At this year’s global edition of the African Public Square open session, we debated the urgent question of how Africa can effectively negotiate and resource its agency in an evolving global order.
In international politics, moral claims rarely determine outcomes, especially at this moment in time amid multiple crises and the deterioration of governance norms. States may argue that justice, representation or historical fairness should shape global governance but the distribution of influence in the international system rarely reflects what actors believe they deserve.
Instead, it reflects what they can negotiate. The phrase “you don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate” therefore captures a central reality of global politics: states do not gain influence simply because it is their right, they must earn it through deliberate action, credibility and results. Put differently, it is secured through bargaining power, institutional positioning and strategic coordination.
For Africa, this insight carries weight given the current disorder and its implications. The continent represents over a quarter of the membership of the international system and plays an increasingly central role in global debates surrounding development finance, climate governance, migration and international peace and security.
Yet Africa’s influence within the institutions that structure global decision-making remains limited. Despite its demographic weight and growing economic significance, the continent continues to occupy a marginal position within many of the formal structures that govern the international system.
This apparent paradox of numerical presence without proportional institutional influence cannot be explained solely by material constraints. Rather, it reflects the interaction of historical institutional design, asymmetries in negotiating power and fragmentation in diplomatic strategy across the continent.
Examples are replete, from threats threats against Nigeria and undue pressure on South Africa without a regional response, to the inability of African countries to enforce the Africa Mining Vision to maximise the benefits of mineral resources on the continent.
As the global system gradually moves towards greater multipolarity, however, new opportunities are emerging for African actors to exercise more strategic and collective agency.
Realising this potential will depend less on asserting claims of entitlement than on strengthening negotiation capacity, coalition-building and agenda-setting within the global governance architecture.
A significant strand of the discourse on Africa’s position in global governance focuses on the normative case for institutional reform. From this perspective, Africa’s limited role in shaping decisions within key international institutions appears increasingly worrisome. For instance, African states contribute significantly to international peacekeeping missions and participate actively in multilateral diplomacy, yet face some of the most intractable violent conflicts, acute challenges associated with climate change and global economic inequality.
However, the international system is not structured to distribute influence according to principles of fairness. Unlike domestic political systems, where constitutional frameworks and legal institutions may enforce representation or address historical injustices, the global system operates through negotiation among sovereign states rather than adjudication based on normative claims.
This structural reality, especially in this moment in time, places limits on what moral arguments alone can achieve. Normative claims may establish legitimacy and strengthen diplomatic narratives but they rarely generate institutional change unless accompanied by political leverage and sustained coalition-building.
In other words, deserving influence and securing influence are fundamentally different processes. The former rests on normative justification; the latter depends on purposive negotiation.
The institutions that structure contemporary global governance were created through historical negotiations shaped by the distribution of power at specific moments in time.
These institutions were not designed as neutral frameworks for international cooperation; they reflected the strategic interests of the states that possessed the greatest influence during their formation.
For instance, one of the most significant moments in the construction of the modern international economic order was the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944.
This conference produced institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which continue to shape global financial governance today. Hence, current geopolitical reconfigurations present Africa with the opportunity to bargain for a purposive position among the comity of nations.
The political context of these negotiations remains critical, especially at a time when most African countries were under colonial rule and therefore had little or no representation in shaping the institutions that would govern the global economy.
The governance structures that emerged, including voting arrangements and leadership conventions, reflected the interests of the powers that dominated the negotiations.
These institutional arrangements illustrate a broader pattern within international politics: governance structures tend to persist long after the historical power configurations that produced them have changed. Reforming them therefore requires more than appeals to fairness; it requires sustained negotiation capable of altering entrenched distributions of influence.
Negotiation in international politics rarely takes place among equal actors. States enter diplomatic engagements with varying levels of economic strength, military capability, technological capacity and diplomatic reach. These asymmetries shape both the process of negotiation and the outcomes that emerge from it.
Importantly, power in diplomacy is not limited to material capabilities. It also includes the ability to set agendas, shape norms, mobilise coalitions and influence institutional design. As Robert Keohane has argued, international institutions often reflect the preferences of those actors with the capacity to construct and sustain them.
For African states, this reality underscores the importance of strategic negotiation. Effective diplomacy therefore requires coordinated negotiating positions, technical expertise and sustained engagement within multilateral processes.
The international system is currently undergoing a gradual but significant transformation. The post-Cold War period, characterised by the overwhelming dominance of a single global power, is increasingly giving way to a more complex distribution of power.
Emerging powers such as Turkey, the Gulf states, Russia, Brazil, China and India are expanding their economic and diplomatic influence, while established actors such as the United States and regional blocs such as the European Union continue to shape the global system.
This evolving geopolitical landscape creates new strategic space for African diplomacy. As global powers compete for markets, resources, diplomatic partnerships and geopolitical alignment, African states may gain greater leverage in negotiations over trade agreements, infrastructure investment and development financing.
Competition among external actors can expand the bargaining options available to African governments.
Yet multipolarity does not automatically translate into greater agency. Without strategic coordination among African states, external competition can also produce fragmented agreements that weaken collective bargaining power. The opportunities created by a shifting global order therefore depend heavily on Africa’s ability to organise its negotiating strategies more effectively.
One of the most persistent constraints on Africa’s negotiating influence is fragmentation. Despite shared interests across many areas of global governance, African states frequently pursue national diplomatic strategies rather than acting as a coordinated negotiating bloc.
Institutions such as the African Union (AU) were established partly to address this challenge by providing mechanisms for continental coordination. Through the AU, African governments have attempted to articulate common positions on issues ranging from trade negotiations to institutional reform.
A notable example is the Ezulwini Consensus, which outlines Africa’s collective position on reforming the United Nations Security Council and calls for permanent African representation within the body.
Not forgetting the Africa Mining Vision, which provides a continental framework for governing mineral exploration. However, articulating common positions is only the first step.
Translating these positions into effective negotiating strategies requires sustained coordination among states with diverse political and economic interests. When external powers negotiate separately with individual African countries rather than with coordinated regional blocs, the continent’s collective bargaining power can diminish significantly.
Addressing this legacy therefore requires more than emphasising historical injustice. It requires building the institutional and diplomatic capacity necessary to negotiate effectively within an evolving international system.
As the global order becomes more multipolar, opportunities for African agency are expanding. Yet these opportunities will only translate into meaningful influence if African states strengthen their coordination, develop sophisticated negotiating strategies and engage proactively in shaping the rules of global governance.
In international politics, influence is rarely granted simply because it is deserved. It is secured through strategy, organisation and sustained negotiation.
Professor Funmi Olonisakin is vice president of International, Engagement and Service (IES) at King’s College London and the founder of the African Leadership Centre in Nairobi, Kenya.
As the global order becomes more multipolar, opportunities for African agency are expanding. Yet these opportunities will only translate into meaningful influence if African states strengthen their coordination, develop sophisticated negotiating strategies and engage proactively in shaping the rules of global governance