Why the African Union isn’t like the EU (… and maybe should not be)

Reflections from Paolo Meucci’s lecture¹

Can the African Union become a true continental integration project, or is it destined to remain a platform for cooperation between sovereign states, akin to an “African United Nations”? 

This question was the focus of Paolo Meucci’s lecture at the University of Florence (Cesare Alfieri) on March 13, 2026. He is a Visiting Fellow at the Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies, offering a lucid and critical reflection on the present and future of African integration.  With over three decades of experience, he has worked across major European institutions, including the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European External Action Service. His work has consistently revolved around institutional governance, multilateral cooperation, and the functioning of large-scale political systems such as the European Union (EU). This experience shaped his comparative perspective between the EU and the AU.

From the outset, Meucci made it clear that a comparison with the European Union is not only inevitable, but also necessary. However, this comparison must be handled with caution, as the two continents originate from profoundly different historical and political experiences.

From “the crisis of the State” to the birth of international organizations

To understand the meaning of integration, Meucci suggests starting with a historical observation: large international organizations arise from a crisis of the state. In Europe, after the Second World War, states had proven incapable of ensuring peace and stability, paving the way for the idea of ​​closer and more structured cooperation. The European project thus emerged as a response to the war.

In Africa, however, the starting point was different. Here, the priority was to emerge from colonialism and build a new form of political unity. The African Union, successor to the Organization of African Unity, was created with the aim of strengthening solidarity between states and defending their independence. But this very difference in origin raises a crucial question: is it possible (and the aim) to replicate the European model in such a different context?

The unresolved issue of sovereignty

According to Meucci, the answer inevitably hinges on a key concept: sovereignty. The European Union has built its success on the sharing of sovereignty, accepting that certain decisions be made at the supranational level and that European law prevails over national law. This has allowed it to develop effective common policies and ensure the concrete implementation of decisions.

The African Union, by contrast, is founded on the defense of the sovereignty of member states. No decision can be imposed without the consent of the states, and this severely limits the organization’s ability to act. The result is a constant tension between the ambition of integration and the desire to preserve national autonomy. This is where one of the most difficult questions arises: can true integration exist without a transfer of sovereignty?

Institutions that are similar but don’t function the same

Formally, the African Union’s institutional architecture closely resembles that of Europe. It includes an Assembly, a Commission, a Pan-African Parliament, and a Peace and Security Council. However, this similarity is largely superficial. As Meucci points out, many of these institutions lack the necessary powers to have a real impact.

The case of the Pan-African Parliament is emblematic: lacking legislative power, it can only make recommendations. Decisions remain in the hands of the member states, which reduces the effectiveness of the entire system. The presence of institutions “similar” to those of Europe is therefore insufficient to guarantee similar results.

The implementation problem

One of the most critical aspects highlighted in the lecture is the gap between decisions and concrete results. The African Union appears capable of producing visions, strategies, and declarations, but faces significant difficulties in translating them into effective action. This implementation gap represents one of the main obstacles to the integration process.

This is where the so-called “model laws”—regulatory models proposed by the Pan-African Parliament—come into play. These laws, as in the case of the regulation of traditional medicine, seek to reconcile modern standards with local cultural practices. However, their non-binding nature severely limits their impact. States can adopt them or ignore them, which once again brings us to the central problem of the lack of enforcement mechanisms.

Reforming the African Union: An incomplete journey

The most significant attempt to address these weaknesses was the reform process launched in 2016 under the leadership of Paul Kagame, appointed “reform champion.” The goal was to make the African Union more efficient, less fragmented, and more capable of producing concrete results.

Despite some progress, such as the reorganization of the Commission and a greater focus on strategic priorities, the reform has not led to profound structural change. Resistance from member states and the persistence of the principle of national sovereignty remain significant constraints. The transition of the role of “champion” to William Ruto in 2024 demonstrates that the process is still ongoing, but also that the outcomes remain uncertain.

Agenda 2063: Between vision and reality

The African Union’s ambition finds its clearest expression in Agenda 2063, a strategic document outlining the continent’s future. The Agenda envisions an integrated, prosperous, and politically united Africa, capable of asserting itself on the global stage.

Projects such as the Continental Free Trade Area, the African Passport, and the creation of common financial institutions demonstrate an extremely ambitious vision. However, as Meucci observes, many of these goals remain far from realization. Agenda 2063 thus appears suspended between concrete political project and symbolic aspiration.

The constraint of resources: No money, no power

Another crucial element concerns the financial dimension. The African Union does not possess real economic autonomy and relies heavily on external funding as well as irregular contributions from its member states. This significantly limits its capacity to act and reduces its independence.

As Meucci emphasizes, without its own resources, it is difficult to imagine a strengthening of integration. The lack of a stable funding system therefore represents one of the main obstacles to transforming the AU into a more effective political actor.

The African Union at crossroads: Between global ambitions and local realities

Despite internal challenges, the African Union is gaining prominence on the international stage: its entry into the G20 allows it to express a common African position in global forums. However, this diplomatic influence does not always translate into internal cohesion. The gap between international representation and domestic implementation capacity remains significant, highlighting the organization’s structural limitations.

The Peace and Security Council is among the most active bodies, intervening in crises and coups, as in the cases of Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso. Despite its intention to uphold democratic principles, sanctions often have limited effect, and implementation depends on regional organizations.

The African Union therefore occupies an intermediate position: it is neither a simple intergovernmental organization nor a true supranational union. The main challenge is not to emulate the European model, but to develop its own form of integration, adapted to Africa’s specificities. The question remains: is the UA an unfinished project or an alternative model still under construction?

Final reflection: A European model or a Eurocentric lens

From the perspective of this class material, one final question deserves particular attention. Throughout the lecture, the comparison with the European Union implicitly frames the African Union as a system that is “lagging behind” or “not yet fully developed.” But is this comparison entirely fair?

To what extent is the expectation that the African Union should resemble the European Union a real objective of African integration, and to what extent is it a Eurocentric projection?

It may be argued that interpreting the AU through the lens of the EU risks overlooking the historical, political, and social specificities of the African continent. The emphasis on sovereignty, the importance of regional organizations, and the preference for flexible and consensual mechanisms may not simply be weaknesses, but rather elements of a different model of integration. This raises a critical question for scholars of international relations: should integration always be measured against the European experience, or is it time to recognize multiple pathways to regional cooperation?

In this sense, the African Union might not be an “unfinished European Union,” but rather a distinct political project, still evolving, whose trajectory cannot—and perhaps should not—be fully captured through Western frameworks of analysis.

1. Drawn from Visiting Fellow Paolo Meucci’s guest lecture, “The African Union: Moving towards Continental integration or the United Nations of the continent?”, at the University of Florence on March 13th, 2026. ↩︎