A New Dispensation of African Leadership

A NEW DISPENSATION OF AFRICAN LEADERSHIP: THINKING BEYOND POLITICAL DECOLONISATION
Despite several years of decolonisation in Africa, parts of the continent are still enmeshed in neocolonialism, imperialism, and other forms of subtle colonial control. And I think that part of the reason for this is that, while previous attempts have interrogated the subject matter, emphasis has often been placed (almost exclusively) on the political aspect of decolonisation (specifically looking at gaining independence of the political order – which (make no mistake) is certainly important. However, with this (almost exclusive) focus on the political aspect of decolonisation, African countries have been missing crucial aspects of the neocolonial paradigm. For instance, neocolonialism does not primarily manifest in the form of nation states attempting to take over the territory and political systems of others, rather, it is largely orchestrated through international organisations and philanthro-capitalism – both of which come under the pretence of offering aid to respective African and Asian nations.
In fact, this should bring to mind what Professor Patrick Lumumba highlighted in his keynote address at the International Conference on Africa’s Democracy 2025, this past month of July, which is that neo-colonialism poses a threat far greater than colonisation itself, because this time around the colonial actors are faced with desperation. And so, in the post colonial and post WWII era, neocolonists created international organisations that technically respect the provisions of laws and treaties that demand a respect for human rights and sovereignty in Africa, BUT that simultaneously create a legal justification for plunder.
Immediately, you could think of the Bretton Woods institutions, and their structural adjustment programmes that threaten the sovereignty of national economies because they allow an outside organisation to dictate a nation’s economic policy. By minimising a government’s ability to organise and regulate its internal economy, pathways are also then created for multinational companies to enter states and extract resources in Africa. Furthermore, upon independence from colonial rule, many nations that took on foreign debt were unable to repay it, because they were limited to production and exportation of cash crops, and also restricted from control of their own more valuable natural resources (such as oil, rare earth minerals) by SAP free-trade and low-regulation requirements.
And so, clearly, in the neocolonial paradigm, it is NOT just political systems that are captured with the intention to form a satellite state that is some form of extension of the colonial one – in the way that Australia and Canada were the extension of the British Empire, or in the way that Congo was supposed to be the extension of Belgium. Rather, in the neocolonial paradigm, economic policies and inclinations are also of great interest to those who wish to continue the subjugation of African (and Asian, and South America) countries. And this is rooted in the need to destroy the people of these nations, while looting their wealth. And so, herein lies one of the crucial markers of the new dispensation of African leadership. This is leadership that is not exclusively interested in having political power (as symbolic and systematic proof of decolonial efforts in their respective nations). Rather, the new dispensation of African leadership understands that those who profit from your destruction do not have a vested interest in your upliftment, and that there is a need to decrease dependence on international organisations. Afterall, Africa is the new world, with hardworking people.
So, who then are these African leaders, at the fore of this strategic new dispensation of leadership? And to begin with, let’s talk about recent developments from Ibrahim Traore in Burkina Faso. On the 22nd of August, Burkina Faso halted a Bill Gates-backed project that had seen genetically modified mosquitoes released in a claimed bid to eradicate malaria and other insect-borne diseases.
Target Malaria, which is an organisation funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is the latest NGO to come under pressure from the Ibrahim Traore-led administration. In a communique, it was ordered to stop “all activities”. This is said to be in part related to the verdict on the works produced by an organisation with a similar focus. In particular, the Gates foundation funded Oxitec, which is a British biotechnology company to the tune of $41 million to create Genetically Modified Mosquitoes, which Gates and his cohorts claim will end Malaria. HOWEVER, the verdict is that many health experts actually refer to Gates’ mosquitoes as “flying syringes,” explaining that the hidden aim of these mosquitoes is to secretly vaccinate the general population with dangerous vaccines that would induce sterility in both males and females without them knowing it, which the people ordinarily would not accept in a traditional sense – so women become barren and men go impotent – and that’s just one of the potential risks associated with these mosquitoes.
