The political economy of African countries has long been shaped by an activist paradigmJacob MahlanguPhD: Political SciencesUniversity of Pretoria2025Ever since the 1960s an activist paradigm has plagued the political economy of African countries, it has centred on anti-colonial resistance, redistributive justice, and state intervention. This means that most African countries have been welfare states who are paternalistic and aim for economic reconstruction, path-dependence and development. They depend on financial aid, socialistic models of economic systems and policies, freedom and emancipation. It is rooted in valid struggles against inequality, and the continent being intentionally placed at the bottom of the pyramid in the hierarchy of the world by powerful states resulting in unfair global structural imbalances. This article argues that such a paradigm prevents the continent from advancing in economic growth through innovation, makes them remain dependent, and ignores democratic processes of checks and balances that make for good governance further leading these countries to underdevelopment, poverty and corruption. There is an increasing need for a transition from an activist model towards a more economically competitive pragmatic model which advances the African continent through meritocracy, technocracy, entrepreneurship, labour-intensive, administrative and managerial functionality and industriousness based on the continent’s resourcefulness. There are limitations in the African approach that is activist-centric- consisting of moralistic policymaking, populist rhetoric, and its obsession with external blame. The article uses the dependency theory as a theoretical framework, which is the perspective often used by African countries to justify their activism. Using a comparative analysis this article compares the economies of developed countries with those of the African continent and makes recommendations to African countries in areas of improvement. This is a qualitative desk-top study, making use of secondary sources such as online websites, journal articles, and etc.IntroductionThe 1960s in the African continent has been shaped by the wave of independence. An activist paradigm has been used by African states in their political economy. The features of this paradigm include a devotion to redistributive justice, anti-colonial resistance and the intervention of the state in the economy. Inspired by historical injustice and motivated by emancipation most governments in Africa adopted a welfare-oriented and paternalistic model of governance operating for the purposes of attaining economic development and reconstruction. These models resembled a path-dependent route premised on socialist ideologies, dependence on foreign aid, and a stubborn classification of Africa’s global position as below the hierarchy, being that of systemic marginalization in an international order that is unequal.While the activist paradigm may be valid based on history- emanating from exploitative colonial legacies and actual global structural imbalances- critical limitations have been revealed by it in the recent decades. This article makes an argument that a persistent usage of activist-centric political economic paradigms has prevented economic growth, perpetuated continued dependency and blocked innovation. Through moralistic policymaking, making use of external blame narratives and populist rhetoric, many governments neglect domestic mechanisms of accountability, technocracy, and meritocratic governance which are important for sustainable development, remaining globally competitive, and democratic consolidation. The negative outcomes produced by this include corruption, administrative inefficiencies, widespread poverty, and underdevelopment. There is a pressing need to remodel the activist paradigm and transition toward a more competitive, pragmatic and an economic model that is future-focused. Such a model would make use of Africa’s resourcefulness through labour-intensive industrialisation, effective public administration, entrepreneurship, and a technocratic merit system with the capability of creating inclusive growth and good governance. This article makes use of the dependency theory, which is a theoretical lens used predominantly by African states to rationalize activist economic approaches. Through a comparative analysis of African and developed countries’ economies, the study examines opposite outcomes in economic policy, institutional performance and governance. This qualitative desktop study utilises secondary sources such as policy papers, journal articles, and credible online platforms, with the intention to provide constructive recommendations for recalibrating Africa’s political economy for the 21st century.Theoretical frameworkFrank (1966) argues that internal factors or isolated regions are not the cause of underdevelopment but rather underdevelopment is caused by historical and continuing exploitation of developing nations by developed nations through capitalist world systems. Dos Santos (1970) describes that