Introduction
Pan-Africanism developed in response to the historical experiences of enslavement, racial discrimination, colonial domination and the political and economic marginalisation of African peoples. It brought together people on the African continent and in the diaspora who argued, in different ways, that Africans shared historical experiences and interests that required collective action. Over time, the movement evolved from an emphasis on racial dignity, solidarity and opposition to discrimination into a broader political project concerned with African independence, economic emancipation, continental cooperation and the place of Africa in international affairs. Nevertheless, Pan-Africanism has never represented a single, uniform political programme. Its advocates have disagreed over the meaning of unity, the relationship between independent African states and a continental government, the preferred path to economic development, and the extent to which African countries should cooperate without surrendering their sovereignty. These disagreements became particularly visible during the struggle to establish a continental organisation in the early 1960s. They remain relevant to contemporary debates about the powers, ambitions and limitations of the AU.
Meaning of Pan-Africanism
Pan-Africanism is an intellectual, cultural and political movement that promotes solidarity among African peoples and, historically, people of African descent across the world. Its various strands have sought to challenge racial subordination, oppose colonial rule, defend African dignity and promote forms of cooperation intended to improve the political, economic and social conditions of African peoples. At its core, the Pan-African movement represents a philosophy dedicated to promoting the idea of a united Africa and fostering a sense of commonality among victims of racism and colonial exploitation. It aimed for political, economic, and cultural integration to overcome colonialism and racial oppression of African people. This vision inspired the formation of the OAU in 1963, which was created by newly independent African states to promote cooperation, sovereignty, and support liberation movement against colonial and minority regimes. While the term itself gained widespread popularity in the 1950s, the underlying views of solidarity can be traced back to the resistance against slavery and the emergence of the “Back-to-Africa” movements in the United States and the Caribbean. Some of its formative ideas emerged among people of African descent in the Americas, the Caribbean and Europe, where slavery, racial discrimination and exclusion from political rights shaped discussions about African identity and collective advancement. These ideas later interacted with political struggles on the African continent, especially those directed against colonialism and foreign domination. In other words, the origins of Pan-Africanism can be linked to the global movement of African peoples through the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the subsequent rise of European colonial rule. For those Africans enslaved in the Americas, Africa served as a symbol of freedom and a source of ancestral pride. Thus, this early form of Pan-Africanism served as an intellectual framework that helped displaced Africans recognise their shared heritage and common interests in the face of dehumanising systems of oppression.
The transatlantic slave trade and the racial ideologies used to justify slavery formed part of the historical background against which early Pan-Africanist ideas developed. Enslaved Africans and their descendants experienced forced displacement, family separation, racial hierarchy and exclusion from political and social equality. In the nineteenth century, Black intellectuals and activists increasingly challenged the idea that people of African descent were inherently inferior and questioned the political and economic systems that sustained racial oppression. These experiences encouraged the development of arguments about shared identity, historical dignity and collective advancement. During the late 19th century, European colonial expansion in Africa and the formalisation of territorial claims at the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 intensified questions about African political independence, territorial division and foreign control. Although its consequences differed across territories and historical periods, colonial rule re-organised African economies and political institutions around imperial interests. It also created administrative boundaries that later became the territorial foundations of independent African states. These boundaries not only erase older identities and political relationships, but also influenced the environment in which African nationalists pursued independence and subsequently negotiated continental unity.
By the 20th century, Pan-Africanism increasingly connected the struggle against racial discrimination with the struggle against colonial rule. Its advocates argued that political independence was necessary but insufficient if African countries remained economically dependent, politically divided or unable to influence international decisions affecting them. The emergence of independent African states after the Second World War gave this argument greater practical urgency. Leaders now faced a fundamental question: would independence be pursued separately within inherited colonial territories, or could the new states develop a common political framework that strengthened their collective autonomy?
Key intellectuals in the development of Pan-Africanist thought
Pan-Africanism developed through the contributions of different intellectuals, activists and political leaders. In the nineteenth century, early thinkers like Martin Delany, Alexander Crummel, and Edward Blyden began to articulate these ideas into a more coherent political science of African self-government. Blyden, in particular, provided the intellectual inspiration for the later Negritude movement, while Delany popularised the slogan “Africa for the Africans”. These pioneers laid the foundations for the nationalist ideologies that would eventually drive the decolonisation of the continent in the twentieth century.
