India, China vie for leadership of global south

Which of India and China is better placed to champion Africa’s developmental aspirations?

The rivalry between China and India, both BRICS members, extends to their bid to lead the global south. As Western dominance wanes, both Beijing and New Delhi are advancing distinct yet globally influential agendas, each leveraging unique strengths that shape global alliances and institutions.

For African nations, where development and decision-making sovereignty are key, the choice between China and India as global south leaders is significant. Each offers advantages and challenges with implications for Africa’s future. Although neither has officially declared a bid for this leadership, their actions and statements signal intent.

India’s role in pushing for south-south cooperation at forums like the G20, and advocating for more equitable representation in global governance, align with its leadership vision. China’s assertive diplomacy, particularly through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and its increasing investments in African and Latin American infrastructure projects, highlights a claim to leadership rooted in economic influence.

The rivalry is stoked by narratives in each country’s foreign policy community and think tanks, which see India’s democratic alignment and China’s developmental success as competing models for the global south. Officially, both countries underscore their solidarity with developing nations but avoid overt declarations of competition, instead positioning their respective approaches as solutions to developing countries’ needs.

India, as the world’s largest democracy, resonates strongly in Africa, where democratic governance is often seen as a path to stability and growth. India’s commitment to democratic values and its policy of non-interference align well with Africa’s emphasis on political sovereignty and diversity.

Many African nations also share historical ties with India, rooted in the Non-Aligned Movement and anti-colonial solidarity, which reinforce India’s appeal as a trusted partner. This is further strengthened by the influential role of the Indian diaspora in Africa.

India’s development approach centres on human capital and technology transfer, often through private sector initiatives. This model, focused on skills building, matches Africa’s need for sustainable, locally adaptable solutions.

India’s experiences with its own diverse population enable it to respond effectively to Africa’s varied needs. Through public-private partnerships, India has achieved progress in healthcare, education and digital access, which could provide scalable models for African countries facing similar challenges.

On the global stage, India has played a leading role in minilateral and multilateral groupings like the Quad and G20, and by fostering ties with the United States, Europe and BRICS countries. India’s role as a bridge between the global north and south has proven advantageous, as seen in its push to include the African Union in the G20.

India’s assertive stance on issues like the Ukraine conflict has also resonated with African nations seeking an independent global voice.

This context has bolstered India’s standing in the global south, with African countries increasingly viewing India as representing their collective interests. India’s ability to balance relations with both Western and non-Western powers appeals to African nations navigating similarly complex geopolitics.

However, India’s limited financial resources compared to China, pose challenges in scaling its influence across Africa. Domestic issues like poverty alleviation and infrastructure development may further limit India’s capacity to prioritise Africa consistently. The lack of an India-Africa Forum Summit since 2015 also raises questions about India’s long-term commitment.

China’s economic might makes it a compelling global south leader, especially through its infrastructure projects that meet urgent needs. Africa’s vast infrastructure deficit – in transport, energy and telecommunications – finds an eager partner in China’s BRI, which has made a visible impact across the continent. BRI projects help African economies integrate with global trade routes, enhancing export potential and fostering regional connections.

China’s achievements in poverty reduction – viewed by many African countries as a model for economic transformation – add to its appeal. China’s stance on non-interference aligns with African leaders’ preference for sovereignty, and African countries wary of Western conditionalities often find China’s approach refreshing.

Further, China’s creation of alternative global institutions – such as the Global Development Initiative and Global Security Initiative – presents African nations with options beyond Western-led frameworks, appealing to those who seek diverse partnerships.

China’s technological prowess, particularly in 5G, digital payments and artificial intelligence, offers transformative potential for African economies. The country’s involvement in telecommunications provides affordable digital infrastructure necessary for economic development.

However, China’s authoritarian government raises concerns among Africa’s democratic nations, and financial dependency on China has cast a shadow on its image. Transparency issues, contentious labour practices, and the environmental impacts of large-scale projects have also sparked criticism. These factors lead some African leaders to question whether China’s transactional approach aligns with their long-term goals.

China’s reputation is also affected by controversies around COVID-19, espionage allegations and assertive foreign policies, potentially diminishing its appeal as a global south leader.

Some argue that China’s inclusion in the global south is convenient but contrived, compromising its leadership credibility. Critics point to China’s high GDP, robust trade, investments and military power, which align more with great power status than the global south. Beijing, however, maintains that solidarity with developing countries is the foundation of its foreign relations.

For Africa, the choice between China and India as global south leaders depends on the continent’s priorities and values. India’s democratic credentials, development model and trust-based partnerships are appealing, as is its growing role as a bridge-builder between north and south, especially among African countries seeking sovereignty in their partnerships.

Conversely, China’s financial strength, rapid infrastructure development, and non-interference approach make it a vital partner, particularly for nations facing immediate development needs. Yet concerns about debt sustainability and China’s authoritative approach limit its appeal as a long-term leader.

Ultimately, the choice need not be one or the other – both offer complementary roles that African countries can strategically leverage.

China’s strength in large-scale infrastructure and financial investment provides immediate, transformative support. Meanwhile, India’s focus on capacity building, technology transfer, and democratic governance offers a pathway to sustainable, locally adaptable long-term growth.

The recent rapprochement between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and China’s President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the BRICS summit could be a positive sign – though analysts remain sceptical given the substantive tensions. A more cooperative relationship could allow BRICS to consistently support Africa, addressing infrastructure and human capital development while promoting a more cohesive global south.

By engaging with both China and India, Africa can build a balanced, diversified approach to development that minimises dependency on a single partner. This dual engagement allows African nations to draw on China’s resources to meet urgent infrastructure needs while benefitting from India’s people-centred initiatives that foster skills and independence.

In doing so, Africa can assert its agency on the global stage, using the strengths of both to advance its interests.

Ronak Gopaldas, ISS Consultant and Signal Risk Director

(This article was first published by ISS Today, a Premium Times syndication partner. We have their permission to republish).