“In Africa, the growing weight of youth will overthrow all the regimes that we say are strong”

The Togolese economist and former minister Kako Nubukpo, known for his criticism of the CFA franc, continues his reflection on the development of Africa throughout his works. In Africa and the rest of the world. From dependence to sovereignty (Odile Jacob, 208 pages, 21.90 euros), published in October, invites us to take stock of the rise of the power of youth. Not only because of its repercussions on the governance of the continent, but also for the rest of the world.

It is no longer possible, you say, to understand what is happening in Africa without taking into account the weight of youth. So that ?

This is the starting point of this book: the succession of non-democratic alternations in West Africa in recent years has led me to question the evolution of political governance in Africa. The desire to contain the jihadist threat – better than civilian presidents had done until then – motivated the seizure of power by the military, who were more aware – because they were on the front line – of the seriousness of the situation on the ground.

But there is also a generational issue, as demonstrated by the support of young people. These young soldiers, with the power of weapons, offer these young people a form of proxy revenge against regimes that have not cared about their future. Sixty years after independence, these events sanction the failure of urban elites, of which I am a part, to create prosperity.

What do you mean when you talk about an upcoming explosion?

At the Faculty of Economics and Management of Lomé, where I teach, there are 20 teachers for 20,000 students. We know that it is not possible for us to train them well. But these students will leave the university with a diploma and will join the flow of urban unemployed with a lot of resentment, because studying has raised other expectations among them. There are examples like this all over Africa.

The African population will double by 2050. This is a considerable disruption. This reality will overthrow all the regimes that we say are strong and that in reality are extremely fragile due to this growing weight of youth. Because, on the other hand, there is nothing: there are no jobs, no prospects, no mobilizing political discourse other than the anti-Western discourse that thrives in the Sahel. How is it possible that these spaces do not end up imploding?

This is the moment chosen by Europeans to disconnect by reducing their development aid budgets…

Certainly a critical analysis of foreign aid must be done to achieve better targeting, but reducing budgets by 35%, like what is being adopted in France’s 2025 budget, goes against the grain of history. Europe spends billions of euros to block immigration instead of investing them in development. We are walking over our heads, we are not putting the money where it would have a long-term impact.

France has also taken refuge in a discourse of withdrawal. This is a mistake. The relationship between France and Africa remains, whether we like it or not, unique. It cannot become a relationship between Europe and Africa by the wave of a magic wand. We must accept this past, but I have the feeling that the French leaders have not made plans for Africa. They have not defined the place that the continent should occupy in a long-term vision.

You oppose general free trade with the need for Africa to implement “ecological protectionism.” What does this mean?

I am attached to multilateralism, but I defend a fair exchange for Africa, ecological protectionism, because I believe that neoliberals are not intellectually honest.

The neoliberal system that has been imposed in Africa is based on two basic principles. The first is price flexibility thanks to competition, but African economies are dominated by monopolies that maintain higher prices than would be expected in pure and perfect competition. The second principle is that of the mobility of the factors of production: capital and labor. Capital circles the planet several times a day, but work is blocked by visas.

Consequently, markets must be protected so that young Africans can stay and live in Africa and process raw materials locally. We know that this is the only way to create wealth and jobs.

Isn’t this what is at stake with the exploitation of the minerals necessary for the energy transition?

Unfortunately I don’t see anything positive. Once again we are plundering Africa, with forms of extractivism justified by the needs of the energy and digital transition. The issues of access to these resources are so crucial globally that I don’t think Africa has time to transform its raw materials. Look, for example, at the fierce competition between the Americans and Chinese in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Is history then doomed to repeat itself?

Africa must chart its own course. I do not believe that it is an end to neoliberalism foreseen by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, nor a pan-Africanism of retreat that consists of taking France as an enemy.

I advocate a third way, which is the one that the “ theory of the commons” and that has its place in the context of the double failure of the continent: that of the States and that of the market. This idea proposed by the American economist Elinor Ostrom highlights the principle of self-organization based on territories and communities. Many of the solutions to Africa’s problems lie in local responses.

States are no longer present in large portions of their territories, such as in Burkina Faso, where more than half of the country escapes the State. Structural adjustment plans have destroyed the embryonic social state that countries were trying to build on the basis of agriculture, health and education. All the experiences of the first twenty years of independence were put aside to concentrate on macroeconomic balances. The capacity of States and administrations to design and implement public policies has become very weak.

The theory of the commons proposes at the microeconomic level an alternative mode of production in which private property is not the only way to manage assets.

This proposal seems to be barely heard in current debates…

I am aware of being in a minority. However, there are very specific issues for which it is possible to demonstrate the interest of a commons-based approach. The management of transhumance is one of them. Over the past 40 years, global warming has caused agricultural productivity to fall by 20% in West Africa. To compensate for this loss, farmers increase arable areas and reduce transhumance corridors. For their part, nomadic populations migrate south. Conflicts over access to natural resources are increasing. The commons offer a way to renegotiate the contract between different groups.

This may seem utopian, but at least we can recognize that what has been tried so far has not worked. Then it’s time to try something else.)