Henry Sylvester Williams: Henry Sylvester Williams, a Trinidadian lawyer and activist, was an important figure in the early organisation of Pan-Africanism. He helped organise the 1900 Pan-African Conference in London, which brought together people concerned about the condition of Africans and people of African descent under colonialism and racial discrimination. The conference was significant because it helped establish Pan-Africanism as an organised international movement. It provided a platform for discussing the treatment of African peoples, the consequences of colonial rule and the need for collective action. The conference also helped establish a tradition of transnational political engagement that continued through subsequent Pan-African gatherings. Although the organisers and delegates lacked the authority to compel colonial governments to implement their demands, the meeting helped create a political language and organisational precedent for later campaigns against racial discrimination and colonial domination. The importance of Williams lies partly in the fact that he helped demonstrate that African questions could be discussed internationally rather than being treated exclusively as matters for colonial administrations. This was an early expression of the principle that Africans and people of African descent should participate in determining their political future.
W. E. B. Du Bois: W. E. B. Du Bois, an African American sociologist, historian and political activist, became one of the most influential intellectual figures associated with Pan-Africanism. He participated in the Pan-African Conference of 1900 and helped organise subsequent congresses, including those held in 1919, 1921, 1923, 1927 and 1945.Du Bois argued that the condition of African peoples could not be separated from the wider history of racial inequality and imperial domination. Through scholarship, journalism, political activism and international conferences, he helped bring African colonial questions into wider discussions of race, citizenship and international politics. Du Bois’s contribution was especially important in connecting African liberation to international debates about political rights and racial equality. His work challenged the assumption that colonial rule was a natural or permanent condition and insisted that African peoples possessed the right to political dignity and advancement. However, Du Bois’s approach was not identical to every other Pan-Africanist tradition. His emphasis on organised intellectual leadership and international advocacy differed from the mass mobilisation and racial-nationalist politics associated with other activists. His importance therefore lies not in representing the whole movement, but in demonstrating one influential method through which Pan-Africanist ideas gained international visibility.
Marcus Garvey: Apart from intellectuals like W.E.B. Du Bois, another key figure who played a crucial role in the development of Pan-Africanism in the early 20th century was the Jamaican born Marcus Garvey. While people like Du Bois focused on intellectual activism and elite diplomacy, Garvey pioneered grassroots leadership and mass mobilisation. His ideas emphasised Black pride, economic self-reliance, collective organisation and the advancement of people of African descent.He championed the idea that people of African descent worldwide share a common destiny and must unite to achieve economic independence and political self-determination. He founded the Universal Negro Improvement Movement Association (UNIA) in 1914 to promote “African for the Africans” and economic self-reliance. His vision of “Africa for the Africans at home and abroad” resonated with millions of people who sought to improve their social, economic, and political conditions. Garvey’s ideology, often called Garveyism, was built on several radical principles. The first was black nationalism through which he advocated for “Africa for the Africans” and called for the establishment of a unified, independent Africa that is free from European colonial rule. He also championed the Back-to-Africa movement based on his belief that Black people would only find true justice in their ancestral homeland, and planned for their eventual return to Africa. Garvey preached that Black communities must build their own economies. To that end, he founded the Negro Factories Corporation and a global shipping line called the Black Star Line in 1919 to facilitate global trade among Black people and transport those wishing to “return” to Africa. He coined the phrase “Black is Beautiful” decades before it became a 1960s slogan and created the Pan-African flag (Red, Black, and Green) to symbolise the race. Garvey’s teachings on self-reliance and the need for Africans to control their own wealth and resources were vital in countering the psychological warfare of racism.
His ideas heavily influenced future African independence leaders like Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), Nnamdi Azikiwe (Nigeria), and Jomo Kenyatta (Kenya). Kwame Nkrumah explicitly acknowledged his political indebtedness to Garvey’s teachings during his fight for the independence of the Gold Coast. When Ghana became a free nation in 1957, it adopted the Black Star as its national symbol and established its own Black Star Line (BSL) as a state shipping corporation, figuratively bringing Garvey’s maritime dreams to life. Garvey’s movement reached audiences beyond the small circles of intellectuals and political delegates who participated in international conferences. His approach placed considerable emphasis on mass mobilisation, racial solidarity and economic organisation. Garvey’s vision differed in important respects from Du Bois’s. The two disagreed over political strategy, leadership, racial identity and the methods best suited to advancing the interests of Black people. Their differences demonstrate that Pan-Africanism was never a unified ideology with one accepted programme. Garvey’s emphasis on African redemption and the advancement of people of African descent contributed to the wider political environment in which African identity and liberation became increasingly prominent questions. His ideas also raised difficult questions about whether solidarity should be pursued primarily through racial unity, territorial return, economic self-help or the establishment of independent African political institutions.
