Successful Pan-Africanism (Union of African States, etc.)

During decolonization, there were some unsuccessful attempts to make pan-national confederations. The Union of African States joined Ghana, Guinea and Mali between 1958-1963, and the Mali Federation joined Mali and Senegal for two months in 1960. I believe there were several more examples that were even more ephemeral.

Pan-Africanism was a very common ideology in the leaders of the newly decolonized countries. Of note is that while Ghana, Guinea and Mali had different colonizers (UK and France respectively) their leaders still joined together. Could it become a more enduring ideology with actual results? Could African decolonization happen in greater blocs rather than the multitude of states we have today? Would it result in a more prosperous continent?

EDIT: Sorry, posted this to chat. It belongs in post-1900.
 
Impossible. Most of those states barely hold themselves together.

Pan-Africanism, was, like Freemasonry, fad of the elites. Pipe dream.

Of all grievances colonized peoples had with their imperial overlords, oft ignored one is that imperialists were stopping them from waging wars with each other.
Any sort of African Union would by necessity have to be backed by British, French, or American bayonets. And the moment they leave, you're gonna have Congo civil war on the scale of continent.
 

SSJRED

Banned
Actaully it is possible. Most African leaders and elites studied in London and Paris with their brothers from fellow colonies. They formerd assosiation like the West African students Union where they discussed politics and other ideologies, this is how Pan Africanism spred in fact. If you can get them to Unite into a serious political force then it very possible that you coulf get regional states based off pan africanist thinking going
 
The whole Africa in a single superstate seems too impossible to me, but there is no reason why in ATL where decolonisation gone another way, there couldn't be only 3 to 5 African superstates.

I think to achieve this you could take the formation of Malaysia as a reference point. One country gets independence first & proven to be amenable in letting the colonial power preserving its interests in the country post-independence. For one or other reason, the colonial power is hesitant in granting the neighbouring countries independence, either because they are not ready politically, or they are not economically viable or because there would be huge risk that they would fall to communism. At the same time, continue to hold on these colonial possessions has no visible benefit & might even hurt their image. So the obvious solution is to merge them with the one already independence state that is proven itself willing to cooperate with the former colonial power.

Of course, this is 180 degree away from OTL Pan-Africanism which is all about kicking the western colonial power out and taking a neutral or pro-Soviet stance in the Cold War. The problem is the colonial powers still held most of the cards. Without their backing, there would be no merger. After these states were granted independence separately, good luck in convincing the elites in these states to relinquish their dominant position & play second fiddle in a bigger state.

The control of nation state is like drugs. Once you get it, you will not want to lose it again. Before you get it, you might find yourself doubting your ability to survive on your own & you would more willing to be merge with other state, especially those who have already proven that they can survive as an independent state. However, once the colonial master grant you independence & pass the key to you, you will be addicted to it & will not want to relinquish it.
 
Pan-Africanism is fundamentally flawed because it seems to miscalculate the reality of why different tribes and ethnicities don't like each other and often have different, competing economic interests. Yoking them under one Federal government would inevitably lead to sectionalism and dissolution once one section obtains too much power for the liking of the other sections.

Actaully it is possible. Most African leaders and elites studied in London and Paris with their brothers from fellow colonies. They formerd assosiation like the West African students Union where they discussed politics and other ideologies, this is how Pan Africanism spred in fact. If you can get them to Unite into a serious political force then it very possible that you coulf get regional states based off pan africanist thinking going

That's all fine and well for the elite who were in a position to be educated abroad but what does any of that mean to the subsistence farmer or poor urban dweller? Regional superstates can form but inevitably there will be complications and disagreements over ruling ideology. Some might favor communism, others a liberal democracy but meanwhile an Islamic movement might spread among the common population and that will cause problems. Inevitably some general will use his power to overturn the whole apple cart and there goes the dream as the state fragments.
 
Top