Regional integration and the East African Federation as currently conceived are incompatible. This is because the concept of integration as understood and operationalised in regional arrangements is an economic project with superimposed political structures of authority that are top-down and authoritarian. On the other hand political federation understood in the Pan-African context is a political project that was conceived as part of the strategy for political and economic emancipation. The underlying understanding was that there was basic cultural and social unity of the African people and that was the basis of African nationalism (Kwame Nkrumah, 1963). An understanding of the political history of East and Central Africa shows that the nationalists of the period before independence believed in a political Pan-African federation as witnessed by the creation of Pan-African organisations, such as the Pan-African Federal Movement of East and Central-PAFMECA, the Pan-African Federal Movement of East, Central and Southern Africa-PAFMESCA and AFRICAN UNITY.

To be sure, the concept of regional integration was itself an adaptation of the customs union theory as propounded by Jacob Viner (1950) and as applied to the BENELUX customs union, the forerunner of the European Union. The customs union is a grouping of countries with a common external tariff in which free trade, free movement of labour and capital among the member countries is promoted. The theory examines the impact on trade following the removal of barriers (such as quotas and tariffs) between the countries and their establishment against other countries. It dates back to the classical economic concept of free trade expounded by Scottish economist Adam Smith and English economists David Ricardo as well as Robert Torrens. Jacob Viner just gave an updating to this theory from which the theory of regional integration is derived. This is the model that has been imitated by attempts at forming regional economic groupings.

As Adedeji Adebayo has pointed out, independent Africa came into existence during the age of regional integration. He points out that after the Second World War , the promotion of regional integration became a global phenomenon culminating in the establishment of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, the Latin America Free Trade Association in 1960, the Central American Common Market in 1961, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1967, the Caribbean Free Trade Association (CARIFTA) in 1968 etc. He further goes on to state that it was these developments that strengthened the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa’s determination to pursue vigorously the policy of promoting regionalism in socio-economic development in Africa. But this was then quite a different agenda from that propounded by African nationalist leaders about the political unity of Africa.

THE IDEA OF FEDERATION

Indeed, the idea of federation is not an African creation. It is therefore necessary to recognise three main trends in the evolution of the concept of ‘federation’ since the European colonisation of East Africa. The first is a colonial concept, the second is a Pan-African concept and the third is a neo-colonial concept. The first concept was advanced for the sake of domination and the other was advanced as a tool of resistance against exploitation and domination, crafted as a response to the European ‘balkanisation’ of Africa, and the third, a neo-colonial concept, which exploits the Pan-African idea of federation and instead promotes an imperialist integration project in the form of ‘nation building’ and ‘regional integration’ as neo-colonial projects under British imperialist hegemony and later under neo-liberal globalisation. We pursue these issues in the larger manuscript, which we are publishing separately as a document.

One point, however, needs to be brought out here. The East African situation has indeed shown that the three trends of federation are real ones in the way the advocacy of a Pan-African federation for East Africa was abandoned for a scheme of regional integration due to the reality of neo-colonial domination. In this connection, it should be pointed out as proof of this that, in 1963, the three East African leaders (Kenyatta, Nyerere and Obote) in their Declaration of Federation by the Governments of East Africa issued in Nairobi on 5 June 1963, were clear on the need for the urgency to federate politically in order to avoid their narrow differences ballooning into irreconcilable differences due to the ‘territorial factor’. In the declaration they pointed out that:

‘We the leaders of the people and governments of East Africa assembled in Nairobi on 5th June 1963, pledge ourselves to the political Federation of East Africa. Our meeting today is motivated by the spirit of Pan-Africanism and not by mere regional interests. We are nationalists and reject tribalism, racialism, or inward looking policies. We believe that the day of decision has come, and to all our people we say there is no more room for slogans and words. This is our day of action in the cause of the ideals that we believe in and the unity and freedom for which we have suffered and sacrificed so much (Hughes, 1963).’

This declaration was an expression of a Pan-African desire to bring the people of Africa together into a political unity. The leaders went further to declare that they believed that the East African Federation could be ‘a practical step towards the goal of Pan-African unity.’ They referred to the declaration made at the Addis Ababa conference of Heads of States and governments and added: ‘practical steps should be taken wherever possible to accelerate the achievements of our common goal.’ The leaders recognised that certain ‘territorial factors’ existed and that these had to be taken into account because they believed that ‘some of these territorial problems can be solved in the context of such an East African Federation.’