dependency as a condition where the economy of particular countries is shaped by the development and expansion of another. Cardoso and Faletto’s (1979) suggest that while constraints are created by dependency, internal development and transformation are not prevented; with the right policies and state intervention some form of “dependent development” can be achieved by dependent nations. Prebisch (1950) argues that the prices of agricultural products and raw materials (primary goods) exported by developing countries were consistently decreasing in relation to the prices of finished goods imported from industrialised countries. This idea along with the concept of “center-periphery” and the unequal distribution of income were a solid foundation of dependency theory. Amin (1976) stresses on the role of unequal exchange, where peripheral nations are pushed to trade labour and raw materials for finished goods from the core, resulting in an unchanging flow of wealth from the periphery to the core. Rodney (1972) argues that the underdevelopment of Africa is not an inherent characteristic but is rather an outcome of centuries of exploitation by Europe including colonialism, slavery, and imperialism. He stresses that this exploitation enriched European nations while at the same time preventing African development (Rodney 1972).Literature reviewThe 1960s saw a decolonization wave across Africa, with about 17 countries attaining independence in 1960 alone. This period reflected an important turning point where postcolonial states aimed to assert sovereignty and have their development paths defined. Scholars however, argue that the initial end of colonialism did not result in economic liberation (Nkrumah 1965). Rather, what appeared was a new kind of “neo-colonialism” where previous colonies remained economically reliant on their previous colonizers through monetary systems, trade and aid (Nkrumah 1965; Rodney 1972). African political elites inherited economies which were focused on the export of raw materials and dependent on Western markets. Regardless of efforts towards achieving African socialism and developmentalism (for example Julius Nyerere’s Ujamaa in Tanzania), these first models had difficulty deconstructing the colonial economic infrastructure (Mamdani 1996). During the Cold War, African states were pulled into ideological alignments with either the Soviet socialist bloc or Western capitalist bloc. Western powers, specifically the United States and previous colonial states, offered financial, military, and diplomatic support to African regimes whose design aligned with their strategic interests (Westad 2005). For instance, substantial U.S backing was received by Mobutu Sese Seko’s Zaire as a bulwark against communism in Central Africa (Gibbs 1991). This support most of the time entrenched authoritarian regimes and formed dependencies that put constraint policy autonomy. While some African leaders exploited the rivalry to draw concessions from both blocs, the broader result was perpetual reliance on external powers (Clapham 1996). Post-independence Africa’s economic weakness was worsened by increasing debt crises in the 1980s, calling for extended engagement with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. These institutions enacted Structural Adjustment Programs whose aim was to liberalise African economies, privatise state assets and cut public expenditure. Critics argue that SAPs weakened public institutions, deepened poverty and erased the developmental role of the state (Mkandawire and Soludo 1999). The conditionalities accompanying the loans limited sovereignty and policy space, with dependency being reinforced instead of allowing autonomous development (Stiglitz 2002).While Foreign Direct Investment is most of the time encouraged as a development tool, in Africa it has excessively flowed into extractive industries such as oil and mining, with restricted linkages to the broader economy. Transnational corporations (TNCs) gain from tax breaks, minimally contribute to local capacity building and repatriate profits (UNCTAD, 2021) Scholars such as Taylor (2016) argue that Africa’s weak regulatory systems are exploited by TNCs, effectively recreating the colonial model of resource extraction for outside benefit. This pattern of investment mainstains Africa as a supplier of raw materials instead of industrial power. The export of unprocessed raw materials stays as a hallmark of African economies, with countries Angola, Nigeria, and the DRC heavily dependent on mineral and oil exports. In a similar fashion, agricultural economies in Ethiopia and Cote d’Ivoire rely on coffee and cocoa respectively. This mono-crop and raw material reliance restricts value addition and reveal countries to commodity price shocks (Bates 1981). Moreover, Africa’s young labour force is often not used enough nor is employed informally, while some countries are labour reservoirs for wealthier countries (Crush and Tevera 2010). The outcome is a structural subordination in the global division of labour.Moreover, Africa’s young labour force