Africa is not asking for just one permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Its common position is a demand for at least two permanent seats, alongside five non-permanent seats in an expanded Council. That demand is part of the African Union's long-standing position on Security Council reform, known as the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. In 2026, the African Union continues to maintain that Africa should receive no fewer than two permanent seats, with the same privileges as existing permanent members, including the veto for as long as the veto remains part of the Council's system.

But why two? Why not one? And if Africa is given two permanent seats, which countries would occupy them? These questions reveal that the debate is not only about Africa's absence from the permanent membership. It is also about what representation should actually mean.

Frequently Asked Questions

Would the two African permanent members have veto power?

The African position calls for the same privileges as existing permanent members, including the veto if the veto continues to exist.

How many non-permanent seats does Africa want?

Africa's current model calls for five non-permanent seats in an expanded Security Council.

Why does Africa want two instead of one?

The African Union considers two permanent seats necessary to provide meaningful representation for a continent of 54 countries and to address what it describes as historical underrepresentation.

Who would choose the African permanent members?

The African Union says Africa should have the right to select the countries that would occupy the seats, subject to election by the General Assembly.

Would the same African countries hold the seats forever?

The African proposal seeks permanent seats for Africa, but questions about which countries would occupy them and the arrangements for representation remain part of the wider reform debate.

Could the seats rotate between African countries?

Rotation is a possible alternative way of organising regional representation, although it is not the same as the African Union's current demand for permanent seats.

Why Does Africa Want Two Seats?

The African Union's argument is based largely on what it considers historical and political underrepresentation. Nevertheless, when the United Nations and its Security Council were created in 1945, most African countries were still under colonial rule. The permanent membership was therefore established without an independent African state.
Today, Africa consists of 54 countries and represents a significant portion of the United Nations membership. African states also participate extensively in international peace and security efforts.
The African Union therefore argues that the Security Council should reflect the world as it exists today rather than preserve an arrangement created for the international order of 1945. In its 2026 position, the AU describes correcting Africa's exclusion from permanent representation as a priority in Security Council reform.
Two seats are intended to give Africa more than a symbolic presence. One permanent seat would leave the continent represented by a single country, while two would provide broader representation within the permanent category.
The African position also calls for five non-permanent African seats in an expanded Council.

Why Not One Permanent Seat?

The demand for two seats is connected to the size and diversity of Africa. Moreover, Africa is not politically or economically uniform. Its countries have different national interests and foreign-policy priorities. A single permanent African member could therefore not automatically speak for the entire continent.

Two seats would at least create the possibility of wider representation. However, two seats do not completely solve the representation question. Africa has 54 countries. If two countries were given permanent membership, those two countries would have a privilege that the other 52 would not possess. That leads to one of the most important questions in this debate: Would two permanent African countries truly represent Africa, or would they simply become two more powerful countries within the continent?

Who Would Choose the Two Countries?

The African Union has addressed part of this question. Under the Common African Position, Africa reserves the right to select the countries that would occupy the African permanent seats. Those candidates would then be considered for election by the UN General Assembly. This means that the proposal is not simply about declaring two particular African countries permanent members.
The African Union wants the continent itself to determine which countries should occupy the seats. But another question remains. How would those countries be selected, and how often would they change? Would they remain permanently in those positions? Would African states agree to rotate the seats?Would different regions of Africa take turns? These are important questions because the word permanent creates a problem of its own.

The Argument About Rotation

This is where the wider representation argument deserves attention. If the purpose of the reform is to correct geographical underrepresentation, one possible model would be to allow African countries to rotate through the permanent African seats. For example, countries from different African regions could take turns occupying the seats according to an agreed system. Such an arrangement could allow more African states to participate over time.

There is already an example of regional rotation within the African Union itself. The AU Peace and Security Council has 15 members, none of them permanent, and its members are elected according to principles including equitable regional representation and rotation. This does not mean the UN Security Council should automatically adopt the same system. The two institutions are different. It does, however, show that rotation is already familiar within African continental governance.

My Argument: Is Two the Real Question?

The demand for two permanent seats raises a broader issue. If Africa's problem is that it lacks permanent representation, giving two countries permanent seats could address that problem at one level. But it could also create another question about inequality within Africa.
Why should two African countries speak permanently for an entire continent? And if Africa is asking for permanent representation because geographical regions should have a stronger voice, what should happen to other regions of the world that also lack permanent members?
This does not dismiss the African Union's demand. Rather, it places it within a larger question about how the Security Council should be organised. The debate could therefore move beyond simply asking, “Why two African seats?”
It could ask whether permanent seats should belong permanently to particular countries at all, or whether regional representation could be designed around elections, rotation and recurring participation. That would change the discussion from deciding which countries deserve permanent power to deciding how the world's regions can participate more broadly.

Wind Up

Africa's demand for two permanent seats is rooted in its argument that the Security Council's current structure does not adequately reflect the international community of today. The African Union is therefore seeking two permanent seats, five non-permanent seats and equal privileges for its permanent members, including veto power for as long as the veto remains. But the demand also opens another discussion. If two African countries become permanent members, how will they represent 54 sovereign states? Will they remain the same countries indefinitely, or should African countries have opportunities to rotate through those positions? Perhaps the real debate is therefore larger than the number two.
It is about whether the future Security Council should simply add more permanent powers to the system created in 1945, or whether it should find a broader way of giving the world's regions meaningful and recurring representation.