Indeed, just like the current leaders who in 2005 ‘resolved to expedite the process of integration so that the ultimate goal of a Political Federation is achieved’ through a Fast Track Committee, the political leaders in 1963 also decided to set up a ‘Working party’ that was supposed to ‘prepare a framework of a draft constitution for the Federation of East African.’ Again, just like the Wako Fast Track Committee, the 1963 working party was required to report back in the third week of August of that year to the full Conference of East African governments ‘to consider the proposals of the Working party.’

But this never happened because in the meantime, the more pressing economic issues emanating from the management of the ‘territorial economy’ and the ‘territorial factors’ and ‘problems’ that arose began to overwhelm the Work of the Party. As a result the leaders abandoned the political initiative for a political federation. These ‘territorial problems’ and pressures had emerged within the workings of the East African Common Services Organisation (EACSO) that had replaced the colonial East African High Commission to take care of the interests of an independent Tanganyika before the independence of Uganda and Kenya (Nabudere, 1982).

In other words, the African leaders became embroiled in the colonial problems they had inherited in their different territories, which they now called ‘nations,’ and forgot about the noble objective of declaring a political union of the three countries into an African nation of East Africans within which they could have collectively addressed the inherited ‘territorial problems’. By doing this they surrendered to the neocolonial project, which the colonisers were perfecting under the colonial idea of ‘nation-building’ by making the African leaders manage their former ‘territories’ for them as the new governors. Even the unilateral offer that Julius Nyerere had made to delay Tanganyika’s political independence until the other two countries were ready to federate was abandoned.

So while the idea of Pan-Africanism continued in the minds of East Africans, the economic problems emanating from EACSO became the new reality on which immediate focus was placed. The management of the economic problems that the British had left in this new organisation took precedence over any talk about a political East African Federation that was envisaged by the Nairobi Declaration. Hence the political federation of Africa never materialised for these leaders. The differences between Nyerere and Amin had their roots in this failure of the leaders to go beyond ‘territorial factors’ and problems in the interest of the unity of the people of East Africa and to respect the principles of democracy, which were denied the people of Uganda. Thus, although the working party met in Kampala on 30 May 1964 to produce a constitution for a Pan African Federation for East Africa, this working party, according to Franck, ‘did little but wind up the books’ on a Pan-African federation in East Africa (Franck, 1964). It is clear that the on-going ‘Fast tracking” of the political federation is going to end in a similar manner since currently they are all bogged down in determining who will get more ‘benefits’ through the customs union and common market.

THE WAY FORWARD

It can already been seen that the real reason for the lack of achievement of a political Pan-African federation is the existence of power of neo-colonialism which still dominates our political space. This means that the sovereign power of the people has been negated and relegated into the background. Instead of ensuring that the power of the people of East Africa is asserted, the three leaders and their governments (now five with the admission of Rwanda and Burundi) are ‘sensitising’ the people to accept their ‘fast-tracking’ process which will not produce any positive results. As such what is required is for the leaders of East Africa to put forward the issue of referendum at the fore as the starting point. They must frame a single question to be answered by the people throughout the region on the same day. This question should be: ‘Do you want the borders between the existing states to be dissolved and for East Africa to become one federated State?’ This is because dissolving the current borders will be the only way the ‘sovereignties’ of the people of the three countries based on foreign domination and elite interest can be dismantled. If it is true that the people of East Africa have clearly expressed their desire to unite, as the leaders keep on repeating, then it is clear that the answer in the referendum will be: YES.

Following such a response, the leaders should on a single day put a resolution to their respective parliaments to implement the peoples’ decision by resolving to irrevocably to dissolve the existing colonial borders and constitute one single federated state with inviolable East African borders with the prospect of them only expanding to include the rest of Africa through stages. The decision will be a momentous one because for the first time, the people of East Africa would have expressed their sovereign will to constitute themselves into a state of their own in determination within the modern reality.