Now, the Traore administration’s response is not reflective of the usual position that African countries take towards what are said to be generous, philanthropic pursuits that seek to alleviate problems like Malaria in their respective nations. But, clearly the leadership in Burkina Faso is suspect of the colonial inclinations – not only of nations like France – but also of philanthro-capitalists like Bill Gates – and necessarily so, because first, Gates’s billions have not been intended at generously solving problems, rather, they have purchased a stunning level of control over public policy, private markets, scientific research, and the news media. Whether he is pushing new educational standards in America, health reforms in India, global vaccine policy during the pandemic, or Western industrialised agriculture throughout Africa, Gates’s heady social experimentation has shown itself to be not only undemocratic, but ultimately aimed at purchasing influence and power more than anything else.
On an international scale, this is perhaps exemplified in the relationship between Bill Gates and the WHO. RFK Jr, the Secretary of the US Department of HHS explained that Bill Gates gets tax deductions for giving money to the WHO, while he gains control of the WHO. Meanwhile, the WHO finances the health ministries in virtually every country in Africa, so Bill Gates can establish conditions for receiving that money, which can translate into the WHO transferring those conditions on nations. These conditions could also include conditionalising the receipt of funding on the vaccination numbers and status of the country. On top of that, the vaccines that countries are buying are owned by companies that Gates owns or has shares in. Therefore, at the end, the punchline on almost all of his philanthropic projects is that he ends up making money.
Secondly, Bill Gates actually does not have the good reputation and track-record that many assume he does! In essence, the claim of vaccine efficacy AND SAFETY (which has been the bane of Bill Gate’s push for vaccines) is actually not based on proven studies. Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome has asked for those studies. RFK Jr has ALSO asked for those studies, in fact, with the polio vaccine and the DTP vaccine, both Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome and RFK Jr respectively proved that the safety of vaccines is always alleged, and not based on scientific evidence!
For instance, with the DTP vaccine (that is the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine) Bill Gates asked the Danish government to support the program behind DTP vaccines, and said it saved 30 million lives. The Danish government asked Gates to show them the data. But, he interestingly was not able to. So the Danish government came to the African continent and did their own studies, in which they looked at 30 years of DTP data. [PAUSE] What they found shocked them: they found that girls who got the DTP were dying at 10 times the rate of unvaccinated girls. So, did Bill Gates not know this? Where were the 30 million lives saved? Or could it be that he maybe did have studies but studies that only looked at short term effects, below the 30 year mark? Well, irrespective: this proves that the data that Bill Gates tried to use as a selling point to the Danish government was false. The safety of the DTP vaccine was alleged, and therefore, the benefits were perceived at best.
This is crucial to note because it tells that – similarly – Bill Gate’s reputation and track record of doing good and alleviating health problems is alleged at best. It only appears factually accurate because it is repeated by his cohort, while truth was buried for the longest time.
Again, crucial to note is that this sterilisation project was tested in an African country, being Kenya. Which highlights (once again) why it is crucial that the Traore administration has rejected a similar effort in their country. But, of course, to the outside, ultra liberal world, Traore’s administration is a violent military government that poses a threat to democracy – especially since his administration began with a coup.
COUPS IN AFRICA ARE SEEMINGLY A RESPONSE TO CORRUPT, WESTERN-INSTITUTED GOVERNMENTS
But, important to take note of concerning Western instituted coups is that the figures who subsequently gained power were often figures friendly to the Western nations and their agenda – meaning these were people, who had no genuine and plausible aspiration to serve the people they were meant to lead in their respective country – or perhaps lost that aspiration once they were bombarded by the agenda set for them by the West.
Let’s take Gabon as a notable example. As you would recall, on the heels of a military takeover in Niger in 2023, a group of senior Gabonese military officers announced on national television they were seizing power in the central African nation, overturning results in a disputed presidential election. But, Before his removal in a military coup, Gabon’s hopelessly corrupt President Ali Bongo was courted by Obama and feted from Washington to Davos.
For half a century, the Bongo family ruled the resource-rich country but has been recently accused of abusing power and amassing exorbitant wealth. Military officials called themselves the “Committee of the Transition and the Restoration of Institutions” and said that “irresponsible, unpredictable governance” has led to a collapse in social cohesion. But, of course, president Bongo’s arrest was met with indignant condemnations from Washington and Paris, which had propped him up as he pillaged his country’s vast oil wealth. BUT…his ouster represented a particularly sharp rebuke of former President Barack Obama, who groomed the Gabonese autocrat as one of his closest allies on the continent, and leaned on him for diplomatic support as he waged a war on Libya that unleashed terror and instability across the region. And so, the US war on Libya which destabilised the region may not have succeeded without him.
