Somewhere in Europe is a room filled with some of the most quietly powerful people in the world. They sit and watch each other “debate” the future and fate of Africa. It sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
The 10th edition of Invest Africa’s Africa Debate took place in June in London’s Guildhall (an interesting choice considering significance to the slave trade), aiming to discuss Africa’s ‘global role’. Panellists and speakers included Akinwumi Adesina, the head of the African Development Bank; Diana Layfield, chair of British International Investment; Andrew Mitchell, the (then) Deputy Foreign Secretary; and A-list actor Idris Elba. Hands were flinging business cards here and there, being shaken left and right, and the “debate” rolled on with numbers being thrown out. One cannot help but wonder what exactly is up for discussion? Why is some sort of conglomerate of Africa up for debate, and why is its inclusion in the global conversation something that investors need to be convinced of? Have I travelled in time to 1884 Berlin? Is history repeating itself?
The self-professed aim of the conference was to figure out “how to do Africa”, according to the Executive Director of Africa Finance Corporation. He cited some of the continent’s “seven wonders” including its ability to solve global food scarcity, minerals, huge markets, manufacturing capacities, and workers. The point which underpinned every discussion was to convince investors that Africa is the world’s “salvation…not just the solution”, and that it is now “up to the Great Powers…to wake up” to this salvation. However, the general conclusions of the Debate highlighted a few preconditions before investors begin to swoop in. These include the need for stable governments, the harnessing of Africa’s agricultural power under its climate, and by using Morocco as their way into Africa’s economy.
It’s true, the vastness of what Africa has to offer sparks hope, but the conversation surrounding the continent and its resources tends to do the opposite. The tone of the Africa Debate seemed to be sizing up not only Africa’s natural resources as assets, but its people too. The set of statistics that were most emphasised concerned Africa’s population. The current population is exceptionally young (averaging 18-19 years old), and is projected to grow to one billion people within the next 25 years. Yet, around these discussions of populations, there was no mention of literacy levels or promoting investment in education, and not one notable mention of working with young Africans. Instead, any mention of people was lumped into the same listing of numbers that came with mention of minerals, dollars, and acres of land.
The Debate suffered from the fallacy that Africa is only now rising, almost as if it has been ‘discovered’ again. During the Debate, Africa was referred to as a ‘child’ and a ‘wonderkid’. So many speakers took on this old and colonialist voice that the African panellists were forced to repeat the most rudimentary things time and time again, for example that Africa is not one country or a monolith.
Other concerning tropes were present throughout the Debate. One of Invest Africa’s executives claimed that, and I paraphrase to maintain anonymity, Africa was more resilient than other continents in the face of adversity. Such language forces Africa into tropes like the ‘Strong Black Woman’ schema, often ending in indifference to Black suffering. Adversity is hardly the sort of word to describe the legacy of empire. Most speakers made no mention of this legacy or even of the presence and risks of neo-colonialism. In the quiet, corporate conversations taking place in Guildhall, it was clear that history was reinventing itself.
The terms used to characterise the African continent in conversations about development and investment are part of the same old tropes, rooted in slavery, that were used to characterise Africa as a beneficiary of colonialism and the “White Man’s Burden”. Western speakers often seem to be torn between drawing on the aforementioned ‘Strong Black’ schema and a condescending infantilisation of Africa and Africans. Though the ‘Strong Black’ schema will at first seem like a positive one, it disguises its historical use of outlining the model of the perfect slave. Characterising Black people as inhumanly resilient and indestructible, the schema gave a “justification”, or “permission” for the unimaginable abuse of Black slaves. The “Strong Black Woman” schema in particular was used by slave-owners to emphasise a supposed “baseness of Black women”’ as opposed to the “femininity” and fragility of White women.
So, while the “Strong Black” schema has recently been used for the sake of empowerment, it has often affected the ability of Black people to show the weakness that White people are allowed to, leading to dehumanisation and isolation, as well as perpetuating systemic issues such as lack of access to healthcare. At the Africa Debate, as tends to be the case in discussions about Africa and its global role, the characterisation of Africans and Africa as resilient saviours, especially from mouths of White speakers, was concerning. If Africans are so endlessly resilient, the West and potential investors might think to themselves, won’t they carry on taking our exploitation and intervention? If Africans will be our saviours, they best get to work: we’re tired and bored of all these conventions and summits. Africa is not endlessly resilient to Western exploitation, and these nations, many less than a century old and still shaking off the shackles of imperialism, need the right kind of support.
