Background and context: soft power in Africa
Since Joseph Nye coined the term in the 1990s, the concept of soft power has become a buzzword among policymakers, scholars, journalists, and keen observers of international relations across the globe. Yet, African scholarship on soft power remains undeveloped and this is the first book publication on African soft power. I have defined soft power elsewhere as âa stateâs non-coercive capability (ranging from its foreign policies and political values to its cultural exports) that engenders other statesâ attraction, admiration and aspirationsâ (Tella, 2016: 153). I further argue in the same article that the three As are the critical attributes of soft power as other actors are attracted by, adopt the model, and aspire to achieve a similar level of prosperity as the soft power state. While this definition captures the essence of soft power, it does not sufficiently reflect some aspects of African statesâ soft power capacity. For example, Nigeriaâs OmolĂșwĂ bĂ, South Africaâs Ubuntu, Kenyaâs Harambee, and Egyptâs Pharaonism are not highlighted. These are critical African philosophies that are relevant to the countriesâ actual and potential soft power. It is therefore imperative to conceptualise soft power to sufficiently accommodate the African context.
There are few studies of Africaâs soft power, with virtually none in terms of Egypt and Kenya, but a growing body of literature with regard to Nigeria and South Africa. Despite increasing interest among scholars of international relations in the latter countriesâ (particularly South Africaâs) soft power, the African philosophies noted earlier have not been captured in the conceptualisation of the term. Against this backdrop and for the purpose of this book, I define soft power as an actorâs (including state and non-state) ability to influence the action, inaction, position, and behaviour of other actors through its non-coercive capability â including its philosophy, culture, values, and policies â that engenders these actorsâ attraction, admiration, and aspirations.
In light of the increasing relevance of soft power in international politics, two major institutions have emerged to develop indices and set indicators to it. These are The Soft Power 30 by Portland and Global Soft Power Index by Brand Finance. The Soft Power 30 is not comprehensive as it only focuses on 30 states, which are largely Western countries. Table 1.1 shows the 2019 Soft Power 30.
Table 1.1 Soft Power 30 Rank | Country | Score |
1 | France | 80.28 |
2 | United | 79.47 |
3 | Germany | 78.62 |
4 | Sweden | 77.41 |
5 | United States | 77.40 |
6 | Switzerland | 77.04 |
7 | Canada | 75.89 |
8 | Japan | 75.71 |
9 | Australia | 73.16 |
10 | Netherlands | 72.03 |
11 | Italy | 71.58 |
12 | Norway | 71.07 |
13 | Spain | 71.05 |
14 | Denmark | 68.86 |
15 | Finland | 68.35 |
16 | Austria | 67.98 |
17 | New Zealand | 67.45 |
18 | Belgium | 67.17 |
19 | South Korea | 63.00 |
20 | Ireland | 62.91 |
21 | Singapore | 61.51 |
22 | Portugal | 59.28 |
23 | Poland | 55.16 |
24 | Czech Republic | 54.35 |
25 | Greece | 53.74 |
26 | Brazil | 51.34 |
27 | China | 51.25 |
28 | Hungary | 50.39 |
29 | Turkey | 49.70 |
30 | Russian Federation | 48.64 |
Source: authorâs adaptation from Portland (2019).
Table 1.1 clearly illustrates the dominance of Western countries, with no African country featuring in the index. While soft power is not often associated with African states, the methodology deployed is partly responsible for these results. Among the 25 countries that were polled, Africa only had two representatives â Egypt and South Africa. Brand Financeâs Global Soft Power Index provides a more comprehensive list of soft power countries and indicators. It highlights the soft power of 60 states and features four African countries â South Africa, Egypt, Algeria, and Nigeria. While Portlandâs Soft Power 30 relies on six indicators, namely, Culture, Education, Engagement, Digital, Enterprise, and Government; Brand Financeâs Global Soft Power Index has seven broader indicators including: Business and Trade, Governance, International Relations, Culture and Heritage, Media and Communication, Education and Science, and People and Values. Brand Finance also conducted their polls in 87 countries including 20 African countries. It is not therefore surprising that four African states feature on the Index.Table 1.2 reveals the African and global ranks of the African states that feature in Brand Financeâs Global Soft Power Index.
While this index has its shortcomings such as the non-inclusion of the African philosophies mentioned earlier, it presents more comprehensive and acceptable data, given the methodology adopted. Three (Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt) of the four case studies in this book feature in this index. Like other East African countries, Kenya does not appear in this index. However, the aim of this book is to engage the soft power currencies of key states in the four key sub-regions on the continent â North Africa, Southern Africa, West Africa, and East Africa (a state in the last sub-region in Africa â Central Africa â has not been included because none of the states in the sub-region, including Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) features in the soft power index, projects remarkable soft power and exercises significant influence in Africa) â hence the inclusion of Kenya. While Nairobiâs power in the East African sub-region is contested by countries such as Ethiopia and Tanzania, Kenyaâs robust philosophy and cultural output including Harambee, fashion, achievements in athletics, and tourism justify its inclusion.
The case for Egypt is less controversial despite the fact that its regional powerhood is challenged by Algeria and Morocco in the sub-region. No other state in North Africa has influenced the politics in the sub-region and the broader Middle East like Egypt. Cairoâs reputation as the cradle of civilisation and perceptions that it is the foremost Arab country also justify its inclusion. Unlike the two aforementioned countries, the choice of Nigeria and South Africa seems pretty straightforward given that their hegemonic profile is not contested by other countries in the West and Southern African sub-regions, respectively. These two countries are the largest economies and the major peacemakers on the continent. South Africaâs progressive constitution (regarded as one of the most liberal in the world), and the spread of its multinational corporations across the continent are also important criteria. The influence of Nigeriaâs film industry (Nollywood) and the popularity of its music (Afrobeats) on the continent are equally germane in this regard.
Table 1.2 Global Soft Power Index Country | African rank | Global rank | Index score |
South Africa | 1 | 36 | 36.4 |
Egypt | 2 | 38 | 34.8 |
Algeria | 3 | 54 | 29.0 |
Nigeria | 4 | 56 | 28.8 |
Source: authorâs adaptation from Brand Finance (2020). Table 1.3 The eight largest economies in Africa Country | African rank | Global rank | GDP (millions of US dollars) |
Nigeria | 1 | 30 | 397, 270 |
South Africa | 2 | 33 | 368, 289 |
Egypt | 3 | 44 | 250, 895 |
Algeria | 4 | 55 | 173, 758 |
Morocco | 5 | 59 | 117, 921 |
Angola | 6 | 62 | 105, 751 |
Kenya | 7 | 66 | 87, 908 |
Ethiopia | 8 | 68 | 84, 356 |
Source: authorâs adaptation from World Bank (2019).
Beyond their soft power capabilities, it is important to note that these states are also the most significant hard power (especially in economic terms) states in their respective sub-regions and on the continent at large. Table 1.3 shows the largest economies in Africa.
As Table 1.3 shows, Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt are the largest economies in Africa. Kenya is ranked seventh, outstripped by Algeria, Morocco, and Angola. However, Kenya is the highest ranked East African state on the index. In terms of military capability, the 2020 Global Fire Power Index reveals that Egypt, Algeria, South Africa, Nigeria, and Angola are the top five mili...