Ultimately, so close was the bond between Obama and Bongo that Foreign Policy branded the Gabonese leader, “Obama’s Man in Africa.” With Obama’s help, Bongo attempted to fashion himself as a reformist moderniser. He travelled repeatedly to Davos, Switzerland to attend the World Economic Forum, where was appointed an “Agenda Contributor.” There, he pledged to accelerate the Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa by implementing lucrative digital identification and payment systems among his country’s heavily impoverished population. And so, this exposes that so-called civilian led governments (that are said to be a contrast of military governments) are not always plausible – especially where they are infiltrated by external influences. And so, Traore is a military leader, who came in through a coup (as it was in Gabon) – BUT he is exactly what his people desired.
AFRICAN LEADERS NEED TO CEASE TO PRIORITISE FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT
Now, while we see certain leaders at the forefront of prioritising the best interests of their people, we also need to consider how we standardise this calibre of African leadership. I would argue that we ought to begin with eradicating a dependent and almost beggarly attitude in some African leaders, especially because some African leaders have relied on an interpretation of national wealth that prizes foreign direct investment and high dollar reserves, or an IMF and World Bank validated fiscal and monetary policy. All of these things do not amount to wealth, and an increase in the standard of living of their people. What they are tools for the creation of perpetually defendant economies that are hamstrung by the dictates of lenders.
For instance, in April this year, the South African president expressed that foreign direct investment is the means through which to curb unemployment. Not the development of local industries, not increased support for small and medium enterprises, not even an increased government investment into technical and vocational education, which gives people practicals skills that they can use to find early employment or even begin their own business – which would also serve a catalyst to liberate the South African work economy from regarding a university degree as an important prerequisite for employment (despite formal education doing little to prepare people for work). But, yes, despite all of these more reliable measures, the South African president says that foreign direct investment is necessary for more job creation.
By the way, this narrative of key developments in the South African economy being hinged on foreign direct investment was once again rehashed after the meeting with members of the Trump administration at the White House. In what was concerningly viewed as a successful re-opening of trade relations with the US, in pursuit of FDI, the president of South Africa highlighted that not only is FDI allegedly needed, but that South Africa (and other nations) curate regulatory frameworks to attract foreign investors.
What is being missed by the South African presidency (and many other nations who uphold the FDI model for development), is that it is inherently predatory. The fact that nations have to restructure development plans and policies in order to attract foreign investors is equivalent to opening doors to a trojan horse. Which is why foreign direct investment culminates in the disenfranchisement of the people and business of the country! For instance, as opposed to merely increasing competition, FDI displaces local business because large foreign companies, with their economies of scale and access to global markets, often drive out local businesses that cannot compete. This ironically leads to job losses and a decline in local economic activity. Furthermore, FDI can lead to a concentration of economic power in the hands of foreign entities, potentially even undermining local economic development and reducing the ability of local actors to influence policy decisions – in fact, this is exemplified by the concession from the South African president in stating that they curated regulatory frameworks with the intention of attracting foreign investors (which means that domestic priorities become secondary to the appeasement of foreign investors).
This should not come across as a sound or sustainable plan for economic or industry development. Which brings us to the message from the President of Loveworld Inc. – which needs to be the new modus operandi for African leaders, and especially the president of South Africa.
AFRICAN LEADERS ALSO NEED TO EXTRICATE THEIR COUNTRIES FROM DIABOLICAL ORGANISATIONS
Secondly African countries need to extricate themselves from dangerous organisations and treaties – and the WHO is at the top of them. We mentioned earlier that the WHO has been sterilizing Kenyan women through vaccines, and the biggest sterilization happened when they brought what they termed as a “tetanus eradication vaccine”, where women were to be vaccinated to prevent the kids they will give birth to from getting tetanus – when in actual fact they were being rendered sterile. But, now, the people of Kenya have woken up to the evils of the WHO, and need to demand their government be removed from WHO associations.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso