Posted by Canadian Friends of Sudan
January 4, 2008

Since its inception in May 1963, the OAU the forerunner of present-day AU has not shown any leadership in any crisis or solved one single crisis in Africa. African leaders are known more as dictators than as true leaders seeking to better Africa. I believe part of the problem with the lack of leadership within the AU is lack of the concept of ‘servant leadership’, by which Robert Greenleaf explains “…the great leader is first experienced as a servant to other, and that this simple fact is central to the leader’s greatness.” According to Greenleaf, “a servant leader is one who is a servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve others first, and to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The servant-leader isn’t only a good speaker; he is also a good listener as he needs to hear the people’s views and feel their pulse to determine the direction of the nation or organisation towards realisation of its goals. Another primary reason why many African leaders may fail to improve the state of their nations and people is their lack of empathy, because “…they live outside the people’s world”. It is very sad that these qualities are more or less absent within the AU, leaving no wonder why Africa is suffering. The AU leaders lack commitment to serving the greater consensual interest, to sharing power in decision-making, and encouraging ownership through the participation of African civil society. They fail to recognize civil society has an important role to play in the achievement of democracy in Africa through, for instance, educating the public in the importance of democracy, fair election, and good governance whose key components include accountability, legitimacy democracy, equality, inclusiveness, transparency, and rule of law. African leaders accepted or inherited democracy from colonial masters without understanding the concept behind it. In essence, democracy as applied in Africa is tantamount to a ‘copy and paste’ of western democracy, lacking sensitivity to intrinsic domestic sociological beliefs, values and processes. As a result, these artificial applications of democracy remain vulnerable to the instinctive impulse of tribalism. Ultimately, the absence of a thorough and systemic lensing of fundamental African culture elements into exercises in democracy in African countries will bear substantial collateral cost to Africa; especially through the highly-emotional election processes. Democracy in Africa is not an over night event; but a process which requires time. The lack of leadership within the AU has cost the many electors in Kenya their lives during the past days. The AU has been slow to take the lead through established mechanisms to resolve the Kenyan elections dispute. Only after the daunting reality of several hundred deaths in only a few days are envoys including current AU chair and president of Ghana, now being dispatched to the region. Kenya’s election is a litmus test of peer-accountability and other vaunted mechanisms. Actions and results here bear substantial implications for upcoming elections in Zimbabwe, Angola, South Sudan and other African States. What should be done regarding Kenyan’s election? The first step is that the AU should resolve disputes over the election result through the Disputes and Complaints Committee. The results must be reviewed, with all options put on the table including recount to satisfy stakeholders’ confidence in the AU. Finally, the AU must seriously assess the legitimacy of Mr. Mwai Kibaki’s claim to the presidency vis-à-vis mounting evidence indicating otherwise. The fact Mr. Kibaki had himself sworn in almost immediately after the results were announced is dubious at best. Against a highly-charged background of electoral impropriety, the Kenya Election Commission (KEC) also falls into question for not allowing the statutory two weeks for complaints and disputes to be filed to insure fairness.. Justin Laku