Sunday, 27th Sep; 2026

By Editor 

As a student of International Studies, I have been watching the renewed conversation around Africa's representation on the United Nations Security Council with particular interest. It is encouraging to see African leaders once again pressing for permanent representation, but I find myself asking a question that goes beyond simply obtaining a seat: 

If Africa eventually gets a permanent seat, will it actually have the power to influence global decisions, or will it merely occupy a seat at the table? 

At the 81st United Nations General Assembly, Nigeria renewed the call for at least two permanent seats for Africa, with the veto power for as long as the veto continues to exist, alongside five non-permanent seats. This reflects the African Union's longstanding position under the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. 

For me, this is not simply about Africa being represented. It is about whether the institutions governing international peace and security can evolve with the world they are supposed to represent. 

The United Nations Security Council was created in 1945, in a world emerging from the Second World War. Its permanent membership reflected the distribution of power at that particular historical moment. More than eight decades later, Africa has no permanent seat, despite being a continent of 54 countries and despite African conflicts and security issues occupying a significant portion of the Council's agenda. 

This makes the African demand difficult to dismiss as merely symbolic. 

But representation alone may not be enough. 

A permanent African seat without the same institutional privileges as existing permanent members could create another form of inequality. This is why the African position insists that if the veto remains, any new African permanent members should have the same prerogatives. The African model also calls for a larger Council and greater transparency and accountability in its working methods. 

This brings me to a broader historical question. 

Could meaningful reform of the Security Council become another major turning point in the evolution of global politics? 

In International Studies, we often look at 1989 as a significant turning point. The collapse of the Cold War order transformed the ideological and strategic structure of international politics. But perhaps the next major transformation may not necessarily come from the collapse of a superpower rivalry. It could come from the gradual transformation of the institutions through which global power is exercised. 

Perhaps the question of our time is therefore not simply who has power, but who gets to participate in making the rules that govern power. 

Africa's demand could become part of that evolution. 

However, I also believe Africa must look inward. A stronger African voice at the Security Council would require African countries to coordinate effectively, identify common interests and develop the diplomatic capacity to negotiate as a serious collective actor. A seat would provide an opportunity, but the ability to use that opportunity would depend on what Africa brings to the table. 

So, as a student of International Studies, I find myself asking: 

Are we witnessing the beginning of another stage in the evolution of the international system, or are we simply witnessing an attempt to correct an old imbalance within an otherwise unchanged system? 

I do not think we can answer that yet. 

But perhaps history will eventually look back at this period in the same way we look back at other moments of international transformatio not because Africa was finally given a seat, but because the meaning of who has a voice in global governance may have begun to change. 

For Africa, therefore, the goal should not merely be to sit at the table. 

It should be to ensure that, when Africa finally takes its seat, its presence matters.

Nworisa Michael is a student of International Studies, Northwest University Kano. Writes from nworisamichael1917@gmail.com