Both Western and Chinese engagement in Africa is fraught with accusations of debt traps and influence peddling. For Africa to thrive, it needs to take its agency into its own hands and use these two alternatives to insist on programmes that work for Africans, writes Abdirashid Fidow.

Even in the post-colonial period, the Western world has been deeply involved in Africa’s affairs, ostensibly with the intention of fostering development, stability, and good governance across the continent. However, a growing chorus of critics argues that this involvement has done little to improve governance or uplift the lives of ordinary Africans. Instead, it has often indirectly encouraged cycles of corruption, dependency, and stagnation.

In recent decades, China has emerged as a significant player in Africa, presenting an alternative model of engagement. Characterised by large-scale infrastructure projects, resource-driven investments, and a policy of non-interference in domestic affairs, China’s presence has been welcomed by many African leaders as a new path to development. However, this growing influence has also sparked concerns about debt sustainability, environmental impact, and the support of authoritarian regimes. While China’s involvement is often seen as pragmatic and mutually beneficial, questions remain about whether this approach truly offers a better pathway for African development or simply perpetuates new forms of dependency.

Western and Chinese engagement

The current system of Western engagement with Africa is fundamentally flawed. Rather than holding African governments accountable for corruption and poor governance, Western nations often maintain the status quo, allowing aid to flow without ensuring tangible improvements in governance or living conditions. This creates a system where bad behaviour is rewarded as long as regimes align with Western interests, often at the expense of democracy and the well-being of citizens.

Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni has long received substantial Western support despite allegations of human rights abuses and authoritarianism. This backing, driven by regional stability and counterterrorism concerns, shields his government from accountability while Uganda suffers from economic hardship and democratic backsliding.

Countries with significant Chinese investment are not faring much better. In Zambia, while Western aid has focused on reforms, Chinese investments in mining have led to unsustainable national debt.

Nigeria—Africa’s largest economy—continues to struggle with governance and corruption despite receiving substantial Western aid. Meanwhile, Chinese investment in oil has done little to improve infrastructure or living standards for ordinary Nigerians, fostering economic dependency rather than sustainable development.

Is China any different?

China’s involvement in Africa is often seen as more pragmatic and results-oriented. China’s investments in infrastructure, mining, and other sectors are typically framed as mutually beneficial, offering gains for both China and the host countries. However, China’s approach comes with its own shortcomings, notably debt dependency and environmental degradation, even as it is viewed as a driver of economic development in Africa.

China’s “no political conditions attached” aid approach is attractive to African nations who have grown tired of Western demands for governance reforms in return for cash. This model appeals to governments that are reluctant to undergo structural changes. However, it also enables governance issues, as it avoids enforcing the kind of accountability measures that could promote long-term improvements. Like Western aid, it supports regimes with poor governance, albeit through a different mechanism.

China’s tendency to invest in countries with weak governance structures further supports the argument that Chinese aid can sustain authoritarian regimes. Research shows that China often invests heavily in nations that score poorly on the World Bank’s Rule of Law index. By investing in such environments, China may contribute to sustaining governments that do not prioritise democratic values or sustainable development.

The competition between China and Western donors offers African countries more options, but it can also dilute the effectiveness of aid conditionality. While having alternatives is beneficial, the availability of non-conditional aid from China can reduce Western donors’ leverage to push for governance reforms. This dynamic allows African leaders to choose less restrictive funding sources, potentially delaying essential governance changes.

African leaders have expressed appreciation for China’s role, as it provides immediate solutions to infrastructure needs without the governance conditions typically attached to Western aid. This model resonates with immediate priorities but also comes with long-term risks, such as debt dependency and limited improvements in governance. But these concerns echo the broader criticisms also levelled at Western aid.

The need for an overhaul

To make the Western approach to Africa more effective requires a fundamental overhaul. The current model, which rewards poor governance with continued aid, must be replaced with one that incentivises real improvements in governance, economic development, and living standards.

Western nations also need to hold African governments accountable when they fail to meet agreed benchmarks. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), for example, substantial Western aid has been directed at addressing humanitarian crises and conflict. Despite these interventions, the DRC continues to suffer from violence, governance problems, corruption, and exploitation of resources. Western aid has often failed to address systemic corruption.

Western donors should redirect aid when there is a lack of progress toward transparency and accountability. This would ensure that foreign aid and investment contribute to long-term, sustainable development rather than perpetuating the cycle of dependency and poor governance. There is often concern that if the West vacates a space, China will move in. However, change is possible.

South Africa, as one of Africa’s more developed economies, highlights the evolution of Western engagement. From anti-apartheid sanctions to post-apartheid development partnerships, Western aid has been instrumental in the country’s progress. More recently, China has emerged as a major economic partner, particularly in energy and infrastructure investments. South Africa serves as a case study of how foreign investment—whether from the West or China—can drive development while raising concerns about sustainability, governance, and accountability.

African agency

Africa’s future depends not only on external assistance but, more importantly, on the accountability and vision of its own leaders. For real progress, African governments need to prioritise eliminating corruption and fostering governance that serves the best interests of their citizens. This means navigating the competing influences of foreign powers thoughtfully and on their own terms.

The West’s approach to Africa requires a genuine overhaul, but the question remains as to what will replace it. Pursuing governance and accountability can sometimes appear to open the door to influence from former colonial powers, which many nations are understandably wary of. This has led Western governments, still sensitive to their colonial legacies, to approach reform with caution—often failing to confront corruption and drive meaningful development. The result is a cycle of underdevelopment and exploitation that Africa must finally break free from.

Meanwhile, China must also step up as a responsible global player. Though its investments have provided much-needed infrastructure, they often come with heavy financial strings attached. It’s time for China to acknowledge that its hands-off policy comes with real costs for African citizens, who often shoulder the burden of debt while authoritarian leaders benefit disproportionately.

Africa’s path forward is complex, but it’s clear that both the West and China have roles to play. Neither, however, holds the key to unlocking the continent’s true potential. That lies in the hands of Africa’s own leaders and civil societies. By embracing transparency, championing good governance, and prioritising the well-being of their people, African nations can build partnerships that truly serve their long-term interests. Africa doesn’t need to choose sides; it needs to define the terms of its own progress. By doing so, it can shape a future that benefits all Africans, rather than just a select few or the interests of foreign powers.

Photo credit: GovernmentZA used with permission CC BY-ND 2.0