Introduction
Since the post-colonial era, Africa has always been at the crossroads of external influence and intervention-first at the hands of colonial powers and now between the competing geopolitical interests of Russia and the West. Both Russia and Western powers have tried to take the lead in the political, economic, and military spheres of influence in Africa with different methods and ideologies, though neither of them has set up systems capable of addressing what Africa actually needs. With the growing influence from Russia and long-standing ties with the West, there are competing ideologies and partnerships presenting themselves as solutions for the development of Africa. A close look, however, will reveal that both systems are forms of domination with their respective advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this article is to offer a comparative analysis of Russia’s and the West’s political ideologies and influence in Africa, while critically assessing the failures of both in terms of actual benefit to African countries. By examining Russia’s rising influence and contrasting it with Western powers’ traditional influence, this paper will show that both are forms of a new scramble for dominance in Africa. It will argue that despite the apparent advantages these foreign powers bring to the continent, Africa must shift away from reliance on either power to embrace a governance system rooted in its own identity and aspirations.
Russia’s Political Ideology and Influence in Africa
Russia’s political ideology is conservatism, nationalism, and authoritarianism, which attract most African leaders who yearn for robust, centralized governance and defense from the Western world’s interference (Prina, 2024; Lewis, 2020). Stated differently, this anti-Western discourse appeals to African nations marginalized by Western dominance and ideological imposition. Russia presents itself as a supporter of sovereignty and stability and portrays itself as an alternative to liberal democracy in the Western world (Fisher, 2014; Składanowski, 2024). This anti-Western discourse appeals to African nations marginalized by Western dominance and ideological imposition, and Russia presents itself as a champion of national sovereignty, often promoting the non-interference in sovereign states’ domestic affairs.
Russian presence in Africa has grown tremendously over the past decade, largely attributed to its diplomatic efforts, military engagement, and economic collaboration (Ferragamo, 2023). Russian President Vladimir Putin’s African Strategy prioritizes the strengthening of relations with African nations based on high-level political engagements, trade agreements, and soft power diplomacy. Russia’s influence is particularly felt in nations such as Mali, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic (CAR), and Niger, where Moscow has built friendly relations with governments in return for political backing and military collaboration.
Russian African diplomacy is predicated upon the establishment of a multipolar world in which African countries can interact with outsider powers free of Western hegemony. Moscow has frequently positioned itself as a considerate partner of African sovereignty and defender of non-interference. Russia has sought to position itself through institutions such as the Russia-Africa Summit as a valid diplomatic alternative to the West, in which African leaders can pursue partnerships free from political concessions of their autonomy.
Russia has utilized military intervention to secure its position in key African nations. It has offered military aid to a variety of African governments that are facing domestic conflict, ranging from arms supplies and military advisers to private military firms, most recently via the Wagner Group. In the Sahel, where Russian soldiers have been stationed, it has not only supported local security forces but also gained access to strategic resources, mainly minerals. Though presented as a way of enabling peace and stability, such military presence cements Russia’s geopolitical sway at the expense of African agency.
Russia’s economic cooperation with Africa targets energy, mining, and infrastructure development. Moscow offers preferential terms of trade, sales of arms, and investment in the extraction of resources, especially in countries with natural resource reserves of gold, diamonds, and oil. Whereas Russia offers to develop African economies, its entrance is generally extractive in kind, with gains accruing disproportionately to Russian business and the host countries’ ruling elites, but not to the broader citizenry. This kind of economic engagement replaces colonial-type exploitation but in a new form.
The West’s Political Ideology and Influence in Africa
The West, primarily led by the United States, the European Union, and former colonial powers like the UK and France, promotes liberal democracy, free markets, and human rights (Börzel, 2024; Stivachtis, 2015). These ideals have long been touted as the pathway to development, stability, and prosperity. Western political ideology advocates for multiparty systems, individual freedoms, and international cooperation (Pickel & Pickel, 2023). However, this liberal ideology often comes with conditions tied to foreign aid, economic restructuring, and political reforms that many African governments view as impositions rather than solutions (Oduor, 2019).
The West has maintained a long-standing influence in Africa through its historical ties, economic investments, and diplomatic engagement. Many African countries have adopted Western-style democratic governance models, with varying degrees of success (Edor, 2024). The West continues to exert its influence through institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which shape African economies through loans, grants, and policy recommendations. However, these relationships are often criticized for leading to economic dependency, debt traps, and the erosion of local governance structures.
