Content
About this brief
Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions- For policymakers
- Nigeria
- South Africa
- Brief created: 2024
- Sign up
Group Hegemonic Leadership as an Analytical Framework for Understanding Regional Hegemony in Africa
Brief about:
Journal Article (2023)
Written by:
Other researchers:
This paper investigates whether Africa has regional hegemons, using South Africa and Nigeria as case studies, and explores whether group hegemonic leadership better explains regional hegemonic behavior in Africa.
The research addresses a critical knowledge gap in the understanding of regional power dynamics in Africa. Traditional International Relations (IR) theories, grounded in hard power dominance, fail to adequately explain the leadership roles of South Africa and Nigeria in Africa, given their internal weaknesses and limited military capabilities. With Africa increasingly becoming a focal point of global power rivalry—due to its population, resources, and influence within the United Nations—understanding how regional leadership operates is essential for effective governance and continental agency in global affairs. Policymakers require this knowledge to formulate more accurate strategies for regional cooperation and to leverage Africa’s collective strength on the world stage.
This research was motivated by the absence of a clear hegemon in Africa and the failure of realist approaches to account for the cooperative and non-coercive leadership seen on the continent. Furthermore, policymakers and African leaders are often caught between expectations of unilateral dominance and the practical realities of shared leadership due to economic, security, and geopolitical constraints.
This paper proposes group hegemonic leadership as a model that better fits the African context, where sub-regional powers collaborate to provide regional governance and public goods. It highlights the cooperative roles of South Africa and Nigeria in leading initiatives such as the formation of the African Union (AU) and global advocacy for Africa’s interests in institutions like the United Nations and IMF.
The research is significant for policymakers seeking to enhance Africa’s influence in global governance, as well as for practitioners in diplomacy, peacebuilding, and regional development. It provides a practical framework for understanding how African nations can collectively exert leadership and fulfill continental objectives without relying on a single dominant power. This shift from individual to group hegemony is crucial for addressing Africa’s security, economic, and political challenges in an increasingly multipolar world.
Key findings
- Neither South Africa nor Nigeria fits the strict realist definition of a regional hegemon due to limited hard power and internal weaknesses.Evidence
South Africa’s military power, though ranked third in Africa, is insufficient for regional hegemony. Its defense budget is just $3.15 billion, far lower than Nigeria’s at $10.44 billion, but even Nigeria struggles with containing Boko Haram. South Africa's defense capacity is further compromised by xenophobic violence, which damages its leadership reputation. Nigeria’s inability to fully control the Boko Haram insurgency and rising insecurity from Fulani herder attacks has weakened its standing as a regional security leader. Moreover, Nigeria’s Gross National Income per capita of $5,250 in 2021 is significantly lower than South Africa's at $14,140, reflecting Nigeria’s economic vulnerability.
What it meansDespite their economic and military advantages in Africa, both South Africa and Nigeria are hindered by significant internal challenges that undermine their ability to act as dominant regional hegemons.
- South Africa and Nigeria, despite limitations, have led key cooperative initiatives in Africa, demonstrating aspects of group hegemonic leadership.Evidence
Both countries played central roles in creating the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) in the early 2000s. Nigeria, through its peacekeeping missions, contributed over 200,000 troops and spent approximately $13 billion in Liberia and Sierra Leone alone. South Africa has leveraged its soft power in promoting democracy, such as its successful mediation efforts in Zimbabwe and Lesotho. South Africa also led continental initiatives like the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Mission in Mozambique (SAMIM) to combat insurgency in Cabo Delgado province.
What it meansThese examples highlight that while neither country is a unilateral hegemon, both South Africa and Nigeria use their leadership capabilities in cooperative efforts that benefit the region.
- South Africa and Nigeria have been recognized globally for their leadership roles, though their regional dominance remains contested.Evidence
South Africa is Africa’s only member of BRICS and the G20, and it has served as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) three times. Nigeria has also held a non-permanent seat in the UNSC five times and has filled prominent leadership roles in global organizations, including Akinwumi Adesina as President of the African Development Bank (AfDB) and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Despite these global recognitions, both countries face skepticism regarding their hegemonic aspirations due to challenges like South Africa’s declining economic dominance and Nigeria’s domestic insecurity.