is often underutilized or employed informally, while some countries serve as labour reservoirs for wealthier economies (Crush & Tevera, 2010). The result is a structural subordination in the global division of labour. The continued usage of the CFA franc by 14 Central and West African countries is proof of how monetary policies can worsen dependency. Underwritten by the French Treasury and pegged to the Euro , the CFA zone restricts African states’ ability to pursue independent monetary policy, affecting economic planning and competitiveness (Sylla 2016). Debates regarding monetary sovereignty argue that the CFA franc system is a historical artefact of colonial control, and efforts of reform such as the proposed Eco currency in ECOWAS have had difficulty in dependency on France and gaining traction because of divergent national interests (Van de Walle, 2001). Regardless of these structural limits, African states have gotten involved in regional activism through participating in organizations such as the Economic Community of West African States, African Union, Southern African Development Community, and Southern African Customs Union. These bodies lead political integration, peacekeeping, collective bargaining and intra-African trade. For example, ECOWAS has militaristically gotten involved in crises in Liberi, Gambia and Sierra Leone, placing itself as a regional guarantor of democratic order (Adebajo 2002). In a similar fashion the AU has encouraged regional integration and pan-African values through Agenda 2063. However, these efforts are often taken lightly by constraint funding, weak institutional capacity and donor dependence (Murithi 2008).Results (Comparative Analysis)This section compares African and Western economies across seven ideological and structural domains: Infrastructure, labour, international trade, economic ideology, currency, and wealth. This comparative analysis is important in understanding the systemic inequalities that emphasize dependency theory and the discourse of development in the Global South.1. TechnologyThe Gap in technology is a fundamental indicator of economic inequality between Africa and the West. Western economies, such as those of the United States, Japan, Germany, and Nordic countries, feature high levels of digital integration, technological innovation and research-intensive industries (Schwab 2017). According to the Global Innovation Index (2023), the top 20 countries are heavily Western, with the U.S, Switzerland and Sweden leading.In contrast, most African countries are behind in technological development because of lack of investment in research and development (R&D), weak intellectual property regimes, and dependence on imported technology (World Bank, 2020). For example, Africa contributes less than 1% to global scientific output (UNESCO, 2021). The digital divide remains severe, with broadband penetration below 30% in many Sub-Saharan countries (ITU, 2023).2. Infrastructure and UrbanismWestern economies have advanced infrastructure, consisting of extensive transportation networks, planned urban development, and reliable energy grids. Urbanization in North America and Western Europe is connected to infrastructural investment and industrialization during the 19th and 20th centuries (Harvey, 2012).In contrast, African infrastructure is most of the time fragmented and underdeveloped. The African Development Bank (2018) estimates a $130–$170 billion annual infrastructure financing gap. Urbanization in Africa is appearing without commensurate industrial growth, resulting in weak municipal planning, informal settlement and overburdened services (UN-Habitat, 2020).3. LabourWestern labour markets are highly skilled, formalized and protected by union regulations and social security. Labour productivity in OECD countries is significantly higher, backed by strong educational systems and technology (ILO, 2021).In Africa, the labour force is largely informal—over 85% in Sub-Saharan Africa (ILO, 2021). Many Africans are employed in low-productivity services or subsistence agriculture, with restricted access to social protection. Youth underemployment and unemployment are widespread, resulting in a ”labour surplus economy” (Mkandawire, 2005).4. International TradeGlobal trade is dominated by Western economies through value-added exports such as machinery, pharmaceuticals and digital services. They are core players in global value chains and most of the time set trade rules via institutions like the WTO (Rodrik, 2011).By contrast, African economies remain marginal in global trade, contributing only 2.8% to global exports, primarily in primary commodities and raw materials (UNCTAD, 2021). This pattern in trade resembles colonial legacies where African states import finished goods while they supply inputs—what dependency theorists call ”unequal exchange” (Emmanuel, 1972).5. CurrencyWestern currencies such as the Euro, U.S Dollar, Pound Sterling are global reserve currencies, stable and widely accepted in international transactions.. Their monetary systems are supported by independent