Western diplomacy in Africa focuses on promoting democratic governance, human rights, and economic liberalization. While these ideals are touted as beneficial, they often come at a price: African countries must adhere to Western-defined standards of democracy and governance in exchange for financial and political support. Additionally, Western powers have been criticized for selectively intervening in African conflicts based on strategic interests, often using peacekeeping and humanitarian missions as a means to further their influence.
Western powers have historically maintained a strong military presence in Africa, with the United States operating military bases in key locations, such as Djibouti, and the European Union intervening in conflicts like those in Mali and the Central African Republic. While these interventions are presented as efforts to stabilize the continent and combat terrorism, they often lead to prolonged military engagements, instability, and a lack of genuine long-term solutions. Critics argue that these interventions primarily serve Western interests, including access to resources and the containment of extremist groups, rather than addressing the root causes of conflict.
Western economic partnerships in Africa have been dominated by multinational corporations and international financial institutions, which often prioritize access to Africa’s natural resources and the implementation of market-driven reforms. Western countries push for the liberalization of African economies, often at the expense of local industries and social welfare. The conditions attached to Western aid, such as austerity measures and privatization, have been linked to increased inequality and social unrest in many African nations. While Western powers invest heavily in infrastructure and development projects, these efforts frequently benefit foreign corporations rather than local communities.
Conclusion
A comparison between Russia and the West in their political ideologies in influencing Africa indeed proves that what is involved herein is a modern-day scramble for dominance by both powers in the continent. Meanwhile, Russia’s rise presents only something of an alternative to hegemony from the West; for Africa’s real solution to underdevelopment and authentic needs, the offer is further dependency. On the other hand, the influence from the West has been reproached with longtime exploitation, political interference, and attached strings in aid that eventually deprives Africa of its autonomy. Both systems have major flaws in undermining sovereignty, creating dependencies, and limiting Africa’s own scope to control its future, notwithstanding their advantages in terms of security partnerships or economic investments.
It is time for Africa leaders to finally look into the independent charting of Africa, devoid of the dominance of these external powers and building on governance systems that have their roots in unique history, culture, and values. To put it bluntly, this is an opportune time when Africa must regain its agency, nurture political systems that reflect the existential needs of its people and aim at real self-determination against what has been a playground for various global powers eyeing its control. The future of Africa relates to the ability of the continent to break free from foreign influences and take up an Afro-centric vision for governance. Africa, going forward, is likely to be shaped by a combination of geopolitical shifts, economic interests, and Africa’s own emerging power dynamics. The continent’s vast resources, strategic position, and growing markets make it a critical battleground for influence between Eastern powers (particularly China and Russia) and Western powers (such as the United States and the European Union).
The Africa Union needs to take a commanding lead in developing the structures that would allow its constituent countries to grow economically, politically and more autonomous in shaping their own future. As Africa continues to grow and modernize, its ability to assert itself in global affairs will increase, forcing both Eastern and Western powers to adapt to an Africa that is no longer content to remain a passive player in international geopolitics. This is a position that the AU, Ecowas and all other regional bodies must push with renewed intensity.
Reference
Börzel, T. A. (2024). Regionalism and liberal nationalism in the European Union. A Sui Generis? Journal of European Public Policy, 31(10), 3421–3442. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2024.2321987
Edor, M (2024). Navigating Democracy: Perspectives on Western-Style Democracy in Africa(2024). Theses and Dissertations. 1904. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd/1904
Ferragamo, M. (2023). Russia. Retrieved February 11, 2025, from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/russias-growing-footprint-africa
Fisher, S (2014). Sovereign democracy : Russia’s response to the color revolutions. College of Arts & Sciences Senior Theses. Paper 90.
http://doi.org/10.18297/honors/90
Lewis, D. (2020). Russia’s New Authoritarianism: Putin and the Politics of Order. Edinburgh University Press.
Oduor, R. M. J. (2019). Liberal democracy: An African critique. South African Journal of Philosophy, 38(1), 108-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2019.1583882
Pickel, S., & Pickel, G. (2023). Political Values and Religion: A Comparison Between Western and Eastern Europe. Philosophy and Politics – Critical Explorations, 157-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31364-6_5
Prina, F. (2024). Fantasies of cultural sovereignty and national unity: Russia?s ontological (in)security and its assertion of spiritual-moral values??. International Politics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00600-w
Składanowski, M. (2024). Russian Criticism of Western Liberal Democracy: A Security Perspective. Studia Rossica Gedanensia, (11), 275-285. https://doi.org/10.26881/srg.2024.11.13
Stivachtis, Y. A. (2015). Liberal democracy, market economy, and international conduct as standards of ‘civilization’ in contemporary international society: The case of Russia. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 6(2), 130-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2015.04.001