George Padmore: George Padmore, born in Trinidad, was a political organiser and writer whose work helped connect Black internationalism, labour politics and anticolonial movements. He played an important role in the networks that brought together activists and African nationalists before the independence era. Padmore was closely associated with the organisation of the 1945 Manchester Pan-African Congress. The congress represented an important stage in the movement because it brought a stronger emphasis on African independence and anticolonial mobilisation into organised Pan-African politics. It also involved African activists who would later become influential in independence movements.
Kwame Nkrumah: Kwame Nkrumah, the first prime minister and later president of independent Ghana, was one of the most influential advocates of continental political integration. Ghana achieved independence from British colonial rule on 6 March 1957, and Nkrumah treated that achievement as part of a broader African liberation project.In Africa Must Unite (1963), Nkrumah argued for a stronger continental union. He believed that the political fragmentation of Africa weakened its ability to achieve economic transformation, defend its independence and influence international affairs.Nkrumah’s approach rested on the view that political independence would remain incomplete if African states continued to depend heavily on external powers and lacked the collective capacity to address common economic and security problems. He therefore advocated a much more ambitious form of integration than cooperation among independent governments. His vision included a continental political union, coordinated economic development and common approaches to international affairs. For Nkrumah, continental unity was not simply an emotional appeal to African brotherhood. It was also a practical response to the unequal distribution of power in the international system. Individually, many newly independent states had limited financial resources, small domestic markets and weak bargaining positions. A united Africa, he argued, would possess greater capacity to determine its own development priorities. Nevertheless, Nkrumah’s approach faced significant opposition. Many African leaders feared that an immediate political federation could weaken their newly acquired sovereignty, undermine their domestic authority or give excessive power to a central government dominated by particular states or leaders. Some also disagreed with his preferred political and economic model.
The Evolution of the Pan-African Conference and Congresses (1900-1945)
The organised Pan-African movement found its first formal expression at the turn of the twentieth century. The primary goal of these early congresses was to solve what W.E.B. Du Bois famously called “the problem of the colour line”, which is the systemic segregation and oppression of Black people by white society both within the United States and globally. These congresses were instrumental in keeping alive the idea of an oppressed people striving to abolish the yoke of discrimination while laying the foundation for political emancipation. Some of the early Pan-African conferences and congresses include:
1900: The first Pan-African conference was held in Westminster Town Hall in London, England from 23 to 25 July 1900. It was organised by the Trinidadian barrister Henry Sylvester Williams, who was the founder of the African Association. The meetings were chaired by Bishop Alexander Walters of the AME Zion Church, with the African-American civil rights activist William Edward Burghard, also known as W.E.B. Du Bois, playing a crucial role as Chairman of the Committee on the “Address to the Nations of the World”. It marked the first time people of African descent from around the world met formally to address racial injustice and colonial oppression, coining the term “Pan-African” in an organisational context. The conference was attended by about 37 delegates and 10 observers from Africa, the West Indies, the US and the UK. The aim of the conference was to unify the African diaspora to protest the “scramble for Africa” and systemic racism. Some of the key focus areas addressed during the conference included self-governance, civil rights, labour exploitation, and anti-racism. Even though the Pan-African Association formed during the conference was short-lived, it laid the intellectual and organisational groundwork for the later Pan-African Congresses and the eventual African independence movement.
1919: The first Pan-African Congress took place from 19 to 21 February 1919 at the Grand Hotel in Paris, France. It was organised by W.E.B. Du Bois, Senegalese politician Blaise Diagne, and Ida Gibbs Hunt, and was strategically timed to coincide with the Paris Peace Conference at the end of World War I to influence world leaders reshaping of the post-war global order. The Congress was attended by roughly 57 delegates representing 15 countries, including representatives from Africa, the United States, and the Caribbean. The British and American governments actively discouraged the event by refusing to issue passports to many intended attendees, fearing it would fuel radicalism. The primary goal of the Congress was to bring the grievances of colonised peoples to the attention of the newly formed League of Nations. Key resolutions addressed include self-determination, mandate system, land reform, racial equality, and protective code. Although the immediate impact on the Paris Peace Conference was minimal as the delegates were not granted official status to speak at the main peace talk, the 1919 Congress is considered a milestone in Black Internationalism. It also laid the political groundwork for later decolonisation movements.
