many religions, ethnicities, etc.

I don't think that India- who governs a fairly peaceful and relatively unarmed populace- has been all that successful in doing that. There have been numerous occassions of communal violence, religious violence, assassination and internal terrorism. I see no reason why armed-to-the-teeth Africa would not render this model completely useless as a government, or cause the central government to quickly slip down to martial law to keep control.

Well, I'd argue that it has been somewhat successful, in that there was no political concept of India really until midway through British rule. We have lots of examples of multi-ethnic democracies failing, but very few that have managed to survive, so at least in that respect, they've been succesful. But this really gets into quibbling about what the word "success" means, so maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Little Nemo]

Then you're use of the term weak in this context makes no sense. If you agree the central government is stable and strong enough to enforce its powers, then it is by definition not weak.

Saying a country has a weak central government isn't a negative statement. It just means the government is decentralized and a lot of the power rests with local governments rather than the national government. The United States, for example, has a weaker central government than France, for example, does but that says nothing about which government is more stable or which country is more powerful.

[Askia]

Of course it's possible. Anything can happen under threat of conquest, whether it's from geopolitical stresses within, or capitalist exploitation from without, or a common enemy.

No continental-wide unity occurs without submitting to some tenacious overseeing authority with the force of military action, arms, embargoes, censure and political pressure behind that authority. It will not happen without great upheaval, dilplomacy, opposition and war, which is the case of nearly every case in human history undergoing vast societal change, especially unifying vast groups of ethnic peoples. Even societies that submitted to the missionary work of the Catholic Church did so because of pandemic disease killed off millions and the survivors embraced the church to appease an angry God. Even the EU was preceded by two world wars, a cold war and the collapse of the USSR before embarking on a common monetary unit.

I have a counterquestion: Is an ideologically United Africa necessarily desirous?

I'd personally prefer to see an infrastructurally united Africa first: better roads, communications networks, transportataion networks, hospitals, schools, waterways, food/medicine distribution centers and deployments centers humanitarian aid, etc. before looking at common ideologies.

[XT]

Having been to Africa I'd have to say...no, its not 'possible'. If by that you mean 'probable'. At least not in the forseeable future anyway. There is absolutely nothing to unite them...except perhaps outside conquest. FORCE them to unite. Even then you'd have violence on a scale you can't imagine unless you've actually been there. Think the ME is complex with all the tribes and sects and factions? Africa is an order of magnitude more complex...and its a complexity steeped in antipathy towards that thar tribe over there. What would bind them together...WHY would they unite?

Nope...not gona happen in this reality. Hell, I'd be satisfied if the various nations would simply stabalize...

-XT

[DSeid]

Well Askia, my op specifically does envisage "a centralization of some processes and coordinated economic and educational development plans", not necessarily one ideological worldview. Infrastructure coordination is implicit. I did not mean to say that India needed to be the model, just an example of disparate groups coming together under one flag. In fact, what I would foresee is a weak centralism, more akin to what the EU hopes to be, than to what the United Staes is. And such infrastructure creation is exactly what the EU, in that already linked report, has in mind to encourage.

Limited access to transport and communication services, water and sanitation, and energy constrains economic growth. These limitations, together with the missing links in cross-border connections and regional networks, mean that trade and commerce often become uncompetitive as transport and service costs in landlocked countries can reach three quarters of a country’s total export value, equivalent for example to a 75% tax on Ugandan clothes exports. In addition, potentially lucrative use of natural resources becomes unprofitable due to insufficient or unsuitable infrastructure and trade links. Consequently, national economic growth is stifled and the ability of African countries to trade competitively at regional, continental and international level is held back. The Commission therefore proposes to establish an EU-Africa Partnership for Infrastructure to support and initiate programmes (Trans-African Networks) that facilitate interconnectivity at continental level for the promotion of regional integration. The Partnership for Infrastructure should encompass investments in trans-boundary and regional infrastructure and their regulatory frameworks in the widest sense: transport networks (roads, railways, inland waterways, ports and airports), water and energy infrastructure and connections as well as ground-based and space-based electronic communications infrastructure and services.
<snip>
To stimulate a coherent and strategic approach, the EU should increasingly support primary education through sectoral budget support. At the same time, the EU should support education, access to knowledge and transfer of know-how as a lifelong process going beyond primary education: from secondary and higher to vocational education. Emphasis should also be put on cooperation with Africa in higher education to build high-quality tertiary capacity through networking, mobility of students and scholars, and institutional support and innovation, including the use of ICTs, as is done in Northern Africa countries through the EC’s TEMPUS programme, and the establishment of a communications infrastructure for the research and development sector.

In this case loose federation is imagined to occur not as result of threat of conquest from without or from under the gun within, but as a result of growing islands of stability and endogenous structures getting sufficient external support to allow for self-sustaining growth.

[Caius Preposterus]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Saying a country has a weak central government isn't a negative statement. It just means the government is decentralized and a lot of the power rests with local governments rather than the national government. The United States, for example, has a weaker central government than France, for example, does but that says nothing about which government is more stable or which country is more powerful.

