21st Century Neocolonialism in Africa
Africa as a continent has lagged the rest of the world in achieving development over the past centuries despite the constant “potential” it has. Following the end of colonialism for most countries in the region in the 20thcentury, many had high hopes that its nations will achieve development over the ensuing decades.
These hopes and potential however have constantly appeared as a mirage with deceleration happening after a brief period of acceleration. Many reasons have been itemized for this including the corruption and ineptness among its leaders, divisiveness within individual countries and continent at large and the region’s dependence on commodities and low value goods as economic drivers. While these indeed all contribute to the slow development experienced on the continent, I argue that a major reason for this stagnation is the “dependence mentality” developed during the colonial times and the continued dependence on colonizers (especially the Francophone countries).
This dependence mentality has permeated through the fabric of the society with all of the 54 countries within the region continually dependent on aid and laden with debt. It is also the reason why most of her countries hold the “little brother” stance where they see developed countries as their lifeblood; creating a cycle of dependence on debt/aid packages to feed their gaping hunger for import dependence while exporting commodities which are often low value. The problem with this little brother syndrome is that most of these countries have their primary responsibilities to their own citizens and therefore work only (or at least principally) in the interest of their populace.
This is why it is somewhat troubling that most of these countries have become dependent on a new superpower — China. China has made it extremely easy for countries to obtain loan (which has goaded their binge on unbeneficial debt) with the goal of more efficiently deploying their most valuable resource; human capital in the African region. In 2017 alone, the newly signed value of Chinese contracted projects in Africa registered $76.5bn; a substantial sum considering that many of the countries in the region are in danger of defaulting on their debts just a few months after some of their debt was written off.
To be sure, the infrastructural gaps that exist in Africa have hampered the growth of the region and the “deal with China” represents a convenient way — at least in the short term — to close this gap. In addition, many of these contracts are the only available options as countries such as France, the U.K. and the U.S. have pared back aids given to these countries. However, in the longer term, African countries risk falling back into the same dependence mentality that still plagues their growth till this day. Indeed, most of the debt terms state that projects undertaken will be performed by Chinese firms with very little technology or knowledge transfer to the skilled labor in Africa. What happens when some of these countries default on their debt? (which they are inevitably bound to do), will the investments made change the state of African countries from consumption driven import dependency to an investment driven value-added producer of goods?
Answering these questions will be key to determining whether the debt taken from China are actually beneficial or if it is a form of neocolonialism. I argue that instead of binging on vast amounts of debt, leaders in these countries should do two things: first adequately ideate on ways these debts could be invested in developing industry rather than utilizing the money on non-value adding activities such as continually supporting the import of goods and pegging the currencies; secondly, adequate sensitivity analysis and scenario planning methodologies such as “Value at Risk” should be done in order to determine downside exposure of the debt. Only after conducting these analyses should a partnership with the Chinese be sought out in order to avoid falling into old habits.
