What should be the biggest take-away that we gain from the recent USA election?

by Lionesses of Africa Operations Department

The Lionesses of Africa is and always will be a-political, and rightly so. This means this article is not about the pros and cons of one candidate over another in the recent US Election (we are also not US voters, so it would be arrogant of us to suggest we know one way or the other what is the right, or the best or correct route - the country has not only spoken, it has spoken loudly and clearly not only with the majority of the popular vote going to now President  Elect Trump, but with majorities in the Senate and most likely in Congress, with increased number of Latino, African American, Hispanic, “[e]ven in demographics she won…women, Black men and young voters—Harris conceded [large numbers of] votes to Trump and won by a narrower margin than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 or President Joe Biden did in 2020.”  Forbes here. Latino men and women also had a huge drop off of support for Harris, having come out in large numbers for President Biden and Hillary Clinton previously. Her only increase in support from that previously given to Biden was with Black Women and a slight improvement on college educated white voters. Women still voted for VP Harris “but she won less of the vote than both Clinton and Biden…while Trump won white women by 8 points.”

The voters sent her and her party a clear message.

We will not go down the rabbit hole of what possibly went wrong for VP Harris or what went right for President Elect Trump who had a comeback that blew all expectations (even it seemed for himself, stopping during his victory announcement to say: “…look what happened! Is this crazy?!”), but clearly for all the money the Democrats raised and all the focus groups they must have paid for, they missed what the electorate were telling them. This to us suggests we should instead view this from an angle we have often highlighted, that of what happens if leaders lose touch with their constituents - be they voters, be they supporters, be they customers, be they employees or even those they are aiming to help though ‘Aid’. If they stop listening to the problems on the ground and start assuming or designing solutions that do not suit their constituents, but look great on paper, they should not be surprised if they lose the support. We are not saying categorically this is what happened, but seriously? To lose so many of your historical core voters all in one election - there was a message in there that was clearly not being listened to.

As Andrew Herscowitz, CEO of the M300 Accelerator, Former ODI Executive Director and Former Power Africa Coordinator, Development Finance Executive, and Diplomat (so he’ll know a thing or two about Washington) wrote on LinkedIn in a review of the election (here):

“We've seen that as people move to the cities, people living in rural areas will continue to have a political voice. What they told us is that everyone matters, regardless of where they live.

Many governments, and even big philanthropies sometimes, want to focus their efforts “where the populations are.” The thought is that one can have a greater impact on a greater number of people, which makes sense.

But it ultimately backfires when programs are not targeted to benefit broader populations (including smaller economies).”

For us, we have often seen this in action where those from the Global North make assumptions and swoop in to ‘save’ Africa, yet leave behind in their wake unsustainable projects, businesses and communities, and sadly as an unintended consequence, bankrupting SMEs that were there previously, quietly with little fuss creating jobs and supporting local communities. Africa as a whole is an entrepreneurial continent with many having a side hustle, but large scale aid seems to crush this when it swoops in.

William Warshauer of TechnoServe wrote in this piece (here): “Since 1960, the world has spent roughly $5.7 trillion on foreign aid. Of that enormous sum, how much has been effective in fighting poverty? The shocking truth is that we don’t really know. The…[IMF] admits (here), “the effectiveness of foreign aid remains an unresolved issue.” A 2018 study concurs: “The poverty-reducing effects of aid are not well-documented.””

He goes onto write: “…international development projects are not designed to measure long-term results. Even though the entire premise of international development is for people and countries to become self-sustaining in the long term, this is precisely what is not measured in the vast majority of economic development projects.”

Critics of aid for aid’s sake (which we assume is the right definition of aid  done whilst not checking if it works), such as the brilliant Dambisa Moyo have written that large scale aid such as from the World Bank (so not NGO or charities that have a different and often important role) “perpetuates the cycle of poverty and derails sustainable economic growth”, (here) later adding (here) that “…basically the aid model completely kills [entrepreneurship] off.”

She quotes President Kagame of Rwanda who said: “You cannot expect me to encourage Rwandans to be entrepreneurial and innovative in a place where they actually are completely burdened by an aid culture, where they have no incentive to actually do anything, because somebody is underwriting their business.”

And this is the point, too often the Global North assumes it knows what is best for its constituents, in this case Africa and then is shocked when various countries turn to China, or welcomes with open arms Russia, or in the case of women’s business just give up trying to gain banking finance or VC funding as they are bored and cannot see a way round the word ‘No’ and get pushed down into acceptance of the iniquitous ‘norm’. Banks of course supported by DFIs to open women’s banking will claim they work 24/7 to avoid the word ‘No’, but as we all know ‘No’ comes in many guises, one of which is ‘Collateral’. Businesswomen now assume no one is listening.

As Howard French wrote (here) in the Foreign Policy magazine: “U.S. Apathy Paved the Way for China in Africa…Despite a strong foothold during the Cold War, Washington has since fumbled on the continent…if the West wants to have a future in terms of its relations with the world’s fastest growing population center—Africa—it’s going to have to reinvent the way it engages around true competition and tangible deliverables, meaning things that Africans need and want.” (And to take that to the obvious next step, if it wants a future where communities are grown and good jobs are created, then they need to deliver what African Businesswomen need and want.)

That is why we are absolutely passionate about calling out Global North projects and finance that do not include African leadership and of course Lionesses led businesses (no surprise - unapologetically biased, there). If, as the EIB state (here):“…supporting female entrepreneurs helps to mitigate gender employment gaps and generates wider societal benefits. Notably, female-led firms achieve higher environmental, social and governance scores and support the upskilling of their employees through investment in training.”  Then why does it seem no one is listening?

The FMO are clear on this (here): “Most international ESG frameworks have been developed from a Northern-facing perspective, reflecting the priorities experienced there…There are concerns that…ESG frameworks do not fully grasp the realities and complexities of the Global South, leading to their potentially unintended exclusion from investment opportunities.”

Ultimately if one group tells another group what it should be doing and thinking,  whilst assuming or not listening to the issues that are impacting the very community they wish to assist, to help, to uplift, the relationship becomes very one sided, and as we know, all things without balance eventually break. This is true in business where we have to listen, understand and often adapt to our customers and our employees. True in development where so little has been gained by so much, and is true in politics, where the world appears to be turning away from the political elite in so many countries because they appear ‘out of touch’. As well known - ‘ASSUME’ makes an ASS out of U and ME and no one wants to be an Ass.

Ronald Reagan (who won 58.8% of the popular vote) famously said. “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are “We’re from the Government, and we’re here to help.”” (here).

One of our Lionesses Nkem Okocha (here), a serial award-winning social entrepreneur and the founder of Mamamoni Limited in Nigeria, that empowers low-income rural-and-urban slum women with free vocational and financial skills and small loans, is blunt:

“No one can claim to be a community worker if no one in the community has ever heard of you!”

One of the rare Democrat success of the election was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also known by her initials, ‘AOC’. She follows Nkem’s way. Like Nkem, she is known by her community. Like Nkem, she walks the miles talking and listening. Like Nkem, she understands what her constituents are feeling and she fights for them in Congress even if necessary against stands made by her Party, such as with Gaza. Not only did she see off a primary attempt to unseat her, but at the election she cruised home with well deserved thumping margin.

Like Nkem, she listens.

We can all learn from these two brilliant women.

Stay Safe.