central banks, strong institutions and deep financial markets (Eichengreen, 2011).Oppositely, many African currencies are weak, volatile and suffer from low convertibility. Some are even externally pegged (e.g., CFA Franc to the Euro), limiting monetary sovereignty (Sylla, 2016). Currency devaluation, inflation, and dollarization are common, resembling sensitive macroeconomic environments.6. Economic IdeologyWestern economies, regardless of rhetorical commitments to free markets, practice “embedded liberalism” (Ruggie, 1982), where welfare institutions and state regulation coexist with capitalism. Their development paths were historically encouraged by industrial policy, protectionism and state intervention (Chang 2002).In Africa, economic ideology has largely been influenced by outside prescriptions, especially neoliberal conditionalities from the Bretton Woods institutions and Structural Adjustment Programs (Mkandawire & Soludo, 1999). African states therefore function under restricted policy autonomy and constraint fiscal space, most of the time adhering to outside imposed economic orthodoxy.7. Wealth and IncomeThe West has in it the most of the world’s high-income countries. According to the World Bank (2022), the U.S. GDP per capita is over $70,000, compared to Sub-Saharan Africa’s average of less than $2,000. The wealth gap is based on centuries of accumulation through industrialization, colonial exploitation and financialization (Piketty, 2014).Africa remains the poorest continent, with over 400 million people living below the international poverty line (World Bank, 2022). While some African countries have faced growth, wealth stays concentrated, and inequality persists both within and between states (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).DiscussionThe comparative disparities between African and Western economies reveal a deeply entrenched global economic hierarchy that resembles structural, historical and ideological asymmetries. Each of the seven dimensions analyzed— infrastructure, labour, currency, trade, economic ideology, wealth, and trade—represents not only a secret site of inequality but also a node in a larger system of dependency and uneven development. This system is historically produced and not accidental, it is also maintained institutionally.Technological Disparity as Structural ConstraintThe technological gap indicates how innovation ecosystems are both a cause and consequence of inequality. Western states, through investments that are sustained through research and development, have nurtured endogenous technological capacity, emphasizing their position in the economy of global knowledge. Africa’s peripheral status- appeared in low R&D output, technology dependence and poor digital infrastructure—restricts its capacity to leapfrog into post-industrial development or higher stages of industrial development. This echoes dependency theory’s warning that latecomers in the global system face structural shortcomings not easily overcome by market reforms alone (Prebisch, 1950; Rodney, 1972).Infrastructure and Labour: The Missing Link Between Urbanization and IndustrializationAfrica’s informal labour markets and infrastructural deficits are symptomatic of what scholars label “Structural heterogeneity”—a coexistence of underdeveloped sectors and modern enclaves (Furtado, 1964). Western countries were able to urbanize together with industrialization, creating formal employment, productivity gains and social security nets.. In Africa, however, rapid urbanization with no equivalent industrial development has resulted in megacities mixed with jobless growth, informality, and weak state capacity.Trade and Currency: Echoes of Colonial Trade PatternsThe unequal participation in global trade and the subordination of African currencies to Western monetary systems resembles the legacies of colonial economic structures. While the West exports complex finished goods and digital services, African economies stay locked into raw material exports, exposing them to terms of trade losses and commodity shocks. Emmanuel’s (1972) notion of “unequal exchange” aptly captures how global trade rules and currency hierarchies recreate African dependency and restrict sovereign development strategies. The persistence of outside pegged currencies, such as the CFA Franc, underscores how monetary sovereignty remains compromised for many African states.Ideological Imposition and Policy SpaceOne of the most important findings is the ideological asymmetry in economic governance. Western economies gained historically from state intervention and protectionist policies while prescribing neoliberal orthodoxy to African states through Structural Adjustment Programs and conditional aid. Chang’s (2002) metaphor of the West ”kicking away the ladder” is not just a critique of hypocrisy but a structural diagnosis: African states are denied the very tools—capital controls, industrial policy, public investment- that facilitated the prosperity of the West As Mkandawire and Soludo (1999) argue, this outside driven policy regime