What I Learned

After months of continuously producing reports and having only just now finished most of Africa, I have realized the world was perhaps too ambitious a target. But, having created a report for almost every country in the continent, I have already found the exercise priceless. The first and most obvious benefit was learning about the countless unique projects and ideologies within specific countries. For example, did you know Angola is undertaking a national green hydrogen project, or that Tanzania follows a form of socialism called "Ujamaa," which emphasizes balancing economic growth with social development? However, even greater than that, creating in-depth geopolitical reports for almost every African country one after another gave me insights into the region as a whole that individual country research, or even broader regional studies, could ever do. And, the most significant of these revelations was that “Africa” is suffering from a narrative deficit. 

Now, this take in and of itself isn’t anything revolutionary—scholars have for years warned against the effect of the media’s bias towards conflict and poverty when reporting on Africa, potentially costing the continent $4.2 billion in inflated interest payments annually. Some of the most recent articles on Africa to show up on the New York Times front page are “Trump’s Aid Cuts Hit the Hungry in a City of Shellfire and Starvation” and “Sudanese Paramilitary Group Declares Parallel Government as 400,000 Flee Offensive.” It would be remiss for a global newspaper to avoid shining a light on war and its miseries, but a problem begins when such content isn’t balanced by equal stories of success, without which readers are being trained to associate Africa with war, famine, and general governmental failure.

Prior to undertaking this project, I had told myself to be mindful of my likely implicit bias and took faith in my prior insight honed from specific international relations classes. Yet, still, I was truthfully surprised by the sheer quantity of impressive, successful democracies on the continent. Going into the process expecting at least 10 out of the 54 countries to have politically progressive regimes, I found almost half, if not more, of the countries had relatively successful governments (more than you could say, perhaps, about some western countries right now). Botswana, Tanzania, Zambia, Angola, Malawi, Senegal, and Somaliland (if you count it) are just a few to name, not including the heavyweights of South Africa, Ghana, and Kenya. In perhaps any other region, these states would be taken as individual entities in their own right like, for example, Bangladesh or Argentina; yet, under the blurring, catch-all banner of “Africa,” they are considered exceptions rather than the norm. 

Because of the vast disparity in these narratives, rather than just considering this bias a mere perception to overcome, the dependence on the term “Africa” has surpassed its usefulness, and it may need to be abandoned altogether in favor of more fresh, regional terms. To prioritize rhetoric that lumps together 54 countries spanning distinct geographies, languages, and religions is doing more harm than good, especially when the term has been and continues to be saturated with negative perceptions. In a time and world where perhaps what matters most to develop an economy is, unfortunately, a country’s international branding and ability to attract investment—two things which depend just as much on foreign actors as domestic policy, it may do better for countries like Senegal, Malawi, and Angola to build their own, distinct identities.

One way to argue this point is to say any attempt to emphasize a common “Asian” (including Central Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East, if you will) identity, path, or consensus is commonly considered illogical; however, perhaps a better comparison to make would be analyzing the establishment of a “Gulf” identity in the place of “Middle East.” Perhaps the only region to be as disparaged and connotated with war by western media is the Middle East, with common overtures to religious extremism, political authoritarianism, and general cultural backwardness. Here, again looking at recent NYT articles, the most prominent pieces covering the region are titled “Attack on Migrant Facility in Yemen Kills Dozens, Houthis and Aid Officials Say” and “Clashes Erupt on Outskirts of Syria’s Capital, Killing 12.” 

Yet, there is a noticeable difference between this section and the one on Africa. Alongside the similarly homogenous allusions to conflict, there are some articles titled “I Went to Dubai and Caught a Glimpse of the Future” and “Rich Gulf States Have Huge Ambitions. Will Extreme Heat Hold Them Back?” The key to the rhetorical divergence is one word: Gulf. The one shining light to cut through this choking narrative miasma surrounding articles tied to the “Middle East” is a very purposeful crafting and assertion of a distinct Gulf identity—one which positions itself within the regalia of opulence, wealth, and progress. 

Understanding foreign capital and investment would be essential to the development of their economies, and that capital would only flow to areas crowned “investable” by western financial institutions, countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have funneled money and effort into brand building. The main weapon in this war would be conferences and initiatives. Saudi Arabia is actively positioning and marketing itself as a driver of all things future through its ambitious Vision 2030 as well as its extravagant yearly Future Investment Initiative. The UAE, for its part, is seeking to claim international media leadership among others with the launch of the BRIDGE conference, despite domestic media restrictions. The Gulf countries are not politically liberal and are sustained off of systems some liken to indentured servitude, yet they have “won” in the game of international marketing by separating themselves from the rest of the Middle East, and the payoff is massive. In just five years after Saudi Arabia began its Future Investment Initiative, the Kingdom’s FDI inflows grew from around $7.5 billion to $32.75 billion. 

Now, this discussion would be remiss to neglect the benefits and importance of Pan-Africanism to many on the continent. The ideology inspired a generation of political revolutionaries that channeled a shared experience of colonial subjugation to imagine a better, more just world. Its descendants, the African Union and African Continental Free Trade Area, certainly offer one vision for regional prosperity and collective strength in the face of external pressure. Yet, it may be beneficial for countries like Angola, Zambia, and Botswana to learn from the success of the Gulf and begin to craft a distinct Southern Africa narrative, or one based off the “Gold Coast” for Senegal.

Pan-Africanism will and should continue to inspire the next generation of cooperation on the continent, just as Gulf countries continue to pay homage to Pan-Islamism and Pan-Arabism. But, the overemphasis on “Africa” as a cohesive, and often negative, unit is overshadowing any country, submerging success stories, and continuing to limit the potential economic development of countries on the continent. It is important to demand and advocate for more balanced media representation of the region, but, even then, the emphasis on “the continent” loses countries in the blur. The emphasis on regional identities or state-led brand-building efforts may be just two of several options, but, regardless, states must learn to “exceptionalize” if they are to successfully court the capital needed for rapid economic development.