As the United States gears up for its next presidential election, the outcome is undoubtedly consequential for the world. However, for Africa, this election presents an opportunity to reflect on a critical issue that transcends the individuals on the ballot. The question African nations must grapple with is not which American candidate—Donald Trump or Kamala Harris—is better suited for the White House, but whether Africa is ready to chart an independent course that breaks free from decades of neo-colonial influence and dependency on Western powers.
The legacy of colonialism on the continent is profound, and while direct rule may have ended with the wave of African independence movements in the mid-20th century, neo-colonial practices have sustained Western dominance in subtler, but equally oppressive, ways. Through economic leverage, foreign aid dependency, military presence, and covert political influence, Western nations, particularly the United States, continue to exercise control over African policies, economies, and development trajectories. Both Trump and Harris embody, in their own ways, the differing faces of American interference that keep African nations from achieving genuine sovereignty.
The Trump Doctrine: Transactional Relations and the Push for Economic Isolation
During his tenure, Donald Trump took a "transactional" approach to foreign policy, often championing “America First” policies that sidelined traditional alliances and reduced direct intervention in certain regions. At first glance, Trump's isolationist rhetoric and reduction in foreign aid might seem like a retreat from Africa. However, his focus on protectionism has hindered African economies by imposing barriers on African exports, restricting visa access, and limiting trade opportunities, thereby tightening Africa's dependency on foreign capital and loans. While he may not have pushed as many direct interventionist policies, his economic isolationism ultimately fostered a different form of dependency, where African nations struggle under debt and restrictive trade, perpetuating an imbalance that favors the US at Africa’s expense.
Trump's stance also revealed the American perception of Africa primarily as a resource supplier rather than a trading partner. By pulling out of multilateral agreements and reducing investments in Africa, his administration limited Africa’s access to global markets, forcing many nations to rely on foreign aid and World Bank loans, which often come with stringent conditions that shape and restrict national policies. While this might have been viewed as a step back from intervention, in reality, it left many African nations in a bind—dependent on Western institutions for funding while struggling under the weight of mounting debt and trade restrictions.
Harris and the Illusion of Progressive Partnership
Kamala Harris, in contrast, offers a more progressive vision, but her policies are rooted in another brand of neo-colonialism that often disguises itself as benevolent assistance. Harris has shown a strong interest in promoting environmental policies, championing the fight against climate change, and encouraging sustainable practices. However, this approach often translates to restrictions on Africa’s industrial and economic growth. Environmental aid packages come with conditions that sometimes prevent African countries from fully utilizing their resources in the name of sustainability. For instance, policies aimed at reducing emissions may restrict African nations from exploiting their own fossil fuels, even though these resources could be critical in lifting millions out of poverty and boosting industrialization.
Such agendas have left African leaders in a precarious position. They are encouraged, or at times forced, to adhere to Western climate standards that make it difficult to build robust manufacturing and energy sectors. This restricts job creation, limits growth opportunities, and hinders Africa’s ability to compete globally. For African nations already struggling to keep up with developed economies, these limitations act as a shackle. African leaders must ask if they are willing to adopt measures that curb their own development for the sake of Western-driven climate agendas, or if they should prioritize internal growth strategies that might not align with US or EU environmental standards.
A History of US Interference in African Governance
Looking back, the United States has long used political leverage to shape African leadership and influence regime changes across the continent. The infamous CIA-backed coups in the 1960s and 1970s were early examples of the US covertly destabilizing governments in nations like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, and Angola. Leaders who promoted Pan-Africanism, socialist policies, or regional alliances that diverged from American interests were swiftly removed or silenced.
In recent years, regime change tactics have shifted from overt coups to more insidious forms of political influence. Through organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID, the United States funds various “democracy promotion” projects across Africa. While these initiatives are presented as efforts to support democracy and human rights, they often work to undermine leaders or political movements that do not align with American interests. The result is a continuous undermining of African sovereignty, where African leaders are pressured to adopt Western political structures, economic systems, and foreign policies under the pretense of maintaining international standards.
African governments, forced to conform to Western expectations, often find themselves enacting policies that benefit foreign corporations and investors while offering limited benefits to their own citizens. This “democracy promotion” approach creates a mirage of partnership while preserving Western influence over Africa’s political future. It is a reminder that the West’s commitment to democracy is often selective—supporting leaders who protect Western interests and turning against those who promote regional integration, self-sufficiency, or policies that resist foreign interference.
The Economic Chains of Neocolonialism
Beyond the political arena, Africa’s economic dependency is perpetuated by neo-colonial structures that bind the continent in cycles of debt and exploitation. Western-backed financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank offer loans to African nations, but these loans come with conditions that often force governments to cut essential services, privatize public assets, and open markets to foreign corporations. The impact of such policies is seen in the mining, oil, and agricultural sectors, where multinational companies reap profits while local communities bear the environmental and social costs.
This economic model has led to what some describe as “neo-slavery.” Multinational corporations extract Africa’s resources at low costs, while Africans receive little in return. From the mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo to the oil fields of Nigeria, foreign companies exploit Africa’s wealth, sending profits abroad while African workers earn meager wages in dangerous conditions. These practices are further entrenched by trade agreements that limit Africa’s ability to negotiate fair terms, binding the continent to export raw materials while Western companies dominate value-added production.
A Path Forward: Regional Unity and Self-Reliance
The reality is clear: whether it is Trump’s transactional diplomacy or Harris’ progressive restrictions, Africa’s interests are secondary to American objectives. True autonomy cannot come from aligning with any specific American administration. African nations must prioritize their own regional agendas and pursue self-sufficiency, focusing on frameworks like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which has the potential to transform intra-African trade and reduce dependency on external markets. By uniting in economic and political alliances, African countries can foster resilience against foreign influence and build a foundation for sustainable development on their own terms.
Moreover, African countries should strengthen relationships with other Global South nations, such as China, India, and Brazil, which offer alternative models of partnership that are often less restrictive and more focused on mutual benefits. These partnerships can provide the technology, investment, and expertise needed to advance Africa’s development without the strings of neo-colonial control. However, African leaders must navigate these relationships with caution, ensuring that partnerships are based on genuine cooperation rather than exploitative dependencies.
The Election Beyond America: A Call for African Self-Determination
As Americans cast their votes, African leaders and citizens should view this election not as a choice between two candidates but as a reminder of the importance of self-determination. The true power lies not in choosing which American administration to align with, but in choosing a path that prioritizes Africa’s needs, values, and aspirations. Africa’s journey to independence is far from over, and the continent’s future will be determined by its ability to reject neo-colonial policies, diversify its alliances, and build structures that empower Africans rather than exploit them.
The upcoming US election is a call to action—a reminder that African leaders must rise above external pressures and craft policies that serve their people. Regardless of who wins, Africa’s true progress will come from within, led by a vision of unity, resilience, and independence.
Tags
Editorial