By Ahmed Hujale

The push to reform the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has reached a fever pitch, with UN Secretary-General António Guterres and global leaders loudly advocating for permanent African representation in the UNSC.

Proponents argue that an institution established in 1945 cannot effectively police a 21^st century world while completely omitting a continent of 1.5 billion people from its permanent chambers.

A Moral Argument with a Geopolitical Problem

While the moral argument for correcting this historical injustice is undeniably strong, the practical execution presents a profound geopolitical paradox. Africa is not a monolith. Unlike current veto-wielding permanent members, which operate under single national governments, Africa is a sprawling tapestry of 54 distinct sovereign nations.

Granting a permanent seat to “Africa” assumes a level of political and strategic cohesion that simply does not exist—and forcing it could inadvertently trigger severe diplomatic friction, domestic disputes, and even armed conflict across the continent.

Africa Is Not a Single Political Entity

To understand the core flaw of an African UNSC seat, one must examine the fundamental nature of the continent’s geopolitics. Unlike existing permanent members (the P5) such as the United States, Russia, or China, which execute unified foreign and internal policies, Africa will never possess a single, Pan-African foreign policy.

The African Union (AU) attempts to foster continental unity, but its member states are driven by vastly divergent national interests, economic realities, Colonial legacies, and ideological alliances. A vote cast by an African representative on a crisis in the Middle East, a global trade dispute, or a climate mandate cannot realistically represent the wills of both democratic and autocratic regimes simultaneously.

The Problem of Representing 54 Sovereign States

When a single seat is expected to speak for 54 disparate voices, the representative must either dilute their stance into meaningless neutrality or choose a side, instantly alienating dozens of African states.

If a seat must be given, then it should be given to all 54 African nations otherwise it should not be given to only one nation because that one nation would not be able to fairly and without external influence or interference to represent the interests of all other nations.

Governance and Political Stability

This issue of representation is further exacerbated by the fragile state of governance across much of the continent. Democracy and the rule of law remain frustratingly lax or volatile in many African countries.

Military coups, corruption, unconstitutional extensions of presidential terms, and weak institutional checks and balances mean that a country holding the UNSC seat today could experience a sudden, violent shift in leadership tomorrow. If a military junta takes power in the nation designated to represent Africa on the world’s most powerful security body, the continent’s global representation shrinks to the whims of an illegitimate regime.

Also, the lack of standardized, continent-wide adherence to democratic norms makes it impossible to establish a stable, accountable mechanism for managing a permanent UN vote.

The Unresolved Legacy of Colonial Borders

Beyond internal governance, the continent is still actively haunted by the structural legacy of European imperialism. The artificial borders drawn during the 1884 Berlin Conference ignored ethnic, linguistic, and geographic realities, leaving behind a permanent landscape of border and territorial disputes.

From the Horn of Africa to the Great Lakes region, neighboring African countries frequently find themselves in bitter diplomatic or military standoffs over land and resources. Furthermore, the presence of entrenched armed opposition groups, transnational militias, and terrorist factions actively destabilizes multiple governments.

Who Would Get the African Seat?

If a permanent UNSC seat is introduced into this volatile mix, the selection process itself threatens to become a catalyst for conflict. Which country gets the seat? If economic giants like Nigeria or South Africa are chosen, regional rivals like Egypt, Ethiopia, or Kenya will rightfully
argue that their specific sub-regional security threats and interests are being ignored. The scramble for the seat risks reopening historical wounds and worsening existing territorial friction.

Another important consideration should be the security environment in which African states operate. Africa currently faces several serious interstate and regional tensions that could complicate the work of any country representing the continent in a major international body. For example, Egypt and Ethiopia remain at odds over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and the use of Nile waters, with Egypt continuing to demand a binding agreement on the dam’s operation. 

Ethiopia and Eritrea have also experienced a sharp deterioration in relations, with Ethiopia accusing Eritrea of military aggression and support for armed groups, while tensions along their border have raised concerns about renewed war.  Ethiopia and Sudan likewise have unresolved tensions, including disputes over their border and allegations connected to Sudan’s ongoing civil war.

There are also significant tensions elsewhere on the continent. Morocco and Algeria remain divided over Western Sahara, with diplomatic relations severely strained and their common border closed.  In West Africa, Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger have withdrawn from ECOWAS and established the Alliance of Sahel States (AES. In Central Africa, the conflict involving Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the M23 movement remains a major regional security concern despite ongoing peace efforts.

Also, relations between South Africa and Ghana have also experienced diplomatic strain following anti-foreigner violence in South Africa and Ghana’s evacuation of nationals.

These circumstances do not mean that countries involved in regional disputes should automatically be excluded from consideration. Rather, they raise an important question about whether a country seeking to represent Africa can act impartially, build consensus among competing states, and avoid allowing bilateral or regional rivalries to influence its responsibilities.

So I don’t think there is single African country that has the capacity to impartially and constructively engage with all states on opposing sides of the continent’s or world’s major disputes.

A Permanent Seat Could Deepen Regional Rivalries

Instead of fostering unity, a permanent African seat could democratize dysfunction. If the designated voting member votes in favor of a UN intervention or sanction that negatively impacts a neighboring rival, that vote will not be seen as a global peacekeeping measure; it will be viewed as an act of regional aggression.

In a landscape already fractured by militia violence and border disputes, the immense geopolitical leverage of a UNSC vote could easily transform diplomatic disagreements into proxy wars or direct armed conflicts, as states compete to influence or neutralize the voting power of their neighbor.

The Risk of Importing Global Polarization into Africa

Ultimately, while the desire to democratize the United Nations is noble, treating a vast and complex continent as a single political entity is a dangerous miscalculation. Africa’s structural diversity, coupled with its colonial scars and governance challenges, means that a singular UNSC
seat cannot justly represent the continent. Rather than correcting a historical imbalance, forcing a pan-African seat onto a non-monolithic continent risks importing global polarization directly into Africa’s delicate regional dynamics, turning a tool for global peace into a new engine for continental instability.

Ahmed Hujale
Email: hujaale1631@gmail.com