1921: The Second Pan-African Congress was organised by W.E.B. Du Bois in London, Brussels, and Paris to advocate for colonial reforms and racial equality. The congress met in three sessions: London (August 28-29), Brussels (August 31-September 2), and Paris (September 5-6) to bring its message directly to the heart of colonial power. It was attended by 113 people, including 41 official delegates representing 26 different groups from Africa e.g. Nigeria, Gold Coast, Senegal, the Caribbean, the United States, and Europe. It produced a manifesto to the League of Nations demanding international protection for African natives, education rights, and eventual self-governance.
1923: The Third Pan-African Congress took place in November 1923, convening in two separate sessions: first in London and in Lisbon, Portugal. The Congress reiterated critical demands for global racial equity and African autonomy. It demanded that the development of Africa should benefit Africans rather than just European profits. It also made repeated calls for home rule and responsible government for British West Africa and the British West Indies.
1927: The Fourth Pan-African African Congress was held in New York City from August 20-24 1927. This marked the first time the Pan-African Congress was held in the Americas (New York). It was organised primarily by African-American women and W.E.B Du Bois. It featured over 200 delegates and focused on land rights, political representation, and anti-colonialism for Africa and the Caribbean. It also strengthened ties between African-American and the continent.
1945: The fifth Pan-African Congress, which was held in Manchester, UK from 15-21 October 1945 is often referred to as the most significant of the Pan-African Congresses and catalysed African independence from colonial rule. The Manchester Pan-African Congress deserves particular attention because it connected the history of diaspora-based Pan-African activism more directly to African nationalist politics. The congress took place at the end of the Second World War, a period marked by major changes in international politics. European powers had been weakened by war, anticolonial movements were growing, and the language of freedom and self-determination had become increasingly prominent in international debate. At the same time, the continuation of European colonial rule exposed the limits and contradictions of the postwar international order. It was organised by figures like Kwame Nkrumah and George Padmore. It shifted focus from reforms to demanding immediate independence, self-determination, and socialist economic empowerment. It was attended by about 90 delegates including Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), Jomo Kenyatta (Kenya), Hastings Banda (Malawi), and people like W.E.B. Du Bois and Amy Jacques Garvey. It established the Pan-African Federation of 1946, created a roadmap for the decolonisation of Africa, and directly influenced the formation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).
One of its important contributions was to strengthen the argument that African political freedom should be achieved through organised political action rather than left to the gradual goodwill of colonial administrations. Its discussions linked national liberation with questions of labour rights, economic inequality and popular political participation. The congress also reflected the diversity of Pan-Africanist thought. Its participants did not necessarily share identical political ideologies, organisational strategies or views about the future structure of African governments. Their cooperation was nevertheless significant because they could identify colonial domination as a common problem requiring coordinated action.
Importance of these Early Conferences
These early conferences were largely dominated by black middle-class intellectuals from North America and the Caribbean. For instance, the 1900 conference focused on the events of the Second Boer War and the expansion of Rhodesia, while also addressing the enactment of Jim Crow laws in the southern United States. W.E.B. Du Bois, who was a key figure during this early Pan-African movement, chaired the committee that drafted the address “To the Nations of the World,” which demanded moderate reforms for colonial Africa and the protection of the rights of people of African descent. By the 1920s, the congresses began calling for a fairer distribution of the world’s resources and the abolition of capital punishment for African natives. While these early appeals made little impression on the European imperial powers at the time, they succeeded in mobilising international solidarity and creating a “Black Atlantic” intellectual community.
The 5th Pan-African Congress held in Manchester in 1945 however marked a decisive turning point in the Pan-African movement. Unlike previous meetings, which were mostly academic reflections, the Manchester Congress was characterised by a militant and active stance. The delegates at Manchester also formulated a unitary policy of anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, and anti-racist struggle. The final declaration of the congress urged colonial and subject peoples to unite and assert their right to reject those seeking to control their destinies. Importantly, the congress emphasised the need for a well-organised, firmly-knit movement as a primary condition for success, encouraging colonised Africans to use strikes and boycotts to end exploitation. By the mid-20th century, Pan-Africanism have moved from diaspora-centred intellectualism to African-centred nationalism. This shift provided the ideological driving force for the wave of independence that followed. It helped consolidate networks, ideas and political demands that interacted with labour movements, nationalist organisations, international developments after the Second World War and struggles within the colonies themselves. The congress is especially important for understanding the transition from a movement primarily concerned with international advocacy against racial discrimination to one increasingly focused on the transfer of political power from colonial governments to African peoples. Its significance for African integration also lies in the political connections it helped strengthen between the struggle for national independence and the broader aspiration for African solidarity.
