Background

Across the world and over many millennia, peoples have lived, travelled and shared their experiences as much as they found it practicable. Many lessons have been learnt but some lessons are still lingering. The concept of the Orange Union has its roots in ancient Africa and has been observed even in recent centuries in pre-colonial Africa but it has found its way in recent decades to post world war Europe. Interestingly, a historical axis does exist from Africa, colonialism, world wars and Europe via which a keen observer will notice that the civilization concept of the Orange Union was plucked from Africa and transplanted into Europe.

Just like the actual citrus fruit called Orange, the Orange Union is not just a concept of civilization but a concept of nature whereby humanity enjoys the peaceful harmony of a union within which the completely separate segments are distinctly and uniquely covered by a soft border while the collective cover is the much firmer peeling acting as the external border to the rest of the world. Each distinctive comfortable segment represents a unique ethnic nation maintaining its fullness of identity, self-determination and integrity with the added benefit of a jointly negotiated common ground of interest deemed as mutually beneficial and protective.

As regards the historical axis by which this concept of civilization was plucked from Africa and transplanted in Europe, it does not take a genius to notice the parallel between the ethnic configurations of polities and the resultant volatility in Europe when compared to the ethnic self-determination with the resultant tranquility in Africa about five hundred years ago. It can be easily said that Europe brought its chaotic civilization to Africa in exchange for Africa’s harmonious civilization so that the level of acrimony dwindled in Europe by way of increasing ethnic self-determination but the reverse became the case in Africa by means of colonial configuration, experimentation and cancellation of ethnic self-determination. In fact, the colonial creation of pseudo-countries throughout Africa as plotted at the Berlin Conference of 1885 remains the biggest blow to Africa’s focused development. This means that Africans spend more time learning a colonial language in order to communicate with fellow Africans in their pseudo-countries to no avail when they could save a lifetime by simply communicating in their mother tongue within their ancestral countries for a focused development. So the African Union becomes less effective by virtue of a colonial order while the European Union becomes more effective by virtue of a concept of African civilization in such dastardly irony.

Natural Identity

The orientation of the natural will is like a river flowing in its natural trajectory. There is little if any resistance to achieving easy consensus due to the minimal barriers within a homogenous polity with the same ancestry, language, mentality, culture, history, geography and outlook. The common validity of the ethnic mainstay combines the unique contribution of that ethnic nation as a special branch of humanity and the moral prerogative to preserve that unique contribution into the farthest future. While a pseudo-country whether engineered by colonialism or political experimentations seems to frequently harbour dangerous frictions, by contrast an ethnic nation is the gold standard for neighbourly stability. In this regard the geopolitical history of recent Scandinavia or pre-colonial Sub Saharan Africa is a useful example.

A Piece Of Land or A Peace Of The Land

There is a reason why failures and instability become endemic in any land. Genuine ownership is a great incentive for long-term planning, sustained development, meticulous investment and wholesome husbandry. In sharp contrast, a covetous indulgence in other people’s land undermines the prospect of peace by applying frantic methods aimed at specific exploitations but void of any mutual goodwill. For the first settlers in any indigenous lands, the peace of the land was based on the original ancestral ownership and consensus. Other further arrivals require the permission of the ancestral consensus in order to maintain the peace of the land as strangers protected by the indigenous hosts. If the strangers contravene the ancestral consensus then the peace of the land is disrupted as any piece of land taken by or handed over to strangers without the peaceful ancestral consensus spells colonization and invasion. All forms of non-indigenous colonization of local territory under any guise must be reversed sooner than later. The peace of the land is crucial for sustained development. This principle must be enshrined in all future constitutions ideally as a mandatory security requirement.

Ancestral or Colonial Order?