What it meansAlthough both countries are acknowledged as significant players on the global stage, internal issues such as economic instability and security challenges prevent them from solidifying uncontested hegemonic status within Africa.
- Group hegemonic leadership provides a more fitting model for understanding power dynamics in Africa.Evidence
South Africa and Nigeria have jointly advanced Africa’s interests in global forums, notably through their roles in pushing for reforms in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and United Nations, including the Ezulwini Consensus of 2005, which called for two permanent African seats in the UNSC. They have also cooperated to condemn external discriminatory practices like vaccine apartheid during the COVID-19 pandemic and led calls for financial support for climate change adaptation at COP27. However, these cooperative efforts are sometimes strained by national interests, as seen when South Africa supported Laurent Gbagbo during the 2011 Ivorian crisis, against Nigeria's position.
What it meansGroup hegemonic leadership, which entails cooperation among multiple regional actors like South Africa and Nigeria, offers a more suitable framework for African leadership than traditional single-state hegemony.
- South Africa and Nigeria’s ability to lead is compromised by their domestic challenges and the complexities of Africa’s geopolitical landscape.Evidence
Both countries face significant internal constraints that weaken their regional leadership. South Africa’s frequent xenophobic attacks, particularly targeting other Africans, undermine its pan-African image, while Nigeria’s struggles with Boko Haram and widespread poverty (over 40% of Nigerians live below the poverty line) erode its credibility as a regional power. Additionally, African geopolitical complexities, such as the five distinct geographic regions and linguistic divisions (Francophone, Anglophone, Lusophone), complicate continental unity and the emergence of a singular hegemon.
What it meansThe deep-seated domestic and regional challenges faced by South Africa and Nigeria make it difficult for either to unilaterally fulfill the role of a regional hegemon, reinforcing the need for a collective approach to leadership in Africa.
Comments
You must log in to ask a question
Are you a researcher looking to make a real-world impact? Join Acume and transform your research into a practical summary.
Already have an account? Log in
Discover more
Group Hegemonic Leadership as an Analytical Framework for Understanding Regional Hegemony in Africa
Cite this brief: Isike, Christopher. 'Group Hegemonic Leadership as an Analytical Framework for Understanding Regional Hegemony in Africa'. Acume. https://www.acume.org/r/group-hegemonic-leadership-as-an-analytical-framework-for-understanding-regional-hegemony-in-africa/
Brief created by: Professor Christopher Isike | Year brief made: 2024
Original research:
- Schoeman, M., & Isike, C., ‘Group Hegemonic Leadership as an Analytical Framework for Understanding Regional Hegemony in Africa’ 22(1) (pp. 8–38) https://doi.org/10.1163/15692108-12341579. – https://brill.com/view/journals/aas/22/1-2/article-p8_3.xml
Research brief:
This paper investigates whether Africa has regional hegemons, using South Africa and Nigeria as case studies, and explores whether group hegemonic leadership better explains regional hegemonic behavior in Africa.
The research addresses a critical knowledge gap in the understanding of regional power dynamics in Africa. Traditional International Relations (IR) theories, grounded in hard power dominance, fail to adequately explain the leadership roles of South Africa and Nigeria in Africa, given their internal weaknesses and limited military capabilities. With Africa increasingly becoming a focal point of global power rivalry—due to its population, resources, and influence within the United Nations—understanding how regional leadership operates is essential for effective governance and continental agency in global affairs. Policymakers require this knowledge to formulate more accurate strategies for regional cooperation and to leverage Africa’s collective strength on the world stage.
This research was motivated by the absence of a clear hegemon in Africa and the failure of realist approaches to account for the cooperative and non-coercive leadership seen on the continent. Furthermore, policymakers and African leaders are often caught between expectations of unilateral dominance and the practical realities of shared leadership due to economic, security, and geopolitical constraints.
This paper proposes group hegemonic leadership as a model that better fits the African context, where sub-regional powers collaborate to provide regional governance and public goods. It highlights the cooperative roles of South Africa and Nigeria in leading initiatives such as the formation of the African Union (AU) and global advocacy for Africa’s interests in institutions like the United Nations and IMF.
