[Editor note: Dr. Mehari Taddele Maru is an International Consultant on African Union affairs, and a Research Fellow at the NATO Defense College. The following text was extracted from his interview last July with minor editing.]

When we look into pan-Africanism and its definition, we can have two perspectives: the first is to look it from a historical perspective and the second is based on futuristic view.

The historical perspective was dependent on factors which were racial in nature. In connection to the anti-colonialism struggle, at least in Africa, the colonizers were white while the colonized were black. So when you say anti-colonialism, it is the struggle against white Europeans and independence from their rule. Pan-Africanism was also entrenched in slavery and the struggle for freedom in both American and Europe. So mainly, it is the struggle of the black people who are African in origin subjugated to slavery before. When it comes to Pan-Africanism, again slavery was basically a racial issue. So, basically be it slavery or the struggle against slavery, it was inherently a black movement. Unfortunately, apartheid was also case of minority whites oppressing the majority blacks in South Africa. Hence, the anti-apartheid struggle was also a black movement. So, we can say that Pan- Africanism from historical perspective was a racial movement. But that doesn’t mean that there were no whites that supported anti-slavery or anti-colonialism movements. There were non-black and white people who were freedom-loving people. And, a lot of white people have been mobilized. 

That ‘s why they say the battle of Adwa was a victory over mighty whites Europe i.e. Italy by a black nation, black army, black people and black emperor. That victory therefore is not merely an Ethiopian victory; it is a victory of all black and freedom loving whites over the white Europeans. So, it isn’t limited to geography. The North African states were also part of the movement. Even Mao Tse Tung is said to have learned from the gorilla fighting style of the black lion’s of Ethiopia against fascism: how they were able to struggle and retained their independence and freedom when facing a militarily mighty force. 

Generally, Pan-Africanism is not geographic; or nor is it continental. Historically it can be linked to some degree to black community but its implication and its message was much broader. Because the anti-apartheid struggle was mainly black, but still a lot of whites have participated from the Scandinavian region to America. And in the struggle of colonialism non-blacks have also participated. So, in terms of content, it was a message of freedom. It was not necessarily limited to the black role only. Geographically, it was not limited to the black sub-Saharan region either since there were a lot of people from the North African region associated with pan-Africanism. The historical and cultural links of this movement was much bigger than the African continent. So, the movement is not necessarily continentally limited.

Pan-Africanism needs to be redefined in light of the 21st century realities. In my opinion, pan-Africanism got a political institution only after the formation of the OAU. Before that, there was no proper political body; it was an association. Only Pan African conferences and African congresses were there. There were black movements and Negro movement; there was awareness (consciousness) movement which had no political embodiment. Still these organizations were not necessarily limited to the continent but to all Africans both in Africa or outside. Continentally, all Africans can associate themselves with these organizations. That is why from the very beginning you don’t have exclusive North African movements. There was only the Monrovia movement. But Casablanca group was full of Arabs: African Arab country like Algeria and Morocco. So, these North  African countries did not establish their own movements and they didn’t say we do not involve ourselves in the Monrovia group or the Casablanca group; from the beginning Pan-Africanism was broad.

Now we have passed the point of anti-colonial and anti apartheid struggle, which was the glue that held African countries together. The glue was anti-colonialism and anti-apartheid movement. That was the reason why everybody was progressive. Externally, the movements were always pro-African, pro-independence and against apartheid. So, they expressed themselves as progressive and managed to pull together their diplomatic, military and financial resources for the same cause. Including Kwame Nkrumah and Emperor Haile-Selassie externally they were all progressive while being repressive internally. They were not willing to accept that political power was limited; they declared themselves lifelong leaders. Human rights and democratic situation within these states were very limited.

The reasons why they were externally progressive while being internally regressive was because of what you call the original sin. The original sin was the policy of non-interference in internal affairs which insulated African countries from any form of questions regarding governance. The point is that once the glue of anti-colonist struggle was completed and apartheid basically dismantled in South Africa, there was a need to look for other glues. We had glues but they were not fashionably put so that it will bring all Africans together to peruse it as a common goal. I think the new Pan-Africanism has to revolve around a legitimate government and anti-poverty struggle in terms of content. That has to be a rallying point. I think at this level also there will be different form of Pan-Africanism. Previously, Pan-Africanism was a thing of the political elites and leaders. Now, the new Pan-Africansim should be common to all African people. Because states have a long way to go to be a trusted and legitimate entities in the continent. So, the kind of Pan-Africansim we now need could not be the movement of the political leaders alone but rather the drivers of the Pan-Africansim wave should be the African men and women who will push their governments to do things. Now I am seeing people asking what the AU is doing. Or why it does something and does not others? Why are we having the kinds of problems Africa is facing in governance, economy and social issues? and they even go to the extent of asking if the AU is indeed a relevant institution to their daily routine life. These are questions that are very legitimate and they may be of indicative of the new Pan-Africanism movement which will  be  demanded by the common African people.

The policy of integration and interventions are two parts of this process. The end aim of integration is not simply desire to be integrated; there is a purpose for it. Basically, integration is another means to have more resources at the disposal of the people: more jobs, more trade,  more infrastructure, more options and more market in Africa. So we need to integrate for the sake of prosperity, better democracy and better governance. So, integration is not an end by itself. The end is whether human security is assured; whether the security of the populations is guaranteed. And whether poverty is effectively fought. Integration is all about human security of Africans.

*********