Most people are unaware of the ancestral order of our ethnic nations through recent millennia and centuries preceding the slavery and colonial incursions. Our lack of research into our past is the main source of confusion for some of us who are confounded with the question of what to expect as our destiny. It is only fair to say that history and destiny frequently share a scientifically established connectivity. One can only add that the stable bridge between the two is the ethnic identity. The loss or cancellation of one’s identity leaves the individual vulnerable to an unknown destiny where the individual floats on the rivers of foreign identities until one finds an anchor in the research of one’s own original or closest possible identity. Despite certain few misgivings, the ancestral order for the majority of Africans was that of very credible civilizations with profound constitutional settlement which ensured social stability and multiple cycles of jubilees and celebrations. Regardless of any cynical misrepresentations of ancient and pre-colonial Africa, for the most part these were independent ethnic communities, kingdoms and nations with a long track experience of substantial peace and harmony. One of the most important element of stability for these nations was the principle of “abominations” which was deemed as an absolute consensus to avoid complete extinction of the community. This principle held the entire community in such strong cohesion guaranteed in most cases by a balanced welfare culture that became an incentive for active participation by all and sundry. Another prominent principle was the “constant educational culture” which meant that citizens had established a strong knowledge of their culture, norms and traditions from a very young age so that community consensus was in fact never a problem but easily achieved. By contrast the colonial order was not just a criminal invasion and a rude shock to the local system but a template and recipe for constant disruption of opportunity for local consensus as well as the grafting in of permanent strife by colonial engineering. This did not only mean the embracing of foreign cultures but the confusion of priorities to such an extent that there was a significant dislocation of prospects and translocation of opportunities leading to a state of stunned development. The advent of neo-colonialism as a result of colonial arrangements only compounded the chaos of political destitution in many polities with colonial configurations. Without doubt the Berlin Conference concluded in 1885 ensured the disruption of ethnic stability and the suspension of easy local consensus by deploying the neo-colonial juxtapositions which progressively perpetuated discord and proxy conflicts. The subsequent creation of States in Nigeria was a part of a neo-colonial project and followed a similar pattern as the 1885 Berlin Conference.

The Orange Union Has No Disadvantages

The objective of the Orange Union is to ensure the full self-determination of each ethnic nation, provide a platform for joint collaborations on equitable terms and magnify the international prospects of the collective. This means that each ethnic nation or a small collective of ethnic nations is a self-governing polity and will manage its own affairs according to a self-determined local constitution derived from the history, ancestry, consensus and future prospects of the citizens within that given polity. This recognizes the fact that an agreement arranged at the closest and smallest possible level of similarity ensures the strongest possible bond for common progress. The tendency to disagree between naturally similar characters is far less than the tendency of distant characters to disagree. The homogeneity factor within the same ethnic nation entails the longest possible element of co-existence by way of shared ancestry, history, language, culture, traditions, lifestyle, mentality, territory, exposure and posterity. This homogeneity factor increases the basis for effective and smooth community involvement in realistic governance activities. This is the safest and most conflict-free model which allows even the smaller communities within the same ethnic nation a significant degree of autonomy. So, each polity has its own ancestral borders, governance structure, judicial system, official language, education system, healthcare system, resource management, internal autonomous regions, military defence structure, police service, finance institutions etc. The Orange Union model brings responsibility home to each community because a community that cannot cater for itself is incapable of offering care or governance to other near or distant communities. It becomes very obvious that a representative from such an incapable community is unlikely to preside efficiently over the affairs of other communities. Simply put, it is difficult to tidy up other people’s houses when your own house is completely untidy. Citizens of member States of the “Orange Union” can reside, travel or work across the territories of the “Orange Union” based on mutually arranged diplomatic frameworks for security, trade and citizenship. A federation of ethnic subgroups within each ethnic nation as autonomous regions, districts, towns or kingdoms is strongly recommended as an attribute of the Orange Union principle. Migration terms to be decided locally and ensuring the dignity and safety of the different categories of migrants as befitting the well-known hospitality of African cultures.