Prior to the referendum, there should be a process of grassroots discussions and consultations at village level about the implications of removing the borders and this discussion will include the issue of how to form new states, which will constitute the federation. This is their sovereign right. These discussions will include the issue of what to do once the current colonial borders are dissolved. The people will discuss the effect of dissolution and anarchy that could arise and for them to discuss how to avoid it. They will determine that once the colonial borders are dissolved, the new East African border cannot at any cost be dissolved or interfered with except through its future expansion from time to time to include other African states towards the achievement of a United States of Africa. As Professor Cheick Anta Diop emphasised:

‘The permanency of the federal structures must be inviolable. This principle should be upheld whether the case be national federation like Nigeria, a regional federation, or a continental federation. Once a federal structure is set up it should become irreversible. Once federal structures are elaborated, confirmed and consolidated, succession of any kind must be prevented. … However, its counterpart must be the granting of cultural freedom and autonomy of the various communities. Africa must be protected against anarchy. … While Africa must be protected, we cannot (also) condone the other extreme, which leads to the stifling of the cultural freedom and autonomy of the various communities inhabiting the continent. Each community must able to enjoy to the fullest a freedom compatible with its desire to fulfil itself culturally and linguistically.’ (Diop, in Sertima, 1986).

Thus with the surrender of their sovereignty to the federal state, the communities will have the right to regroup across former colonial boundaries and determine whether they want to constitute new cultural-linguistic states of their own, which can enable them to enjoy self-determination and autonomy within their own states as free members of the federal state, which they would have formed and in which they will all be citizens. This right to reconstitute their own states fits with the reversal of the colonial injustice that saw to the fragmentation and dismemberment of the communities along ‘tribal’ lines into which they were fixed in the colonial states. This will create greater cultural and linguistic unities across former colonial borders, which will enable them to develop their cultures, including their languages in the way they want.

The issue of sovereignty is important to consider in the context of what the ordinary people of East Africa really want. You cannot convince a Maasai of Laikipia in Kenya and a Maasai in Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania that removing the boundaries between Tanzania and Kenya is a ‘risk’ to them, when in their daily life activities; they ignore these borders to feed their cattle and goats and to maintain their cultural identities and solidarities. They do this because they have never accepted the colonially-imposed borders between Kenya and Tanzania. That is why they cross the borders on a daily basis without ‘national identity cards’ or ‘national passports’ to assert their sovereign rights over the territories! So unless we are thinking of other human beings than those that exist on the ground in East Africa, doing away with the existing colonial state sovereignties and borders cannot be considered to be a ‘risk’ for the people involved.

It follows that the issue to be debated in the communities is not about ‘sensitisation’ or ‘mobilisation’ of the communities about the ‘benefits of the political federation’. The issue should be about the leaders taking bold and irrevocable decision to dissolve the existing colonial borders that separate the peoples of East Africa. This will be an empowering process that will, for the first time in colonial and post-colonial history give an opportunity to the people of East Africa to decide their fate. Having done that, the leaders will then engage ‘experts’ from the communities and from the elites to draft an East African constitution that will devolve powers to local state levels as well as defining those at a federal level after the people have decided the political question. Such State constitutions of the different communities will also be written to incorporate the wishes of the respective communities, (including the rights of minorities in each state), which need not be the same.

The ultra-nationalist will argue that the steps proposed above will ‘take us back’ to ‘tribalism’. In fact these ultra-nationalists are the very ones that practice political tribalism even in their political parties to entrench themselves in power by claiming to ‘represent’ the ‘people’ even when they have to buy their votes to do so! Removing borders will reunite colonially created ‘tribes’ and reinstate cultural-linguistic communities that are a feature of all modern nations. Most European constitutions recognise cultural and linguistic identities of the people in their states. African post-colonial states because of the colonial character are the only exception in this regard. Thus the Interim Constitution that will come in force for the short period while new states are being formed will provide for certain short-term institutions and measures, which will replace the former ‘national institutions’ without letup for any anarchy. These will include:

- The creation of the Presidential Council of State that will recognise the existing political heads of state who are currently in position of leadership at the time of the declaration who will act in rotation for a year each until constitutional and legal mechanisms have been put in place for the election of the head of state of the Federation of East Africa on a popular basis in 2010 or such date as will be decided by the Council of State.

- Traditional Leaders and Elders Council, which will have the functions of advising the Presidential Council of State and the East African Federation Parliament, especially on matters of state formation having regard to the cultural and linguistic heritages of the people of East Africa and other matters of importance to the people of East Africa.