The research is significant for policymakers seeking to enhance Africa’s influence in global governance, as well as for practitioners in diplomacy, peacebuilding, and regional development. It provides a practical framework for understanding how African nations can collectively exert leadership and fulfill continental objectives without relying on a single dominant power. This shift from individual to group hegemony is crucial for addressing Africa’s security, economic, and political challenges in an increasingly multipolar world.
Findings:
Neither South Africa nor Nigeria fits the strict realist definition of a regional hegemon due to limited hard power and internal weaknesses.
South Africa’s military power, though ranked third in Africa, is insufficient for regional hegemony. Its defense budget is just $3.15 billion, far lower than Nigeria’s at $10.44 billion, but even Nigeria struggles with containing Boko Haram. South Africa’s defense capacity is further compromised by xenophobic violence, which damages its leadership reputation. Nigeria’s inability to fully control the Boko Haram insurgency and rising insecurity from Fulani herder attacks has weakened its standing as a regional security leader. Moreover, Nigeria’s Gross National Income per capita of $5,250 in 2021 is significantly lower than South Africa’s at $14,140, reflecting Nigeria’s economic vulnerability.
Despite their economic and military advantages in Africa, both South Africa and Nigeria are hindered by significant internal challenges that undermine their ability to act as dominant regional hegemons.
South Africa and Nigeria, despite limitations, have led key cooperative initiatives in Africa, demonstrating aspects of group hegemonic leadership.
Both countries played central roles in creating the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in the early 2000s. Nigeria, through its peacekeeping missions, contributed over 200,000 troops and spent approximately $13 billion in Liberia and Sierra Leone alone. South Africa has leveraged its soft power in promoting democracy, such as its successful mediation efforts in Zimbabwe and Lesotho. South Africa also led continental initiatives like the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Mission in Mozambique (SAMIM) to combat insurgency in Cabo Delgado province.
These examples highlight that while neither country is a unilateral hegemon, both South Africa and Nigeria use their leadership capabilities in cooperative efforts that benefit the region.
South Africa and Nigeria have been recognized globally for their leadership roles, though their regional dominance remains contested.
South Africa is Africa’s only member of BRICS and the G20, and it has served as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) three times. Nigeria has also held a non-permanent seat in the UNSC five times and has filled prominent leadership roles in global organizations, including Akinwumi Adesina as President of the African Development Bank (AfDB) and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Despite these global recognitions, both countries face skepticism regarding their hegemonic aspirations due to challenges like South Africa’s declining economic dominance and Nigeria’s domestic insecurity.
Although both countries are acknowledged as significant players on the global stage, internal issues such as economic instability and security challenges prevent them from solidifying uncontested hegemonic status within Africa.
Group hegemonic leadership provides a more fitting model for understanding power dynamics in Africa.
South Africa and Nigeria have jointly advanced Africa’s interests in global forums, notably through their roles in pushing for reforms in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and United Nations, including the Ezulwini Consensus of 2005, which called for two permanent African seats in the UNSC. They have also cooperated to condemn external discriminatory practices like vaccine apartheid during the COVID-19 pandemic and led calls for financial support for climate change adaptation at COP27. However, these cooperative efforts are sometimes strained by national interests, as seen when South Africa supported Laurent Gbagbo during the 2011 Ivorian crisis, against Nigeria’s position.
Group hegemonic leadership, which entails cooperation among multiple regional actors like South Africa and Nigeria, offers a more suitable framework for African leadership than traditional single-state hegemony.
South Africa and Nigeria’s ability to lead is compromised by their domestic challenges and the complexities of Africa’s geopolitical landscape.
Both countries face significant internal constraints that weaken their regional leadership. South Africa’s frequent xenophobic attacks, particularly targeting other Africans, undermine its pan-African image, while Nigeria’s struggles with Boko Haram and widespread poverty (over 40% of Nigerians live below the poverty line) erode its credibility as a regional power. Additionally, African geopolitical complexities, such as the five distinct geographic regions and linguistic divisions (Francophone, Anglophone, Lusophone), complicate continental unity and the emergence of a singular hegemon.
The deep-seated domestic and regional challenges faced by South Africa and Nigeria make it difficult for either to unilaterally fulfill the role of a regional hegemon, reinforcing the need for a collective approach to leadership in Africa.