Who Really Calls the Shots at the African Union?

The African Union’s limited response to Africa’s crises reflects funding gaps, political fragmentation and donor dependence (image source)

The African Union’s ability to act decisively while conflict engulfs Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Mozambique, Côte d’Ivoire and now Tanzania is under renewed scrutiny. Analysts say the AU’s limited effectiveness stems not from a hidden conspiracy but from fragile finances, diffuse decision-making and political constraints that blunt its capacity to prevent or resolve crises.

At the heart of the issue is funding. Many member states fail to meet their assessed contributions, leaving the AU dependent on external partners for core programmes and peace operations. The proposed 0.2 percent import levy to finance the African Peace Fund has seen uneven implementation, meaning budgets rely on bilateral and multilateral donors. This dependency shapes priorities and reduces the AU’s autonomy during critical interventions. Without a fully financed rapid-deployment force, the AU must often seek UN or donor support, causing delays and weakening its leadership role in peace missions.

Power within the AU technically rests with the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, but decision-making is fragmented by regional rivalries and domestic political concerns. Leaders issue communiqués but hesitate to impose sanctions or deploy troops when doing so might strain political or financial interests. External actors — including China, Western donors, Gulf states and international institutions — all fund segments of AU operations, creating overlapping but diffuse influence rather than a single dominant agenda.

Leadership and legitimacy remain perennial debates. Critics argue that AU chairpersons often hail from states with poor democratic records, but the position itself wields limited authority: consensus among 55 nations is required for major decisions. Structural barriers — from donor dependency to underdeveloped logistics and intelligence systems — make the organisation more reactive than proactive. Many regimes are reluctant to back deeper interventions that could set precedents for scrutiny of their own domestic crises.

Analysts agree that transforming the AU’s influence requires compulsory member funding, transparent financial management, a genuinely capitalised African Peace Fund and functional rapid-response mechanisms. A stronger, self-financed AU could better enforce its peace and security mandates, freeing itself from external conditions.

For now, the AU remains an indispensable continental forum for diplomacy and cooperation — but without sustained investment, it risks remaining a moral voice rather than an operational force. If African leaders want an AU that can stop wars instead of merely condemning them, they must match their aspirations with budgets, equipment and accountability.