The figure of Nkrumah occupies a paradoxical place in the history of African unity. His legacy does not translate into a realised project, but rather into a structuring utopia that continues to challenge the continent and expose its internal contradictions. The radical proposal of a continental federation - the "United States of Africa" - still clashes today with the fragmented reality of the African Union, the direct heir of institutional choices that privileged inter-state cooperation to the detriment of supranational integration.
This mismatch is not accidental. The tension between the Nkrumahist model and the functionalist model became, from the outset, the central axis of the pan-African trajectory. While Nkrumah defended the urgency of immediate political union as the only effective barrier against neo-colonialism, the founders of the Organisation of African Unity opted for a gradualism that preserved colonial borders and reinforced national sovereignty. This choice, pragmatic and defensible in the context of the 1960s, consolidated a status quo that, while guaranteeing minimal stability, enshrined fragmentation and weakened the possibility of strong collective sovereignty.
Today, the legacy of that founding crossroads remains palpable. The African Union, with its symbolic parliament and integration mechanisms, bears witness to the persistence of the Nkrumahist utopia. However, the operationalisation of this ideal comes up against what some analysts call the "raison d'état" of the ruling elites, who are reluctant to cede parcels of sovereignty that are the basis of their internal power and privileges. This is compounded by the structural dependence of African economies on global capital and the low density of intra-African integration. Initiatives such as the African Continental Free Trade Area signal progress, but, in Nkrumah's view, remain insufficient as long as they are not accompanied by a political core capable of sustaining effective autonomy.
However, this legacy is not without its shadows. Authoritarian centralisation in Ghana, the repression of opponents and the idealisation of an immediate unity reveal the ambiguities of a project that, in seeking to accelerate history, ran the risk of silencing African plurality. Contemporary critique must therefore reposition Nkrumah not as a formula to be reproduced, but as a normative horizon: a critical mirror that denounces the incompleteness of African liberation and the need to overcome the state-centric model that the OAU enshrined.
In short, thinking about African unity today therefore implies recognising the tactical defeat of the Nkrumahist model in order to rescue its strategic victory as a normative horizon. Its vision, unachieved in its original form and incomplete in its democratic praxis, nevertheless proves indispensable. Far from being a relic, it acts as a critical mirror and a compass that continues to guide - and challenge - any genuine project of collective emancipation for the continent.