- An East African Interim Federal Parliament out of the existing territorial parliaments by each parliament turning itself in an electoral college to elect 100 of their members (on equal gender representation) to join the existing East African Legislative Assembly to constitute a 327-Member East African Federal Parliament-MEAP to legislate on matters submitted to them by new institutions that will emerge as a transition to the emergence of new constituent states

- An East African Constituent Assembly drawn from all the nationalities and base communities identified by the Traditional Leaders and Elders Council in consultation with the Presidential Council of State as well as some of the members of the existing parliaments who do not find their way into the East African Parliament to discuss a new Federal Constitution based on the new state formations

- An East African Armed and Security Forces under one command structure from the existing three armies and security agencies. One third of each of the three armies will be posted to the other three existing states. These forces will ensure the security of the new federal sate as the communities set about recreating new constituent states under a new constitutional arrangement as well as ensuring a peaceful transition.

Other administrative and security measures will be taken in conformity with the need to transition to a new political system. These will include the merging existing Central banks into one East African Central Bank with the responsibility to manage the three currencies, which will continue to relate through the market until one of the currencies emerges as the strongest able to serve the communities in the new Federation. The issue of a monetary union would have been confronted directly through the market and the common market would also have arisen out of the existence of one market created by the fusion of the states into one customs union with the common external tariff, which is currently being worked on, protecting the whole East African market externally and not internally. No single industry inside East African Federation will be protected, but will operate on a competitive basis. Only those enterprises that are able to provide goods and services cheaply will get the entire market.

The above process of state formation leading to the political federation of East Africa, although slower, would have solved the four stage approach proposed in article 5(2) of the East African Treaty. The approach would also have done away with the ‘fast-tracking’ process that has ignored the sovereign rights of the people of East Africa to participate and own the process of political unification. In our view instead of bureaucratic approaches to political federation, the people of East Africa should have participated in creating new states, which they can own. This is in conformity with the new enlightened view of international law, which recognises the rights of indigenous communities over their resources and governance institutions. It is also in line with the Pan-African principles adopted by the Fathers of African Independence both in Africa such as Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and those in the Diaspora such as Marcus Mosiah Garvey, among others.

It is for this reason that we differ with Professor Shivji in his approach regarding the way a Pan-African unity project could be achieved. In his paper, Prof Shivji, poses the question as to who would constitute the ‘driving forces’ for a new anti-imperialist Pan Africanism. He further poses the question as to where we must begin. He proposes that the place to begin to ‘resurrect a Pan-African discourse and ‘to turn Pan Africanism into a category of intellectual thought’ is to follow Mwalimu Nyerere’s path, which he articulated in his speech on ‘the dilemma of a Pan Africanism’, in which he posed a challenge to students and the staffs of the African universities. Nyerere’s ‘dilemma’ was to find out ‘who will have the time and the ability to think out practical problems of achieving this goal of unification if it is not those who have an opportunity to think and learn direct responsibility of day-to-day affairs.’ His response was that the universities could move in this direction themselves in serving the interests of the nation and those of Africa at the same time.

From this formulation, Professor Shivji draws the conclusion that ‘linking our intellectual life together indissolubly to generate a Pan-Africanist discourse is the task of the post neoliberal generation of African intellectuals.’[1] While I agree with both former President Nyerere and Professor Shivji that an anti-imperialist intellectual and discourse is necessary to the project of achieving Pan-African political unification, there is no doubt that such an intellectual capacity has always existed since Pan-Africanism begun to be articulated on the continent. In our view, what is lacking is not the capacity to ‘think’ about its achievement, but the determination to implement the desire of the people of Africa for unity. We the present generation of intellectuals should discover why it is that the idea of Pan-Africanism, which was ably propounded by the founders of Pan-Africanism, has never been implemented? Our role is to link ourselves to our communities and ensure that their sovereign rights are promoted and protected. It is only then that a Pan-African federation can be realised.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Professor Dani W. Nabudere is executive director of the Marcus-Garvey Pan-Afrikan Institute, Mbale, Uganda.
* This article is based on the paper ‘Pan-Africanism and the Challenges of East African Integration: Discussion of Professor Issa Shivji’s Presentation’, which was presented by Professor Dani W. Nabudere at the 10th EAC Anniversary Symposium, Arusha, 13-14 November 2009.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.

NOTES
[1] Reference is here made to