Op-eds like this are useful for many reasons. They reveal the defects of U.S. and Western policy toward and opinion-making about Africa, including the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that defines it.
I'll talk about some of those issues in a #thread 🧵
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/…
I'll talk about some of those issues in a #thread 🧵
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/…
To begin with, consider this op-ed to be more or less the logic behind the Biden administration's embrace of the result of Nigeria's presidential election. The Washington Post is the unofficial bible of elite Beltway opinion. Its editorial board is authoritative in that regard.
The op-ed neatly lays out the low bar for what Western opinion considers to be "free and fair elections" in African countries. Essentially any outcome short of civil war is acceptable. My goodness, it's right there in the first paragraph! WaPo did not bury the lede one bit. 
The op-ed's authors justify their endorsement of the Nigerian elections by pointing to their validation by "most international observers." Leaving aside that said observers are far from disinterested parties, their record of endorsing shabby elections across Africa is extensive.
It helps to think of the bar for the quality of African elections as coterminous with the World Bank's international poverty line of $2.15 a day.
They are different branches of the same tree that produces a failure of imagination as well as a moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
They are different branches of the same tree that produces a failure of imagination as well as a moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Therein lies the incoherence of the "good governance" agenda the U.S. and its European allies push in Africa, something I've written a lot about. Essentially, African countries can elect their way to stability and prosperity if they just keep at it. Again, WaPo said it out loud.
The other thing here is how the WaPo editorial board came close to getting the point.
WaPo, like many other U.S. media outlets, has in recent years published tomes about "Russia in Africa." But literally all these African regimes are existing or former Western security partners.
WaPo, like many other U.S. media outlets, has in recent years published tomes about "Russia in Africa." But literally all these African regimes are existing or former Western security partners.
It rarely occurs to U.S./Western commentators and governments who go on about "Russian disinformation in Africa" or whatever that corrupt, repressive Western-backed rulers who rise to and retain power via sham "elections" do so much to create the circumstances Russia exploits.
There is a logic to all of this that is underpinned by geopolitics. Nigeria is of course Africa's most populous country. The U.S. has little interest in its affairs, but fears the growing influence of China and Russia there and across Africa more broadly. That creates a quandary.
The U.S. sees Nigeria and West Africa as mainly the U.K.'s and Europe's headache. It prizes the form of a contrived "stability" over the substance of cohesion. At the same time, Washington needs to be in the business of "democracy promotion" and lecturing about "good governance."
The WaPo op-ed is an insight into how the U.S.—and its European allies—tries to split the difference between rhetoric and reality as far as Africa goes. The bare-minimumism is a feature not a bug. Long as African states clear a bar that was set decidedly low, it's all gravy. #END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
