Pan-Africanism was born out of struggle with the hopes of liberation out of slavery, racial domination and colonialism. It was never just a slogan, but a survival strategy. Decades later, the summits still happen, and the continent is still waiting.
Pan africanism was a movement formed to promote unity, solidarity and political empowerment among Africans. With its pioneers being the defining leaders of the time, Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Haile Selassie, and the list goes on, the plan was to liberate Africa after centuries of colonial rule. The founding of the Organization of the African Unity (OAU) was the first institutional attempt that the leaders committed to a united Africa. The OAU was later dissolved in the late 1990s following the mismatch between its founding principles and the continent's evolving reality inthe late 1990s, giving way to the African Union in 2002. The African Union was meant to be more economically and politically integrated and the authority to interfere in extreme cases such as war crimes and genocide. The ideology was solid, the execution on the other hand barely matched it.
Now here's the problem, where leaders say one thing then do another. The AU's own Commission chairperson admitted that over three years, 2021, 2022, and 2023, 93% of AU's decisions were never implemented, accusing member states of failing to match rhetoric action. The AU had been granted so much power, intended to be distributed to its organs, that is, the Pan African Parliament and AU Commission, yet it remains incomplete. The Pan-African Parliament has been sitting idle, with slow movement across it's organs as most member states refuse to comply, stalling progress that might follow. With the political elites’ radical desire to hold onto individual power puts Pan-Africanism's goals fundamentally at odds with practice - open markets feel like a threat on sovereignty. Leaders will invoke Pan-Africanism at every regional and international forums they attend then return home and pursue national interests instead.
Even with the best of intentions, the African Union was never given the claws to keep itself strong, and that is the structural problem. Unlike the European Union, the AU is unable to function as a supranational authority. The Pan-African Parliament holds no binding legislative powers, and the AU Commission cannot compel member states to comply with its decisions. For African states, it has always been a battle between protecting sovereignty and building a powerful continental body, and sovereignty wins every time. The greatest irony is this: roughly two-thirds of the AU's annual budget comes from external donors and not the member states. An institution championing African self determination is financially dependent on outside powers.
It's to be acknowledged that Pan-Africanism's framework was built for a different era. The idea itself was forged to liberate Africans from colonial rule. Rhe enemy was visible, the mission was clear - liberation. However, today’s reality is far more complex. The continent has been seized by debt burdens, democratic backsliding, economic dependency, neocolonialismin investment terms and the list go on, challenges the 2002 AU was never initially designed to deal with. The powerful principle of “African solutions to African problems” rather than being a genuine commitment to self determination, it has become a rhetorical shield for inaction. The AU’s Agenda 2063 has all the fundamental goals for a better Africa, the question is whether they will ever be effectively implemented or whether it remains a strategy on paper.
The AU has failed in a couple ways. For instance, democratic backsliding. Across West and Central Africa, waves of coups have been threatening the security of the entire populations, and what they received from the AU were statements, not solutions. In the DRC and Sudan, conflict has dragged on for years and the AU has been largely spectating while external actors dominate mediation, turning what should be an African-led process into a transactional deal-making exercise driven by external interests. On economic integration, the AfCFTA stepped into force in 2019, yet Nigeria, one of the continent’s largest economies, delayed participation out of fear that cheaper imports compromising domestic industries. Again, that’s how national interests were prioritized over the continent’s solidarity. The gap between the idea and reality has never been this wide. Nationalism is simultaneously while Pan-Africanism has never been stronger in the rhetoric of the populations.
So what then must the AU do to catch up with the continent’s reality? First, fix the funding. The AU cannot champion self-reliance while depending on donor funding for two thirds of its budget. Second, sharper implementations with clear timelines is required, not open-ended aspirations. Third, grant the AU Commission genuine independence and transfer meaningful powers to both the Commission and Pan-African Parliament - making a genuine leap from model laws and recommendations to binding, enforceable decisions. Fourth, build a Peace and Security body that actually leads with claws - given the scale of conflict the continentis currently facing. Finally, Pan-Africanism must mean something concrete at continental level - real solidarity and cooperation - declarations made at summits.
Pan-Africanism is not a failed one, it’s an unfinished one. The vision was always strategic and straightforward, however, the institutions built to carry it never got the funding, the power, or the political will to do the job. As one of the AU leadership candidate put it plainly: Africa is moving, but the AU must move faster. African leaders, on the other hand, must decide whether they genuinely believe in Pan-Africanism or it’s something they say because it sounds good, while their actions tell a completely different story.