British Prime Minister Boris Johnson departs 10 Downing Street for Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) at the House of Commons in Central London, Britain, 29 January 2020. (Photo: EPA-EFE/WILL OLIVER)

Given the shared history that many African countries have with the UK (where most of the wealth-sharing was done back in London) it would only be prudent for African countries to be cautious in approaching a new relationship.

There is no doubt that the UK needs allies as it moves towards a post-Brexit future. Last week’s UK-Africa Investment Summit was an opportunity for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to display his seductive prowess as he attempted to promote Britain’s competitive edge (over China, Germany and Russia) to the nations of Africa.

Accordingly, Johnson called the UK a great friend to the countries of Africa. He promoted the UK’s financial sector and universities and touted the new immigration system that would treat people the same regardless of where they come from. He claimed he believed that Africa is the future.

On past occasions, however, Johnson has used other words to refer to Africa. His remarkable change in diction suggests he may be hoping to accrue his own “cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies” as he has referred to the people of the Commonwealth. Or perhaps he expects “tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down his big white British taxpayer-funded bird” when he arrives in Africa.

Johnson’s comments clearly illustrate his attitude towards the continent, its countries and people. After a trip to Uganda in 2002, he wrote in a Spectator blog, “The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge anymore.”

Africa, beware of Boris Johnson.

As an African, and as someone who believes in the bright political, social and economic future of the continent, I am very wary of the relationship that the UK has in mind. Given the shared history that many African countries have with the UK (where most of the wealth-sharing was done back in London) it would only be prudent for African countries to be cautious in approaching a new relationship. Many Africans are fatigued of the tired colonial stereotypes of the “dark continent”, of a place filled with poverty and misery. Many, particularly the youth, want to prove to the world that Africa is exciting, developing, innovative and full of opportunity.

Alex Vines, director of Chatham House, suggested that the UK had an old-fashioned view of the continent, preferring international development over developing its commercial and diplomatic ties. But since the Brexit referendum, the UK has started reopening old and new embassies across the continent. It is redolent of desperation but also of a kind of institutional self-interest.

African countries only matter when Britain can benefit. The truth is that the UK has lagged behind in its trade with African countries at only $46-billion in 2019. African two-way trade with China, in the same year, was $208-billion.

Another potential concern is the ideology of Brexit. Many ideological Brexiteers have a particular vision for the world post-Brexit informed by beliefs that Britain is exceptional. Brexit, was for many an attempt for the UK to return to its “golden” past: to reclaim the glory of the empire, to “take back control” and to assert authority rather than cooperation with other countries, including the European Union. In fact, a 2014 poll by YouGov showed that 59% of people polled think the British Empire was something to be proud of. Forty-nine percent of them believe that African countries were better off after colonisation. And a third said that they would still want the empire to exist today.

Understanding the history of the Commonwealth, understanding the perspective and expectations of the Conservative Party for the new relationship to African countries and other members of the Commonwealth is key to understanding how the UK intends to take the relationship forward on a social and economic level. After Britain began to give up many of its colonies throughout the 1900s, the Commonwealth of Nations was formed in 1931 as a political association for these former colonies who shared the use of English and historical ties to Britain.

The queen of England is the de facto head of the Commonwealth, rather than any democratically elected leader.

It serves as a more palatable vehicle for UK interests than the word that you may also use to describe the same territories – the British Empire.

Phillip Murphy described the Commonwealth “as a great, soothing comfort blanket for [the Conservative] party’s dwindling band of post-Second World War imperial enthusiasts.” It cannot be ignored that the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)’s 2010 manifesto featured the proposal for a “Commonwealth Free Trade Area”. Yes, UKIP, the racist and anti-immigration party.

Right-wing parties have always hung their hat on the Commonwealth effect; not long after the Brexit referendum, Lord David Howell, who was chairman of the Royal Commonwealth Society, mentioned, “A bright future awaits Britain post-Brexit in the Commonwealth markets.” The reality is that in 2018, trade with the Commonwealth accounted for 8.7% of Britain’s total trade. In the same year, trade with the EU made up 45% of the UK’s exports and 53% of its imports.

From my anecdotal experience, Brexiteers who long for the good old days will often claim that they share closer ties with the Commonwealth than with the European Union. This statement is easily disproved when you ask any Conservative about the local cultures in any one of the 53 members; few could claim to be intimately knowledgeable about the cultures of all of the Commonwealth except those things that are English and tie the country to Britain – for example, the foundation of legal systems or the official language. Most Commonwealth countries have little commonality with each other in terms of culture, religion, ethnicities, cuisines, histories, knowledge systems etc, except to say, “Well, we were both former colonies.”

Attempting to unlock the potential of the Commonwealth is not, then, intended to be an equal relationship nor one of mutual respect. Few who suffered through and ‘continue to experience the legacy of colonisation wish for a return to those “golden” days. Therefore, any future relationship with post-Brexit Britain must be founded unequivocally upon mutual respect and African sovereignty.

Most of Johnson’s words at the Africa Investment Summit spoke to the interests of British capital and technology, exporting British goods to Africa. There were only three mentions of African imports to Britain (Uganda’s cattle, Kenya’s tea and fruit).

This is an antiquated view of Africa’s economic development and potential. Uganda is currently developing its 4th Industrial Revolution (4IR) strategy, as well as pioneering the use of a biomedical jacket that accurately diagnoses pneumonia. Kenya has revolutionised mobile money through its innovative M-Pesa banking app.

There are more than 400 tech hubs across the continent. The African Development Bank has released a report showing that African countries are adopting 4IR at the same rate as the rest of the world. The economic future of African countries should ensure the most value for its citizens. Breaking away from old, predominantly colonial ideas about Africa is the first step in realising that.

The UK must acknowledge this. African leaders must insist on it. MC

Emma Ruiters graduated with an MSc in Development Economics from the school of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. She is currently working in consulting as an analyst.