ECOWAS might just as well replace the African Union

By Tanonoka Joseph Whande

I have been watching the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS) for some time and it has grown a trajectory that is not akin to any other in Africa.

It seems ECOWAS is the only regional grouping in Africa that seriously wants to do something for its people and for its region.

ECOWAS has proved willing to make those serious contributions to Africa that the African Union shies away from.

While SADC is all talk and tries to portray itself as a serious and neutral arbiter, it has not succeeded in arbitrating conflicts at all. It always supports the offending leaders at the expense of the people.

ECOWAS shows me the responsibilities, efforts and positive results of a unified regional leadership; it parades a community that subscribes to a doctrine that favors people over leaders.

SADC puts leaders above the people; they support presidents against whom complaints have been brought up.

SADC allows wayward leaders to close down its important branches that rule against them, which is what happened after Robert Mugabe lost a case at its tribunal.

Under pressure from Mugabe after he lost a case at the SADC Tribunal, SADC dissolved its Tribunal where regional citizens could lodge complaints against their governments.

Not only did they dissolve the Tribunal, SADC also declared that “a successor court, if ever constituted, would have no jurisdiction over cases brought against national governments”.

When dictator Yahya Jammeh lost elections and refused to leave office, ECOWAS wasted no time and massed its regional army – ready to move into the Gambia to oust Jammeh.

ECOWAS managed to get rid of the dictator without any bloodshed.

But as soon as the African Union entered into the fray, we started to hear familiar and unacceptable arrangements, such as allowing Jammeh “to keep his legally acquired possessions”, in spite of the fact that a few hours after his flight into exile, over $11 million was found stolen in the last two weeks leading to Jammeh’s exit.

The AU knows that no African leader cares about the difference between personal and state property.

Zimbabwe is a satisfactory example of the simple fact that waging a successful liberation war does not translate into ability to successfully govern the country.

Those who claim to be ‘war veterans’ have become a violent, unthankful and insatiable bunch of people who have always terrorized the people in defense of our murderer president.

If Mugabe says today that he is giving them a certain amount of money, these so-called war veterans will rush to his side and start the carnage again.

While liberators should be revered, they are not rulers or our leaders – just civilians like everybody else.

The people are the rulers, not Mugabe; definitely not the war veterans. They have sucked enough blood out of Zimbabweans and we need strong fumigation.

But Zimbabwe is only one country among many that SADC has failed to deal with.

Is Lesotho okay?

What is happening in Swaziland?

What is SADC doing about the stupidity suffocating the DR Congo?

I wish South Africa and SADC were as consistent in defending the people and dealing with wayward regional leaders as Nigeria and ECOWAS are.

Obviously, South African president Jacob Zuma is facing the wrong direction from that of his Nigerian counterpart, Mohammed Buhari.

But this all is the result of the ineptitude of the African Union.

Unlike ECOWAS, the African Union does not push itself to solve the continent’s problems but only becomes very vocal in responding to governments and organisations outside Africa.

The AU’s ineptitude is evidenced in its failures in Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Lesotho and even in the Gambia.

I would applaud the AU if they could show or do a quarter of what ECOWAS has done in the last five years.

ECOWAS might not always succeed; they might not always be right but ECOWAS takes its mandate seriously.

And to complete the cycle, South Africa, which campaigned vigorously for Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma to head the AU, now wants her to return home so they can campaign for her to replace her former husband.

Our region has to stop this. We are talented in recycling our own vomit.

So you see, for years, the AU has always agreed with what SADC was doing in the region because the AU itself does not care one way or other about what governments do. They solve problems through issuing communiques.

ECOWAS, on the other hand, seems to stick to what it believes are the best actions to protect its region and people…they move their multi-national army to the borders and they mean business!

SADC uses the AU as evidence of continental approval of its lopsidedness and its favoritism of offending leaders – however abusive they are to a constitution or its people. And the AU does not mind at all.

The AU takes pride in rubberstamping issues they hardly monitor on their own.

In its sphere, ECOWAS has shown a dedication to solving problems amongst its member states – bending no rules to accommodate undemocratic leaders as the unfolding scenario in the Gambia shows.

ECOWAS’ presence and serious implementation of agreed rules are making a very big difference in their region. They seem to support their principles intimately and owe allegiance not to dictators but to constitutions.

One by one, West Africa is being rid of thieving, murdering and aged dictators.

ECOWAS is unique; unlike the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, it is home grown and has shown several successes to justify its continued existence.

Where the AU talks (usually in support of dictators), ECOWAS takes action.

I confess that I am intrigued by Botswana.

While other African countries dilly-dally and look over their shoulders, Botswana simply comes up and states its position, damn the consequences. Some things are just not negotiable; I salute Botswana for its resolve and determination.

But why should Botswana be alone in voicing concerns about not only democracy in Africa but about helpless and victimized citizens in Africa?

Some people claim that Botswana is isolating itself from other African countries. I would like to know which other African countries the people of Botswana admire and why they have not emigrated there.

And why does any person or country have to go against their conscience to please murderers?

In this regard, Botswana has been consistent, refusing to sell out its principles just so as to be part of a misbehaving crowd of rulers. A year or two down the road, Botswana will pride itself in having gone against odds and supported underdogs who managed to liberate themselves from so-called liberators.

Whether right or wrong, Botswana, like ECOWAS (not SADC) is showing some consistency and that defines character.

ECOWAS is doing the AU’s job and it is doing it better. Whether or not they succeed at all times does not matter.

The point is that, unlike SADC, ECOWAS is trying while showing a consistency and resolve that leaders and citizens of its region are taking faith in.