The Problem of Nation State in Africa and the Emergence of Rival Blocs, 1957-1963
The independence of Ghana in 1957 marked the transition of Pan-Africanism from a movement of activists to an ideology of statecraft. President Nkrumah, supported by his advisor George Padmore, sought to institutionalise the movement on African soil. In 1958, they organised the first Conference of Independent African States (CIAS) and the All-African People’s Conference (AAPC) in Accra. These events were aimed at defining Pan-Africanism as a framework for Africa’s role in the international arena, focusing on non-alignment and the socialist union of African states. As more countries became independent, African leaders faced a new set of questions. They had to decide how to coordinate their foreign policies, support territories still under colonial rule, protect their newly acquired independence and respond to the influence of former colonial powers and the Cold War. This was a turning point in the history of Pan-Africanism. The movement was no longer concerned only with advocacy and anticolonial mobilisation. It increasingly involved the practical task of building diplomatic relationships and institutions among independent African governments.
However, independence did not automatically produce agreement about continental integration. The new states had different colonial histories, political systems, economic structures and international relationships. They also faced domestic challenges, including state-building, economic development and the consolidation of political authority. Consequently, African leaders agreed more readily on the desirability of solidarity than on the institutional arrangements needed to achieve it. The central question was whether unity required the creation of a continental political authority or whether it could be achieved through cooperation among sovereign states. This debate became particularly visible in the Casablanca and Monrovia groupings of 1961, each offering a different vision for the future of the continent. The Casablanca and Monrovia groupings represented different approaches to African integration. Their disagreement was not simply a personal rivalry among political leaders. It reflected deeper differences concerning sovereignty, political authority, economic development and the pace of continental unification. Their members had varying interests and priorities, and their positions could evolve:
The Casablanca Group: The Casablanca group emerged from a meeting held in Casablanca, Morocco, in January 1961. It was led by radical and left-wing leaders and included countries like Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Morocco and the Algerian Provisional Government, among other participants and associated political actors. The group advocated a more ambitious approach to continental integration. Its members placed greater emphasis on political unity, common continental institutions and coordinated action on issues of shared concern. The Casablanca position was based on the argument that newly independent African states would remain vulnerable if they pursued development and diplomacy separately. Political fragmentation could weaken their negotiating power, create opportunities for external interference and make it difficult to coordinate economic policies. They therefore argued that African institutions should possess sufficient authority to coordinate member states and advance common objectives. The Casablanca vision was also connected to the anti-colonial struggle. Its supporters generally viewed the liberation of Africa as an unfinished process. In their view, the end of formal colonial rule did not necessarily eliminate economic dependence, foreign political influence or the vulnerability of small and resource-constrained states. Nevertheless, the proposal for stronger political unity raised difficult questions. How would a continental government be established? What powers would it possess? How would authority be distributed among states of different sizes and resources? Would national governments be prepared to transfer meaningful powers to a continental institution? They advocated for a revolutionary approach characterised by immediate political unification or federation. Their vision for a “United States of Africa” included: 1) The transfer of national powers to a supranational authority; 2) The creation of a Pan-African army or “African Supreme Command” to fight colonialism and minority rule; and 3) The establishment of a single currency, an African central bank, and a unified foreign policy. Nkrumah was the most vocal proponent of this group, arguing that “Africa Must Unite” to prevent balkanisation and resist neo-colonial economic interests. He believed that political integration should precede and facilitate economic integration. This view was considered to be too radical by many other African leaders.
