The writers
Across Africa, development work has always demanded patience, partnership, and deft political navigation. Today, in a growing number of countries, it demands something more perilous: courage under pressure.
As civic space contracts and governments cast widening suspicion on external scrutiny, development professionals—particularly those associated with the donor community—are encountering escalating hostility, intimidation, and reprisals.
This is not a distant or abstract concern; it is a lived experience by numerous human rights defenders. It is an urgent warning sign. When those working to strengthen human rights, expand access to quality education, and support accountable governance are treated as adversaries, the consequences extend far beyond individual safety. The steady erosion of civic space threatens to unravel decades of hard-won progress and destabilise the very foundations of sustainable development across the continent.
A Climate of Suspicion
In countries where power is increasingly centralised, development actors that challenge state power and control are often portrayed as agents of foreign interference rather than partners in national progress. Leaders across the continent, in different ways and to varying degrees, continue to tighten control over philanthropic organisations, civil society and political expression. While each country’s context is unique, the broader pattern is clear: governments are asserting sovereignty and control in ways that limit independent development engagement.
Governments are increasingly using legal and administrative measures to tighten their grip on civil society. New NGO and INGO regulations, burdensome registration requirements, restrictions on foreign funding, and surveillance of local partners have become common tools. These rules are often framed as routine oversight, but in practice they function as tools of control—limiting who can operate, what they can say, and how they can be funded.
In such environments, development workers face more than bureaucratic inconvenience. They work under the persistent threat of visa denials, arbitrary detention, public smear campaigns, or sudden expulsion—risks that can halt programs overnight and chill legitimate development efforts. This is not simply bureaucratic friction; it is a growing security concern.
The Human Cost to Development Workers
When political rhetoric casts donors as destabilising forces, development professionals quickly become convenient scapegoats. Local staff endure harassment, intimidation, and reputational smears designed to silence them. International workers are branded as meddlers—or worse, spies. Offices are raided and programs suspended without warning, sending a chilling message to all who remain.
The danger is not abstract. In fragile settings, hostility toward international partners can escalate quickly, especially during election cycles or periods of unrest. Development workers, particularly those engaged in democratic governance, human rights, anti-corruption, or media support, are often caught in the crossfire.
For the donor community, the consequences are immediate and sobering. Risk assessments harden, insurance premiums climb, and programs are pared back to avoid politically sensitive sectors. In some cases, organisations quietly withdraw altogether.
The consequence is that communities lose services long before governments replace them.
A Strategic Miscalculation: Reversing Hard-Won Gains
Over the past three decades, development partnerships have contributed to measurable improvements in health systems, primary education enrolment, maternal mortality reduction, HIV treatment access, and institutional reform across many African countries. In recent times, development partners with their local counterparts have contributed immensely to shaping and reshaping the democratic ethos, conflict management and natural resource governance. These gains were built on collaboration between governments, donors, and civil society.
Where the state lacks either the capacity or the political will to sustain the development gap, hard-won gains can erode with alarming speed. Development builds gradually, layer upon layer, but remains inherently fragile. Years of steady progress can be undone by only a short period of repression and mistrust.
Some leaders argue that limiting foreign NGOs protects national sovereignty. But equating oversight with interference is a strategic miscalculation. Development partners do not replace governments; they amplify state capacity, mobilise resources, and strengthen systems.
Moreover, in a globalised economy, isolating development actors can deter private investment and damage international credibility. Investors look for rule of law, predictable regulations and institutional transparency – these are the same conditions that allow development programs to function. Countries that close civic space may win short-term political control but lose long-term economic dynamism.
The Broader Continental Risk
Africa stands at a demographic and economic crossroads. With the world’s youngest population and rapidly expanding urban centres, the continent holds immense potential. But it also faces climate vulnerabilities, debt distress, and pressure to create employment for the youth.
Reversing development gains would do more than stall progress—it would deepen instability. Rising youth unemployment, weakened institutions, and failing public services create conditions ripe for unrest, displacement, and insecurity. When development workers are pushed out or silenced across multiple countries, vital support systems erode simultaneously. The cumulative effect could alter the continent’s development trajectory for a generation.
A Way Forward: From Confrontation to Collaboration
The solution is not confrontation but recalibration. Governments must recognise that independent development actors are not political enemies. Donors have always worked with a heightened respect for national sovereignty, while firmly upholding their commitments to accountability and promoting human rights.
The future of Africa’s development depends on trust between states and citizens, and between governments and partners. When leaders turn hostile to those working to improve public welfare, they do not merely silence critics; they endanger lives, discourage investment, and risk undoing decades of collective progress. Development is not charity. It is a partnership. Undermining that partnership comes at a cost Africa can ill afford.
Chukwuemeka Eze is the Director for Democratic Futures in Africa and Rumbidzai Masango, Africa Program Manager at Open Society Foundations]
Source: Chukwuemeka Eze and Rumbidzai M. Masango