An Evaluation of the Ezulwini consensus within the context of advocacy for the reform of the United Nations Security Council of Zimbabwe

Abstract

This study evaluates Zimbabwe’s diplomatic advocacy for United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reform within the framework of the Ezulwini Consensus, the African Union’s common position demanding two permanent seats for Africa with full veto power and five non-permanent seats. Despite nearly two decades of persistent advocacy, the Consensus objectives remain unrealised, revealing a significant gap between sustained diplomatic effort and tangible institutional change. Employing a qualitative interpretivist approach, the research utilized semi-structured elite interviews with 20 participants across five professional categories Zimbabwean diplomats, African Union officials, UN personnel, civil society experts and academics alongside documentary analysis. The findings trace Zimbabwe’s advocacy evolution from rhetorical support to operational championship following its election to a non-permanent UNSC seat in June 2026. Key obstacles identified include the P5’s rational self-interest in preserving veto power, Article 108 of the UN Charter requiring all permanent member’s consent for amendment, and internal African divisions over seat allocation. The study reveals a fundamental divergence between the AU’s maximalist demands and P5 offers of seats without veto, concluding that while the Ezulwini Consensus exhibits strong normative coherence, its strategic viability is compromised by the veto demand acting as a self-imposed barrier to incremental progress. The research contributes to Liberal Institutionalist theory by demonstrating how institutions constrain and enable reform advocacy, while offering policy recommendations including phased acceptance of seats without veto, strengthened AU selection mechanisms, G4 coordination, and leveraging Zimbabwe’s 2027-2028 Council term for coalition building.