But even with this definition, I don't think it applies to India. The state governments are not sovereign, they exist at the discretion of the federal government. If the federal government decides to move into a legal area, it can pretty much do so (there are some limits, but not nearly as many as there are in America). As I stated earlier, Indian federalism is the flip-side of American federalism. And personally, I feel that this is some of the source of friction that happens in India.

But since Dseid, isn't looking towards India as a model, this is perhaps becoming a hijack.

Dseid, what is your opinion of organizations such as ECOWAS? It's managed to hold together despite all-out civil wars in some of its member nations. This might be a better solution to Africa's troubles - a slow, methodical integration, rather than a top-down integration model.

[Little Nemo]

But even with this definition, I don't think it applies to India. The state governments are not sovereign, they exist at the discretion of the federal government. If the federal government decides to move into a legal area, it can pretty much do so (there are some limits, but not nearly as many as there are in America). As I stated earlier, Indian federalism is the flip-side of American federalism. And personally, I feel that this is some of the source of friction that happens in India.

I'll admit I don't a lot about the details of India's government. I was responded to the broader issue that 'weak v. strong' isn't the same as 'good v. bad' in describing governments.

As for the OP, I don't think Africa is going to unit any time soon. Regions only seek unification when they feel they share a common heritage or culture. Historical examples include India, Greece, Germany, Italy, Western Europe, and Latin America. But African societies don't have that sense that they're part of some big continental whole. Which isn't surprising as there's never been any period when Africa was united as a single entity. Africa is just a continent not a culture.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Like others here, I have no expectation of pan-African unity, but I also don't see much near-term hope for even loose regional federation. Let's face it -- as Nigeria demostrates, Africa has had trouble making a federal system work even within a single nation. Organizations likes ECOWAS have been around for years, but can we cite a single thing ECOWAS has accomplished, aside from providing employment to a few bureaucrats and producing handsomely bound documents?

I think Africa needs to focus on producing functional states first. Regional infrastructure is important, and it seems to me that the EU is doing the right thing by focusing on it, but I don't see that implying any form of federation.

[jimmmy]

If we are talking about a Giant Pan African Parliament in Nairobi with powers like New Delhi or a German/Italian style merging of sates -- not in the lifetime of anyone reading this.

OTHOH If we are thinking A.U.= some kind of semi-1980's era E.U. I think maybe. It will never be all of Africa, even sub-Saharan. However I think is within the realm of possibility we could see - say 20 countries, sharing NAFTA like borders, and aiming for trade coordination and expansion of free market forces, as well as using a coordinated regional political response to regional problems, (like disasters, political instability, AIDS) I think it is possible, we aren't that far from this in the political arena now -- I think just more on the Economic side.

I say 'possible' but note that no one who matters is working towards it, no one who matters is really pushing for it, it isn’t going to happen unless a group of someones really try to make it happen. Many of the largest of these Countries are still trying to exert central coordination over their far flung regions – let alone coordination with/over other countries.

But something like I describe it isn’t impossible and could happen inside a few decades (because it does make some amount of sense and offers some benefits)

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Caius Preposterus

Dseid, what is your opinion of organizations such as ECOWAS? It's managed to hold together despite all-out civil wars in some of its member nations. This might be a better solution to Africa's troubles - a slow, methodical integration, rather than a top-down integration model.

I plead ignorance as to the value of specific institutions. I am woefully uninformed about much of the political reality of Africa. The EU link I found specifically mentions the African Union and NEPAD as institutions to enociurage to develop and obliquely mentions "other" organizations as well. What are the relative strengths of the different organizations? In concept, yes, I would imagine that integration emergent out of working together, rather than top-down imposistion, is more likely to succeed.

[Sal Ammoniac]

The problem with ECOWAS and the African Union, and even to an extent the UN, is that so many of the participating countries are dictatorships. So in effect, an organization like ECOWAS finds itself representing not the people of its member countries and their interests, but rather the interests and prerogatives of dictators. Plus, as is usual with Africa governments, you get a certain amount of featherbedding, such that an ECOWAS post is often nothing more than a well-paid sinecure.

[Caius Preposterus]

Originally Posted by DSeid

I plead ignorance as to the value of specific institutions. I am woefully uninformed about much of the political reality of Africa. The EU link I found specifically mentions the African Union and NEPAD as institutions to enociurage to develop and obliquely mentions "other" organizations as well. What are the relative strengths of the different organizations? In concept, yes, I would imagine that integration emergent out of working together, rather than top-down imposistion, is more likely to succeed.

I'll have to plead ignorance as well (plus I'm getting all my West African organizations confused). I thought ECOWAS deployed the peace keeping force to Sierra Leone, but I might be wrong.

Some of the ECOWAS members formed the West African Monetary Union, which apparently was doing reasonably well until Liberia erupted in civil war. I guess that's the drawback of these regional organizations. You end up tying yourself to countries which can completely collapse at any given moment.