Lagos — APPROXIMATELY 50 years after the late Ghanaian President, Kwame Nkrumah, publicly called for a United States of Africa following his country's independence in 1957, the issue of a formalized, structured, African political integration on a continental scale, once more reverberated at the just concluded African Union (AU), Summit at Accra, Ghana.

The call for one continental government then, as with today, had galvanized and polarized African leaders and their ideologues into two different, but non-opposing camps. While some had urged immediate action on the issue, others had called for caution. However, everyone agreed that it was an inevitable proposition.

When that proposition was formally put to the then heads of newly independent African states during an OAU summit in 1965, the conference had split into two. One, the Casablanca group that included Guinea and led by Ghana, had called for the immediate implementation of the Union. The second group led by Nigeria, had advocated gradualist integration by way of closer association of independent African states.

Then, as with now, Africa had been scarred by a myriad of problems relating to her under-development, neo-colonial exploitation and lack of an influential voice in global affairs.

Libya's leader, Muammar Ghaddaffi, who has become the latest champion of the establishment of a United States of African government, which will have oversight functions on defence and foreign affairs, had echoed Kwame Nkrumah when he argued that African unity has become more of a matter of survival in an increasingly hostile and competitive world, than mere prestige.

Many African leaders and thinkers today agree with that proposition even though many also think that such political integration should come with a gradualist, infrastructural and institutional union before the super-structure of one government can make any sense at all.

The question really is whether one central African government is possible and feasible now? Sadly, even though a central political union is desirable, the facts on the ground to support such a project point to the contrary.

Along with the uniform poverty, disease, and institutional graft of most of its leaders, Africa also suffers a deficit of visible and invisible foundational structures that would aid greater union, rather than impede it.

There are also the big issues of different religions, cultures and languages: can these deep divisions be papered over in a larger African union, when presently, they wreak so much havoc on the continent?

A continent in which its nationals cannot communicate with one another on the ordinary day-to-day level, might find immediate integration more traumatic than uplifting, some think.

Moreover, there is the unstated issue of sovereignty. Will the African big-men, accustomed to being larger-than-life malignant fishes in the tiny ponds of their poverty-stricken independent states be prepared to become anonymous squids in the larger African continental government? Many think not. They cite the apparent failure of A.U.'s Peer Review Mechanism in moderating the behaviour of the continent's self-willed leaderships, as evidence.

However, a contrary argument could be that a continental government might well be the panacea to all these ills plaguing the continent.

Though the idea of a greater union is generally desirable and acceptable to many of the 53 African states that make up AU, not many were willing to accept Libya's and Senegal's demand of immediate union. Perhaps that was why no timetable was agreed upon or drawn up for the eventual take-off of the continental union and why there were threats by the likes of Senegal to form their own form of union.

Howbeit, though it might appear that Africa may not be ready for one central government or at least, one that will direct defence and foreign affairs - the consensus out of the Accra Summit seems to point to the inevitability of a continental government, eventually. Otherwise, the present state of artificial balkanization of the continent into so many failed or unviable states will continue to work against the continent.

There are problems in realizing the lofty dream of an African government, no doubt. However, there are also potentials for good, in a union. Size, they say, is strength, and matters.

An integrated Africa will offer the continent not just strength in sheer numbers but also the benefits of economy of scale. A united Africa will also have a bigger say in global affairs. The quest to have a seat in the United Nation's Security Council would receive better hearing if Africa spoke with one voice rather than with 53 voices.

Meanwhile, we commend all those African leaders who, in principle, supported the idea of on African government during the ninth session of the AU assembly this July. We also urge the parliaments of independent African states to initiate debates on the issue and sensitize their populations to the pros and cons of a possible grand African merger of governments, economies, and other systems.

However, the AU and its leadership should avoid the charge of being seen as mere copycats who ape everything the Europeans have done, albeit imperfectly. They should first ensure that their citizens get the benefits of their leaderships on national levels, before dreaming of a continental merger.

By this, we mean that better management of the resources of the sub-regional economic unions already in existence will better prepare the continent for eventual merger and not by bombastic, top-down dictates from a leadership that is increasingly being seen as self-seeking.

In sum, we agree with the Prime Minister of Lesotho, Mr. Pakalitha Mosisili who was quoted, as saying inter alia, "even as we (AU) pursue this noble objective, we cannot ignore the factors that militate against it one of those militating factors is the surrender of sovereignty". He concluded that, "integration should be gradual, rather than precipitous. It must be evolutionary, rather than revolutionary."

A United States of Africa is an idea whose time may have come. Nevertheless, African leaders and citizens have to work at it, for the idea to become a reality.