The main criticism is that the AU feels disconnected from young people’s lives. Africa is the youngest continent in the world, with over 400 million people between 15 and 35. Yet many feel completely excluded from the decision-making structures that affect their futures. The AU has been too cautious in confronting flawed elections and civic space restrictions, and young people have noticed.

Young Africans today are politically aware and digitally connected, and they demand accountability. Their question is straightforward: if the AU speaks about democracy, human rights and political participation, why does it respond to democratic crises so inconsistently? Why move slowly on some coups or tolerate some flawed elections? That gap between rhetoric and action explains the growing frustration.

The gap is structural. The AU is an intergovernmental body made up of states whose leaders often prefer diplomatic caution to confrontation. This creates tension between the AU’s formal commitments, such as the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, and the political reality of peer-to-peer diplomacy where governments protect each other. The AU can suspend countries after coups but has few tools to enforce democratic standards beyond diplomatic pressure. This norms-versus-politics dilemma means strong democratic frameworks on paper don’t translate into consistent action on the ground.

Peace and security were at the centre of summit discussions, although the AU’s actual influence in mediating active conflicts is limited. Leaders discussed major conflicts, particularly the war in Sudan and instability in the Sahel, calling for a humanitarian truce and a return to civilian-led governance, and warning that these conflicts risk destabilising the entire region. The AU also reiterated its zero tolerance for unconstitutional changes of government in response to the wave of military coups in Central and West Africa.

But regional power dynamics, external geopolitical competition and weak enforcement mechanisms constrain the AU’s ability to turn statements into tangible results. The AU produces declarations and maintains diplomatic engagement but struggles to enforce its positions when powerful member states pursue conflicting interests. It functions as a platform for dialogue and coordination but lacks the political will and enforcement tools to resolve conflicts decisively.

Civil society engagement at AU summits is structured and limited. The AU has an Economic, Social and Cultural Council that was created to formally include civil society voices. In practice, many civil society groups feel their participation is consultative rather than influential: they are asked for input, but are rarely heard in decision-making.

At summits, civil society participates through panel discussions, parallel forums, policy dialogues and side events. These spaces are valuable for raising awareness and sharing perspectives, but rarely influence political decisions, which are made by states. Civil society is given a space to speak, but outcomes are determined outside that space.

The real question isn’t whether civil society is present at summits but whether our perspectives actually shape continental policy. And there’s a lot of room for improvement there, because for the time being, participation feels more like box-ticking than genuine partnership in shaping our common future.

To regain credibility among young people, the AU must demonstrate consistent commitment to democratic norms. When democratic institutions are undermined, the AU must respond the same way regardless of a country’s political role or regional influence. Selective application of rules destroys credibility.

Civil society and young people must be integrated into decision-making, not just invited to side events or consultative forums. They need to be at the table where decisions are made, and to be listened to when they speak. The AU also needs stronger accountability mechanisms. The African Charter and governance frameworks need an enforcement pathway. When countries violate these commitments, there must be consequences.

Ultimately, the AU’s credibility will depend on whether people can see it as an organisation that protects and defends their democratic aspirations. Right now, many young Africans don’t see themselves reflected in the AU. What they see is ageing leaders who sideline them and maintain power through manipulation. For the AU to matter to us, it must live up to its principles in practice, not just on paper.