The term “Pan-Africanist” often conjures the image of a dashiki-wearing or combat-fatigues-clad “revolutionary” who constantly rails against Western imperialism. According to this stereotype, Pan-Africanism and Pan-Africanists are often dismissed as grifters who lack seriousness and blame external actors for all of Africa’s problems. This is not my understanding of Pan-Africanism, nor is it what the movement should represent.
Pan-Africanism’s origins are rooted in a response to intensifying European colonial dominance of Africa, the failure of Reconstruction and the establishment of Jim Crow laws in the United States, and similar discrimination against people of African descent elsewhere. Earlier Pan-Africanists were practical visionaries who organised across national boundaries to fight for Afrocentric interests. Some of their accomplishments included the education of African political leaders like Nnamdi Azikiwe and Kwame Nkrumah, support for the Anti-Colonial Struggle, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Anti-Apartheid Struggle.
This tradition of effectiveness, however, was not sustained. By the late 1970s and 1980s, Africa’s commodity-based economies began to collapse under the combined weight of economic mismanagement, corruption, poor domestic policy choices, weak institutions, lack of economic diversification, and adverse trade terms. Conventional Pan-Africanism, with its focus on political solidarity, anti-imperialism, and symbolic unity, in addition to its poor understanding of the internal dynamics of the political economy of individual African states, was poorly equipped to address these political and economic challenges. Consequently, Pan-Africanism was dismissed by many as being irrelevant, or at best, obsolete. I consider this conclusion to be premature.
What is required in the 21st century is not less Pan-Africanism, but a more pragmatic, disciplined, economically focused Pan-Africanism committed to building enduring continent-wide institutions. A Pan-Africanism that goes beyond rhetoric and moral outrage and delves into the bureaucratic details of production, trade, skills, finance, technology, and state capacity—focusing not only on the sources of Africa’s problems, but also on their solutions.
There is a lot to learn from other pan-regional projects, as Pan-Africanism is not the only pan-regional project in modern history. Other regions have pursued integration with varying degrees of success, and their experiences offer valuable lessons. Two examples are particularly illustrative: post–Second World War Europe and Southeast Asia.
Europe’s efforts at regional integration are remarkable, given that Europeans have fought each other almost constantly since the fall of Rome in 476 AD. Post–World War II integration in Europe did not begin as a sentimental appeal to a shared civilization or cultural heritage. It began with the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951, and the overarching goal was to prevent another major war in Europe, primarily between France and Germany—an ambitious goal then, as France and Germany had fought each other three times between 1870 and 1945. However, what was remarkable was how implementation of this goal began: as a narrowly defined economic project. The ECSC pooled coal and steel production between France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. It was driven by a rather straightforward logic—i.e., create mutual economic dependence by integrating strategic industries, thus reducing the incentives for conflict. Political benefits flowed from economic interdependence, not the other way around. A clear lesson for Pan-Africanists is that integration should begin where incentives align most strongly—i.e., on trade, infrastructure, energy, and transport.
Pan-Africanists should therefore prioritise the removal of political barriers to intra-African commerce. What this means in practice is advocating for efficient ports, interoperable railways, reliable electricity generation and transmission, and streamlined and predictable border procedures. In summary, focusing on trade facilitation instead of endless debates about continent-wide governance. This means championing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which presently exists mostly on paper—i.e., promoting progress with real key performance indicators like reductions in transit times, logistic costs, and customs turnaround times.
European integration also succeeded because it created binding institutions capable of enforcing rules. Supranational courts, commissions, and regulatory bodies harmonised standards and reduced uncertainty. While Africa should be wary of excessive centralisation, Pan-Africanists should also champion legal and regulatory convergence in key areas: customs procedures, commercial law, banking standards, insolvency regimes, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Markets do not integrate through declarations; they integrate through rules that are enforced predictably.
At the same time, Africa must learn from Europe’s mistakes. Monetary union among economies with vastly different structures and fiscal capacities has proven destabilising. Over-centralisation, democratic deficits, and regulatory overload have generated backlash even in wealthy societies. A pragmatic Pan-Africanism should therefore resist premature political or monetary union and focus instead on a more flexible alternative—allowing groups of countries to integrate faster where conditions permit.
Here, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) provides a more appropriate model. ASEAN has pursued integration gradually, pragmatically, and without coercion. It emphasises consensus, national sovereignty, and flexibility while focusing on trade facilitation, investment climates, and supply chain integration. ASEAN countries embedded themselves into global production networks, allowing firms to specialise across borders and climb value chains collectively. The result has been sustained growth, industrial upgrading, and rising incomes.
Pan-Africanists in the 21st century should be seen more as builders: of markets, institutions, infrastructure, and skills. The measure of success should not be the quality of rhetoric, but the depth of integration, the resilience of African economies, and the material improvement in the lives of Africans. That, ultimately, was the spirit of the original Pan-Africanists—and this is what we all must collectively aspire to.