The Monrovia Group: The Monrovia group, associated with a meeting held in Monrovia, Liberia, in May 1961, supported a more gradual and state-centred approach to continental cooperation. It consisted of a larger and more moderate association of states including Nigeria, Liberia, Ethiopia, and most of Francophone Africa. Rather than pursuing an immediate continental political federation, the group placed greater emphasis on cooperation among independent states, respect for sovereignty and the gradual development of common institutions. The Monrovia approach reflected the concerns of governments that had only recently obtained independence. Their leaders were reluctant to surrender powers that had been transferred from colonial administrations to national governments after years of political struggle. For these leaders, sovereignty was not merely a legal concept. It represented the ability to determine domestic political arrangements, control national territory, manage foreign relations and pursue development priorities without external domination. The Monrovia position did not necessarily amount to opposition to African unity. Rather, it reflected a different understanding of how unity should be achieved. Its advocates generally favoured cooperation that preserved national political authority, with integration developing through consultation, agreements and common institutions. This approach was compatible with the establishment of a continental organisation in which sovereign governments retained the principal authority over decisions. They promoted a philosophy of gradualism and functional cooperation.Their key tenets included: 1) The retention of national autonomy and the strengthening of individual state bureaucracies and militaries; 2) The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states; and 3) A loose association of states based on economic, cultural, and scientific cooperation rather than political federation.
In other words, the Monrovia Group prioritised nationalism and the sanctity of the colonial demarcation of boundaries over the supranational ideals of the Casablanca bloc. They were wary of losing their newly won sovereignty to a centralised command and favoured a regional approach to integration.
The Establishment of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU)
Despite these intense ideological rivalries, the common desire to uphold the dignity of Africa and fight for the complete independence of its peoples eventually led to a compromise. In May 1963, 32 newly independent African countries met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.The summit was hosted by Emperor Haile Selassie, whose prestige and diplomatic skill were essential in bringing these rival blocs together.The 1963 conference featured some of the most powerful rhetoric in African history. Kwame Nkrumah delivered an urgent plea for unity, arguing that African countries must unite or sink, warning that the continent would otherwise become the prey of a more ruthless and experienced imperialism. He contended that the social and economic development of Africa could only be achieved within the “political kingdom”. In contrast, Emperor Haile Selassie provided a more measured and pragmatic vision. Recalling his 1936 appeal to the League of Nations, he emphasised that peace and unity were “becoming” rather than instant accomplishments. He argued that there was no single magic formula for unity and that peace was a day-to-day product of events and judgments. Selassie’s approach, which emphasised common purpose and faith in a shared human community over immediate federation, resonated with the majority of the delegates.
The resulting Charter of the Organisation of African Unity, which was signed on May 25, 1963, was a product of consensus that largely reflected the moderate and gradualist values of the Monrovia Group. Thus, while the OAU represented the first institutional manifestation of the Pan-Africanist desire for unity, it did so by entrenching national sovereignty and non-interference at its heart. The establishment of the OAU was a landmark in the institutional history of African integration. For the first time, a broad continental organisation brought together independent African governments within a common framework for cooperation. The organisation was established against the background of continuing colonial rule in parts of Africa, apartheid in South Africa, white-minority rule in southern Africa and the political and economic vulnerabilities of newly independent states.
The OAU Charter identified several objectives, including promoting unity and solidarity among African states, coordinating cooperation, defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states, eradicating colonialism and promoting international cooperation. First, the OAU offered a diplomatic platform through which African governments could coordinate positions on international issues. This increased the opportunities for African states to act collectively in international forums. Second, the organisation helped coordinate support for liberation movements and the struggle against colonial and minority rule. The OAU’s Liberation Committee became an important instrument of this effort. Third, the organisation sought to protect the independence of African states by affirming the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. This reflected the concern that newly independent states should not become vulnerable to renewed external domination or interference. Fourth, the OAU provided a framework for African governments to discuss shared challenges and develop common approaches, even when they disagreed on particular issues.
Conclusion
Pan-Africanism provided the intellectual and political foundation for modern African integration. It developed through the struggles of Africans and people of African descent against racial discrimination, colonial domination and political marginalisation. Its history includes the international advocacy of Henry Sylvester Williams and W. E. B. Du Bois, the mass mobilisation associated with Marcus Garvey, the anticolonial organising of George Padmore, and the continental political vision of Kwame Nkrumah. The Manchester Pan-African Congress of 1945 helped strengthen the connection between Pan-Africanist solidarity and African independence movements. As independent African states emerged, the movement entered a new phase in which governments had to determine how continental cooperation should be organised. The Casablanca and Monrovia groupings exposed fundamental disagreements about the nature of African unity. While the Casablanca orientation favoured stronger political integration, the Monrovia orientation placed greater emphasis on cooperation among sovereign states. The establishment of the OAU in 1963 thus represented a diplomatic compromise between these competing approaches.