contrains the continent’s ability to chart endogenous development paths.Wealth, Income, and Historical AccumulationThe contemporary global wealth gap cannot be understood outside the historical processes of slavery, colonialism, and imperialism, which enriched Western states and impoverished African ones. Piketty’s (2014) observation that wealth begets more wealth is particularly relevant in explaining how early capital accumulation in the West has compounded into generational prosperity, while African countries remain caught in cycles of aid dependence, debt, and extractive economies. The disparity is not just economic—it is epistemic, political, and institutional.Towards an African-Centered Development ModelThe findings underscore the need to reimagine Africa’s development trajectory beyond Western prescriptions. This contains investing in science, innovation and technology, building regional value chains, building regional value chains, reclaiming macroeconomic sovereignty, and promoting institutional resilience. Importantly, development must be embedded in local realities rather than externally imposed paradigms. Concepts such as Afrocentricity, Pan-African economic integration, and postcolonial statecraft become essential frameworks for thinking about long-term transformation.Policy Recommendations for African DevelopmentTechnology: Building Indigenous Innovation SystemsInvest in R&D and Higher Education: governments in Africa must contribute a greater percentage of GDP to research and innovation (targeting 1-2% as per UNESCO recommendations). Partnering with local universities and industry can promote relevant innovation ecosystems (Mazzucato 2013)Strengthen Intellectual Property Systems: formalize regional patent frameworks and technology transfer agreements to reward local invention and protect knowledge productionLeverage Digital Leapfrogging: promote fintech and mobile technology fintech (for example M-pesa in Kenya) to defeat limitations of legacy infrastructure and encourage inclusive digital economies.Infrastructure and Urbanism: Closing the Infrastructure GapPublic-Private Partnerships (PPPs): Have private capital mobilized with clear regulations to invest in energy, transport and housing while maintaining public interest (AfDB, 2018).Regional Connectivity Projects: Have cross-border infrastructure expanded like fiber optics, trans-African highways, and power pools through frameworks such asthe Program for infrastructure Development in Africa and NEPAD (PIDA)Smart and Resilient Urban Planning: take up integrated urban strategies that prioritizes public transport, affordable housing, and green infrastructure in fast-growing citiesLabour: Formalization and Skills DevelopmentInvest in TVET: Shift the focus from rote learning to technical and vocational education aimed at industrial demand (ILO 2021)Formalize the informal Economy: allocate small businesses with tax rewards, legal identity and access to microfinance to oversee their transition into the formal economyLabour rights and Social Protections: increase universal health coverage, decent work policies to reduce precarity and pension schemes.International Trade: Value Addition and Regional integrationDevelop Agro-processing and Light Manufacturing: Moveup the value chain by investing in sectors like food processing, textiles and pharmaceuticals instead of exporting raw materials.Strengthen the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA): Harmonize standards, get rid of tariff and non-tariff barriers, and have intra-African trade boosted (UNECA 2021).Negotiate Fairer Global Trade Deals: Build collective bargaining power through blocs like the G77, AU and ACP to challenge unequal trade terms.Currency: Enhancing Monetary Sovereignty and StabilityBuild Regional Monetary Unions: Promote convergence through blocs such as ECOWAs and the East African Community to decrease dependency on external currencies (Sylla 2016).Develop Soverign Wealth Fund: Use commodity surpluses to invest in productive sectors and stabilize national currenciesExpand Access to Pan-African Payment Systems: enact systems .lile PAPSS to decrease dependence on the U>S dollar in intra-African trade.Economic ideology: Strategic Autonomy over Neoliberal ConditionalitiesReject one-size-fits-all neoliberal reforms; accept context specific development strategies inspired by successful Asian models like development states (Mkandawire 2001).Strengthen Domestic Revenue Mobilization: enhance tax collection, decrease illicit financial flows, and stop capital flight to decrease dependence on aid.Encourage Industrial Policy: Use state-led planning, public procurement to build productive capacity and infant industry protectionWealth and Inequality: Redistribution and Economic JusticeProgressive Taxation and Wealth Redistribution: capital gains, tax land and inheritance to address inequality and fund public servicesInclusive Growth Strategies: Prioritize sectors that hire large numbers fo people (services, agriculture) at the same time encouraging SMEs and women’s entrepreneurship.Regional