Idris Elba’s suggestions for investment in Africa during his conversation with Zeinab Badawi were an encouraging moment in the otherwise troubling Debate. While others focused on convincing extra-regional investors that Africa isn’t as risky as they fear, Elba noted that the focus should be on encouraging Africans to trust each other, borrow from each other, and invest in each other, using Morocco as an example. Morocco is the second-largest investor in Africa, and the largest in West Africa. While others tried to justify the inclusion of Africa in its own conversation, Elba highlighted that the inclusion of Africa is already late. He pointed out the dangers of Africa becoming so open to extra-regional investors include that it might be “pulled pillar to post again” and that to avoid this, African people must be at the centre of investment and do business amongst themselves instead of looking outwards.
But should looking outwards for investment always be discouraged? Many African countries definitely haven’t refrained from it so far. China is Africa’s largest trading partner. This year, 20% of Sub-Saharan Africa’s exports go to China, and 16% of its imports come from there. African statesmen tend to receive China’s investment in the continent positively, the former President of South Africa, Zuma, has called it a “win-win” situation. Brazil, a nation where over half of the population identifies as Afro-descendants, is also reestablishing its close partnership with African countries, Brazil’s president Lula met the African Union last February. Brazil has established its intention to help African countries fight food insecurity by sharing its tropical agricultural know-how, developing educational programmes in Africa, as well as collaborating on climate, the health sector, and so on.
Meanwhile, a number of countries are abandoning the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), an institution often accused of being a tool of French influence and intervention. Conversations about the introduction of the eco (a proposed West African shared currency) have ground to a halt. African countries seem to be turning away from the West, and if it continues to seek foreign investment, this might be the best way forward for the foreseeable future. Africa’s collaboration with the Global South seems to be more of a partnership than paternalism. China’s investment in Africa comes with serious risks including indebtedness and labour importation. However, the number of imported Chinese workers has been falling in recent years, and the concern surrounding “debt-trapping” is often condescending and denies African countries their autonomy.
In the meantime, the infrastructure being built is actually facilitating internal trading in Africa as well as regional connectivity. By cultivating these partnerships with the Global South, African countries are able to gradually cut ties with their former colonisers and move forward while the West is still only just beginning to dare to consider Africa as a genuine peer.
As Elba suggested, future investors in Africa, both from the West and elsewhere, must let go of their desperation for quick returns, and instead must focus on the “long game”. Elba reiterated that the people he hopes to be benefitting with his investments are currently five to seven years old. It is with this thinking that investors could better support African economies. Elba’s projects in Sierra Leone are promising, looking at ways in which African countries can harness their own soft power, and empower themselves in doing so. When someone says “Sierra Leone” their mind shouldn’t go straight to Blood Diamond. Elba insists that even with just a single film, Sierra Leone could completely change its own narrative. Alongside this focus on soft power he also encourages the promotion of “modernisation” through data collection to attract investors, as well as fuel their own ability to grow and become “future-proof”.
Though many investors are having the wrong kind of conversation, it is not wrong to be looking towards African countries to invest. However, Africans must prioritise working with each other first and foremost before welcoming non-African investors, especially those from the West. Governments must work towards a unified African currency that has no ties to Western treasuries, and is managed by Africans and only Africans. When African nations do decide to welcome foreign investment again, their counterparts in the Global South should be considered first, before the West, as they continue to move away from their former colonisers.
Yet, due to the youth of most African nations and the ongoing legacy of imperialism, non-African support should be offered. To offer positive support, the West must stop trying to isolate Africa by offsetting the involvement of the Global South’s replacement of the West, but instead must be willing to offer help on better terms than the Global South does. The West must first step back; and then focus on collaboration and cooperation with African countries, as those like UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy have suggested. The West must stop considering themselves donors or benefactors when, in reality, they have little to offer in compassion, ideas, and money. Non-African investors must be intentional, humble, and maybe even have a degree of reservation, not for fear of investing in Africa but because they are conscious that although Africa might have the answers to multiple global crises, it should be Africans who are leading the charge. Yes, we can look to Africa, and it is work and investment strategies like Elba’s which are turning heads.
Disclaimer: All unattributed quotes spoken live at conference, witnessed by author.