While each ethnic nation can join the Union system by providing their indigenes the right to opt in by referendum, a member nation must avoid tarnishing the image and reputation of the Union by ensuring decent welfare and safe conditions for all the citizens within its territory. An initial grace period of five years is allowed to achieve a decent basic standard of living for all the citizens of that nation. If  deprivation, poverty or crisis on a large scale affects a residential or industrial area involving a population a tenth of the size of a suburb, that will equate to tarnishing the image and reputation of the entire Union. Such a situation makes the membership of such a nation untenable in the Union and an exit order will automatically apply if the situation is not fully rectified within a period of six months. A nation can tender a notice of exit if a local referendum confirms such intent of the citizens. Such exit becomes effective after a six month period from the notice of exit. For new memberships to the Union, a notice of entry following local referenda is required but an assessment period of four years is the minimum time before acceptance or rejection is confirmed.

A Common Currency will facilitate trade within the Union and will be regulated by the proposed Joint Committee for Trade. The quota provided for each nation will reflect the trade volume and only specific amounts will be provided to citizens depending on the expected activity to ease cross-border travels. The Joint Committee for Trade will have a dedicated Common Currency Reserve unit which regulates how the local Central Banks maintain the correct application of the Common Currency rules for the purpose of trade and travel. Local currency will be a matter for the local affairs as determined by the various local constitutions.

The motto for the Orange Union is “Excellence and Understanding” and as such each member nation must strive to bring its citizens and representatives to be cultured by this motto.

Proposed Joint Commission

This is the collective body of all the Joint Committees Secretaries General chaired by the President of the Joint Commission. This office of President is the representative figurehead of all the member States of the Orange Union for a period of two years. The Secretary of the Joint Commission is the Foreign Affairs Secretary and the deputy to the President of the Joint Commission for a period of two years. The Under Secretary of the Joint Commission is the direct deputy of the Secretary of the Joint Commission for a period of two years. The Joint Commission sessions would ideally be fortnightly. The President of the Joint Commission will meet a mandatory criteria of eligibility but will be appointed by a lot system and the office shall be rotated so that no ethnic nation holds that office for a second time until all other ethnic nations have held that office for the first time. Any ethnic nation or member State that holds the office will be excluded from the lot system until each and every other member State has held the office. In the event of demise or resignation or impeachment of the office holder, a person recommended by their local head of government, fulfilling the mandatory criteria of eligibility from the same ethnic nation or member State will be vetted by each Joint Committee as suitable replacement if at least four hundred members of each Joint Committee vote in favour of the eligible candidate. If this is not achieved the seven Secretaries General of the Joint Committees will need a majority vote favourable to the candidate within the subsequent forty-eight hours. If this is not achieved, then six independent candidates from that same ethnic nation or member State will campaign only locally for a snap election for one candidate to ascend the prestigious office of the Joint Commission. This condition will apply to the office of the Secretary of the Joint Commission as well as the office of the Under Secretary of the Joint Commission.

Proposed Joint Committees

There are seven Joint Committees working on the mutual affairs of Migration, Trade, Transport, Sports, International Relations, Security and Arbitration. Each Joint Committee is an official unit comprising of two members from each ethnic nation or member State. The two members may be recommended by their respective governments or elected by public votes in their respective member States but only after their eligibility has been confirmed according to the well-established requirements of the respective Joint Committee. The office of Joint Committee member will be held for four years if there are no breach of terms of office. Each Joint Committee is headed by a Secretary General who is a professional with relevant experience to the affairs of that Joint Committee. A Joint Committee Secretary General will be an independent non-partisan candidate who must fulfil the eligibility criteria for that office with a four-year term of office. All seven Secretaries General must be from seven separate ethnic nations or member States at any given time and these ethnic nations or member States will be excluded from holding such an office until all other ethnic nations or member States have held these offices. A lot system will select the seven ethnic nations or member States whose candidate will hold the office of Joint Committee Secretary General for the four-year term. Each Joint Committee Secretary General will appoint an Associate fulfilling the criteria of office as temporary replacement for a maximum period of six weeks. For the purpose of permanent replacement, six fully eligible candidates from the same ethnic nation or member State will campaign in a snap election within their local polity with one candidate emerging within twenty eight days to complete the remainder of office term as the Secretary General of the Joint Committee.