Development Banks: Strengthen institutions like the African Development Bank and the African Export-Import Bank to finance continental prioritiesConclusionThis paper has critically examined the enduring disparities between African economies and their Western counterparts across seven interrelated dimensions: technology, infrastructure and urbanism, labour, international trade, currency, economic ideology, and wealth and income. These dimensions collectively illustrate the systemic nature of global inequality and the entrenched position of African economies in a structurally subordinate role within the international economic order.Technological lag, infrastructural deficits, and labour informality are not isolated issues but symptoms of deeper historical and structural imbalances rooted in colonial exploitation, dependency, and externally imposed economic models. Meanwhile, the West benefits from technological innovation, institutional stability, and the cumulative advantages of early industrialization and capital accumulation. Western dominance in global trade, finance, and economic governance further entrenches these asymmetries, perpetuating a cycle where Africa remains a supplier of raw materials while relying on imported goods, ideas, and financial systems.Moreover, Africa’s policy space continues to be constrained by neoliberal orthodoxies propagated through institutions like the IMF and World Bank, limiting the continent’s capacity for homegrown development strategies. The weak and volatile currencies, underdeveloped infrastructure, and unprotected labour markets are not merely economic failures but reflections of limited sovereignty and skewed global power dynamics.Addressing these challenges requires a radical rethinking of Africa’s development model—one that prioritizes endogenous innovation, regional integration, and macroeconomic sovereignty. Pan-African collaboration, strategic investments in education and technology, and the reassertion of developmental state roles are critical if the continent is to break free from cycles of dependency and underdevelopment. Only through structural transformation and assertive policymaking can Africa redefine its role in the global economy—not as a periphery, but as a sovereign and self-determined collective of nations capable of shaping its own destiny.BibliographyAcemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. Crown Business.Adebajo, A. 2002. Building Peace in West Africa: Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea-Bissau. Lynne Rienner Publishers.African Development Bank. (2018). African Economic Outlook 2018: Infrastructure and Regional Integration.Amin, S. (1976). Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism. Monthly Review Press.Bates, R. H. (1981). Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies. University of California Press.Cardoso, F.H., & Faletto, E. (1979). Dependency and Development in Latin America. University of California Press.Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. Anthem Press.Clapham, C. (1996). Africa and the International System: The Politics of State Survival . Cambridge University Press.Dos Santos, T.1970. The Structure of Dependence. American Economic Review, 60(2), 231–236Eichengreen, B. (2011). Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System. Oxford University Press.Emmanuel, A. (1972). Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. Monthly Review Press.Frank, A.G.1966. The Development of Underdevelopment. Monthly Review, 18(4), 17–31ILO. 2021. World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2021.Gibbs, D. 1991. The Political Economy of Third World Intervention: Mines, Money, and U.S. Policy in the Congo Crisis. University of Chicago Press.Harvey, D. 2012. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. Verso.Mamdani, M. 1996. Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism. Princeton University Press.Mkandawire, T., & Soludo, C. C. (1999). Our Continent, Our Future: African Perspectives on Structural Adjustment. IDRC.Murithi, T. (2008). ”The African Union’s evolving role in peace operations: The African Union Mission in Burundi, the African Union Mission in Sudan and the African Union Mission in Somalia.” African Affairs, 107(426), 69–84.Nkrumah, K. 1965. Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Thomas Nelson & Sons.Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.Prebisch, R. 1950. The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems. United Nations.Rodney, W. 1972. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications.Rodrik, D. 2011. The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. W. W. Norton & CompanySchwab, K. 2017. The Fourth Industrial Revolution . World Economic Forum.Stiglitz, J. E. 2002. Globalization and its Discontents. W.W. Norton.Sylla, N. S. 2016. ”The CFA Franc: French Monetary Imperialism in Africa.” Review of African Political Economy, 43(147), 335–348.UNESCO. 2021. Science Report: The Race Against Time for Smarter Development.Taylor, I. 2016. Dependency Redux: Why Africa is Not Rising. James Currey.UNCTAD. 2021. World Investment Report 2021: Investing in Sustainable Recovery. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.UNCTAD. 2021. Economic Development in Africa Report: Reaping the Potential Benefits of the African Continental Free Trade Area for Inclusive Growth.Ruggie, J. G. (1982). ”International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order.” International Organization, 36(2), 379–415.Westad, O. A. (2005). The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times. Cambridge University Press.

