SOUTH AFRICA: The scene has been set in South Africa for the formal establishment tomorrow, amid pageantry, oratory and intrigue, of the African Union as the continent-wide successor to the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).
While there will inevitably be an overlap between the two organisations, it would be erroneous to present the AU - as the African Union is already known - as the OAU by another name. There are important differences between the two institutions.
Where the OAU sought to forge a united front in the struggle to end the last remnants of colonialism in the continent, an objective that was attained with the liberation of South Africa from white rule, the AU's focus is on economic development in a shrinking world in which "globalisation" is a dominant force.
The AU is modelled on the European Union, which, though not without its troubles, is seen as an institution that has given Europe a powerful voice in world affairs less than 60 years after Europe was devastated by the second World War.
Where one of the founding principles of the OAU was non-interference in the affairs of political states, an arrangement did little or nothing to discourage the seizure of power by aspirant dictators or the retention of it through the barrel of gun by discredited politicians, the AU makes provision for intervention in "grave circumstances".
The intervention referred to has to be authorised by the AU's Assembly of the Heads of State and Government. A grave circumstance is defined as one that pertains to war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. The agreed terms of the AU, however, provides another hedge against the abuse of power by African government. One of its clauses commits member states to "show respect for democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law and good governance".
The New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad), an initiative associated with but distinguishable from the AU, goes a stage further. It contains a protocol for peer review of the existence of, or deviation from, "good governance" in African states. Member states found wanting will be excluded from the development initiatives Nepad plans in partnership with the fabulously rich (by African standards) G8 states.
Leaders whose democratic credentials are suspect or non-existent are likely to resist, circumscribe or take control of the mechanisms for intervention to prolong their power. One leader who is suspected of wanting to do so is the Libyan ruler, Col Moamer Gadafy, who has been in power since 1969, when he led a successful coup against the then king, Idris.
President Gadafy is reportedly irked that President Thabo Mbeki is increasingly seen as the initiator of, and inspiring force behind, the AU. His propagandists assert he was the first African leader to publicly advocate forming an African Union. If so, he has lost the initiative to Mr Mbeki. As the host president for the launch of the AU, Mr Mbeki is almost certain to be elected as its first chairman.
Col Gadafy, however, is seeking to extend his influence by pressing for Libya to replace Ethiopia as the permanent base of the Pan African Parliament and the AU Commission (which is the OAU Secretariat by another name).
Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa has already declared for Libya. Noting that Libya is one of the richest countries in Africa, Mr Mwanawasa has said: "It is going to play a very pivotal role in the work of the AU. It must be encouraged to do so."
Zambia, however, is believed to be one of several countries whose outstanding OAU fees were paid by Libya last year in what observers see as a move by Libya to increase its leverage in the AU.
Meanwhile, the failure of South Africa to censure Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe for his flagrant breach of the principles of good governance and the rule of law cannot be an auspicious sign for the successful implementation of the AU's commitment to democracy and human rights in Africa.