The outcome of the US presidential election affects every part of the globe. But historically, they haven’t mattered as much in Africa, where there has mostly been a bipartisan policy agreement in Washington. Washington’s basic strategy for the continent has mostly stayed the same from one administration to the next. 

The US approach to Africa since the Clinton administration has largely consisted of signature development programs, aspirational rhetoric about democracy and human rights, and ever-expanding security partnerships that have maintained, if not increased, ties to the continent. But in a slew of international and American shocks, including the Covid-19 epidemic, the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, the George Floyd demonstrations, and the January 6 uprising, Africa now views the US quite differently. 

Shifts in trade policies and economic partnerships

Meanwhile, even long-standing areas of bipartisan consensus, like Africa policy, are being undermined by the profound and increasing political division in the United States. Because of this, how November’s elections turn out will undoubtedly alter how people perceive Washington and may have an impact on some policy issues that are significant to Africa and may have long-term effects on American credibility there. Africans are far more optimistic now about the prospects for them under any future US government. 

Africans had not felt that the person holding the White House would significantly impact their well-being since Barack Obama’s election. But the idea that an African-American president would somehow fundamentally increase Africa’s significance in Washington was quickly dashed by the Obama administration.  It stuck close to the traditional line when it came to Africa, complaining about democracy and human rights while simultaneously pursuing national security objectives that frequently went against the continent’s professed values. 

US security and counterterrorism strategies in Africa

The 2011 overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi by the United States, whose destructive effects are still felt throughout the continent, serves as a modern reminder of the continued disconnect between the aggressive pursuit of Washington’s core interests in Africa and the promotion of US values. The Biden administration has pledged to increase the representation of African Americans in international organizations and decision-making processes, but the White House has not lived up to its rhetoric. 

Two years after Biden originally consented to it, Africans are still without a seat on the UN Security Council, and the US. Their approach to climate change, development financing, and great power competition all seem to continue to benefit the Global North. Its history of overpromising and underdelivering has only served to solidify the perception that Washington is an innately untrustworthy and often even hypocritical partner. Throughout their campaigns, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have made no effort to convey to Africans that their administrations will be significantly different from the previous ones.

African diaspora’s role in US political influence

Its history of overpromising and underdelivering has only served to solidify the perception that Washington is an innately untrustworthy and often even hypocritical partner. Throughout their campaigns, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have made no effort to convey to Africans that their administrations will be significantly different from the previous ones. Over the past ten years, Africans have aggressively shifted their political, economic, and security alliances away from Washington, occasionally at odds with American objectives. 

China is now Africa’s biggest trading and investment partner, while nations like Russia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates are increasingly being chosen by African nations seeking unrestricted military support as their preferred security allies. In addition to lessening the impact of any one presidential election on the continent, this safeguard against US unreliability also makes it more challenging for any incoming government to strengthen connections with Africa.

Human rights and governance priorities

The likelihood that a Trump or Harris government will have drastically different policies indicates that both sides have strong opinions about how the United States should interact with or treat Africa. But it isn’t true at all. Macroeconomically speaking, Africa can anticipate significant continuity in Washington’s underlying policy approach, with a few significant development and humanitarian initiatives but nothing that fundamentally alters the US’s current mode of operation or how it prioritizes Africa to other countries. 

Remarkably, the African public does not seem to have been as excited by the thought of a second American president of African ancestry. As they were during Obama’s campaign, perhaps because most of them have now learned to lower their expectations from American politicians. More importantly, perhaps unlike during his first term in office, to the dismay of many on the continent, the Trump team has learned to portray Africa’s position as an inherent strength rather than just a smaller player in the US’s larger geopolitical struggle with China or Russia. The more important question for any prospective Trump administration after this one is whether he can keep emphasizing how important Africa is to American strategic interests or if he will return to the insensitive cliches that characterized his first year in office.