Aside from the colonial plundering by the West and the greed of weak African puppet leaders, did you know that one of the biggest contributors to Africa’s present state of economic progress is the World Bank and the IMF? Yes, these so-called financial institutions claim to want to help developing countries most especially in Africa, but countless research studies have shown that over the years their policies which have been implemented in Africa have done more harm than good to the economies of African countries. Aside from greedy African politicians who loot public funds for personal use, when the government of an African country cuts down on public spending on social infrastructure such as the building of hospitals or schools, it’s not because they want to but because they have been ordered to do so by the World Bank and the IMF as a condition to get loans. How does an institution that orders a government to cut down on the provision of basic social infrastructure claim to be helpful?

After World War 2, Europe was laid to waste. Cities were destroyed, there was food and fuel shortage, and the financial systems of most European countries were in disarray, to the extent that Germans started using cigarettes as money. Scared that this situation could lead to communism and violence, Western leaders decided to do something. So, in 1944, representatives of 44 countries came together in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to discuss ways to promote economic recovery and build a global monetary system designed to ensure stability and prevent future wars. The outcome of this meeting was the emergence of the World Bank and the IMF. The World Bank was initially tasked with the responsibility of providing loans to rebuild postwar Europe, thereby supporting the continent’s long-term development, however, today its mission has expanded to reducing extreme poverty around the world by providing loans. The IMF on the other hand was created to oversee the stability of the world’s monetary system.
But did you observe something? 44 countries came together to lay the foundation of the World Bank and IMF institutions but none of these 44 countries were in Africa. They were all European countries. At the time, Africa was still divided into colonies and the fight for independence just started. This means no African country was represented when these financial institutions were formed and every agreement made during the establishment of these institutions would be biased towards European countries. So, is it any surprise that when African countries borrow from the World Bank or IMF, the interest rate on the loan is higher than when European countries borrow from the same financial institutions? And don’t forget that this high interest rate ensures that African countries spend a major part of their budget paying up loans and interest and sometimes they even have to take up more loans to service previous loans. The fact is the IMF and World Bank are colonialistic in nature. These institutions were not formed in the interest of Africa, instead, they were formed to serve the interests of the West. It’s the reason why their economic policies in Africa are ones which would ensure that Africa continues to depend on the West. The World Bank says its mission is to reduce extreme poverty around the world but in reality, it is the implementation of its policies that has made the African continent the poorest in the world.

This partiality towards the interest of the West by the IMF and World Bank can be further observed from the leadership of the institutions and how decisions are made. Right from the

creation of these institutions, it was agreed that its leaders would not be elected but nominated by the US and Europe. And, according to an unspoken agreement, the president of the World Bank has always been from the US, while the president of the IMF has always been European. When it comes to decision making, voting power is heavily in favour of rich countries. The US for example, has de facto veto power over all significant decisions, and together with the rest of the G7 and the European Union controls well over half of the vote in both agencies. Middle and low income countries have a mere minority share. So, what this means is that African countries do not have any say when it comes to global economic decisions. Whatever the US and major European countries say is what goes. With this kind of situation, do you think that the West would approve policies that would help to elevate Africa? The answer is a big No.

Aside from the fact that there is minority control over global economic policymaking, there is also a clear racial imbalance at play. On average, the votes of people who are not white are worth only a fraction of people who are white. Take Bangladesh and Nigeria, both of which were British colonies, for example. In the IMF, a British person’s vote today is worth 41 times more than a Bangladeshi’s vote, and 23 times more than a Nigerian’s vote. Imagine the hypocrisy of the West. They are still the ones who say they are the topmost defenders of human rights and equality. So, do you think that people who are still racially biased and who feel that they are superior to every other, person would approve policies that would transform the African container? The answer again is a big No. The truth is these people are happy that Africa is the way it is because Africa will continue to depend on them and they will continue to plunder our resources.
The colonial character of the IMF and World Bank and the inequality in the decision-making process is why these institutions have been able to impose neoliberal structural adjustment programs across the global South over the past 40 years. These programmes, which are a condition for African countries to receive loans from them, are focused on privatisation, austerity, and forced market liberalisation which have created lucrative profit opportunities for European multinational companies but have had a devastating effect on Africa. During the 1980s and 1990s where most African countries were trying to stand on their feet after their independence, these programmes led to decrease in income, increase in poverty and decades of recession and stagnation. To this day, they continue to impact negatively on every aspect of the company. It’s because of these so-called structural adjustment programmes that the African continent could not catch up with its counterpart, thereby widening the gap between Africa and the rest of the world.
Recently, a tribunal was organized by The Fight Inequality Alliance organization to discuss the effects of the policies of the World Bank and IMF on developing countries. The verdict of the meeting was that the IMF and the World Bank were designed to protect the interests of rich countries and enrich the wealthiest at the expense of the rest of the world.
The Tribunal brought together activists from developing countries including India, Zambia and Zimbabwe to testify on the effects the IMF and World Bank’s inequality and influence have had on their specific countries.

Masimba Kuchera, chairman of Zimbabwe’s Disability Reform Coalition, noted in his speech that the World Bank ordered Zimbabwe to reduce the state’s role in social services in exchange for a loan in the early 1990s, resulting in “those with money taking control of social services and profiting from them.” As a result, he said, persons with disabilities have suffered because facilities have been closed and their access to equipment and education to help them live a complete life has been limited.
Furthermore, Kuchera stated that Zimbabwe owes the IMF and World Bank $7 billion, which the government has agreed to return by 2025, and that the payments will further reduce the state’s involvement in the social sector.
Another speaker, Zambian farmer Clare Chobela Mukupa, said the conditions the IMF has imposed on aid to Zambia have resulted in the “enslavement of people in rural areas.” She said that the IMF caused “misery” by ordering Zambia to reduce gasoline prices, which resulted in higher food, fertiliser, and chemical prices. “The IMF dictates what countries should do, how they should carry out their activities, what policies should be taboo, and this has really brought us misery,” she added.
Jessica Mandanda, a gender and communications specialist from Malawi, stated that her country has implemented ten structural adjustment programmes proposed by the IMF and the World Bank, including a reduction in public financing for the social sector, particularly health. As a result, hospitals have been unable to purchase necessary equipment or construct additional structures to provide emergency care, she noted. She narrated the story of a local lady who came to the hospital to give birth and began bleeding, but the physicians were unable to provide her immediate treatment due to a power outage at the hospital, and she died.
Finally, Daisy Abwao, member of the Fight Inequality Alliance in Kenya, revealed that the decision by the East African government to prioritize its debt repayment to the IMF and the World Bank has resulted in limited access to healthcare and education for poor people. Her views were echoed by activists from Egypt and Cote d’Ivoire who linked the terms of the Bretton Woods institutions to social problems in their countries.
For years, Africa leaders have called for reforms on the leadership and policies of the IMF and World Bank, but these demands have fallen on deaf ears. The situation still remains the same. During summits, these financial institutions usually acknowledge that their policies have damaged the economies of Africa but that’s where it ends. There has been no concrete plan to change his things. This just echoes what we have been saying, the West does not care about Africa. And, as rightly said by Bhumika Muchhala, a researcher and analyst at the Tribunal, the World Bank and IMF are the biggest scams of the century.
What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comment section down below. Don’t forget to like, subscribe and share this video.