Resilience in an Era of Far-Right Influence: How African States, the AU, and Non-State Actors Navigate Ideological Pressures in International Organizations

Far-right ideologies are gaining prominence globally, triggering a direct impact on the work of multilateral organizations especially the United Nations and the World Bank. In the face of this, African states, the African Union (AU), and African non-state actors, are confronted with unique challenges. These include pressure to align with donor-driven priorities over local needs, navigating restrictive aid conditions, and balancing partnerships with authoritarian-leaning BRICS members, all while maintaining resilience and advancing their interests within these institutions. This paper provides a nuanced analysis of how African actors, using strategic foresight, might navigate these pressures and chart pathways that protect their resilience strategies amid shifting international ideological currents. It employs empirical evidence and case studies to illustrate these dynamics, including examples from countries in Africa in which aid relations have influenced policy autonomy and impacted resilience priorities. As far-right movements advocate for anti-globalization, ideological alignment in foreign aid, and selective engagement with multilateralism, donor countries are implementing far-right domestic policies that are transforming their approach to aid, emphasizing themes like migration control, security, and economic reforms that align with nationalist priorities over traditional development needs. This shift potentially limits the local agency and flexibility of African States and compels them to reassess the alignment between aid terms and their own strategic goals. Their responses are varied - for some authoritarian African states, such as Egypt, this alignment can be a strategic choice that reinforces domestic priorities, such as military support, while affirming their roles as reliable partners in international cooperation; in other authoritarian regimes, such as those in Niger and Mali the responses reflect distinct political agendas; in Uganda and Ethiopia, aid is used strategically in response to regional security concerns; while in Rwanda the government emphasizes control over its development narrative, occasionally aligning with donor priorities on economic reform and migration management. Meanwhile, the AU actively pursues alternative partnerships to preserve policy autonomy, while African civil society groups advocate for transparency and alignment with local needs to ensure accountability in aid distribution. The implications for African resilience strategies—defined here as the capacity of African states and institutions to maintain political autonomy, economic stability, and social cohesion in the face of external pressures—are profound and context-dependent. These implications do not manifest uniformly; rather, they depend on factors such as regime type, geopolitical alliances, and the degree of alignment with donor priorities. First, pressures to conform ideologically create institutional vulnerability, as external agendas may undermine autonomous policy-making within African states and regional bodies. Second, aligning with certain far-right agendas could require resources to satisfy donor conditions at the expense of local priorities. Third, the authoritarian tendencies of some BRICS-led initiatives introduce additional complexity, pushing African states to navigate resilience-building efforts carefully to avoid compromising on accountability or democratic standards. This research contributes to understanding African responses to far-right influences within multilateral institutions by offering an evidence-based foundation and forward-looking scenarios that support African resilience through policy autonomy, adaptable economic systems, and alignment of international engagement with local priorities.