The World Trade Organization and global inequality: A critical review.Jacob MahlanguPhD: Political ScienceUniversity of Pretoria2025Abstract:This paper critically examines the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the perpetuation and exacerbation of global inequality. Despite its stated mission to foster international trade, the WTO’s policies and practices have been criticized for disproportionately benefiting wealthy nations and multinational corporations while marginalizing developing countries. The review highlights key aspects of WTO agreements, such as trade liberalization, agricultural subsidies, intellectual property rights, and dispute settlement mechanisms, and assesses their impact on global economic disparities. Through a decolonial lens, the paper explores how the WTO’s framework reinforces existing power structures, often sidelining the interests of the Global South. The analysis also critiques the institution’s failure to adequately address issues such as environmental sustainability, social justice, and labor rights. Ultimately, the paper argues that the WTO’s policies, far from promoting equitable global trade, contribute to deepening socio-economic inequalities, and calls for a restructuring of international trade governance that prioritizes fairness and the inclusion of marginalized voices in decision-making processes.Introduction:The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995 with the goal of promoting free and fair global trade, reducing trade barriers, and fostering economic growth across nations. However, the organization’s framework and policies have been the subject of significant critique, particularly regarding their role in exacerbating global inequality. While proponents argue that the WTO facilitates economic development by ensuring smooth international trade flows, critics assert that the organization’s mechanisms disproportionately favor wealthier nations and multinational corporations, while undermining the economic sovereignty of developing countries.At the heart of the WTO’s controversial impact lies its trade liberalization agenda, which, while ostensibly designed to create opportunities for growth and prosperity, often leads to the marginalization of the Global South. The imposition of stringent rules on agricultural trade, intellectual property rights, and market access has led to increased economic dependency on powerful trade partners, restricting the ability of poorer nations to implement policies that could benefit their populations. Additionally, the WTO’s dispute settlement process has been criticized for prioritizing the interests of economically powerful states, leaving less developed nations with limited recourse for addressing grievances.This paper seeks to critically review the WTO’s role in shaping global inequality by examining key policies, their outcomes, and the socio-economic dynamics they perpetuate. Drawing from a range of scholarly perspectives, this analysis will explore how the WTO, intentionally or unintentionally, reinforces global power imbalances, undermines sustainable development, and exacerbates social and economic disparities. By critically assessing the impacts of the WTO’s policies on the world’s poorest countries, this paper aims to contribute to the broader conversation on how international trade governance can be restructured to ensure a more equitable and inclusive global economy.Theoretical FrameworkTo understand the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in global inequality, this paper draws from three interrelated theoretical traditions: Dependency Theory, World-Systems Theory, and Critical Global Political Economy. These frameworks offer critical lenses through which the power dynamics embedded in global trade governance can be interrogated.1. Dependency TheoryOriginating in Latin America in the mid-20th century, Dependency Theory posits that global economic relations are structured in a way that perpetuates the dependency of poorer, “peripheral” nations on wealthier, industrialized “core” countries (Dos Santos, 1970). Within the WTO context, dependency theorists argue that trade liberalization benefits core countries by granting them preferential access to markets while limiting the policy autonomy of peripheral nations. This asymmetry locks developing countries into roles as suppliers of raw materials or low-cost labor, preventing their industrial and social advancement.As Dos Santos (1970) emphasizes, the dependency is not merely economic but also institutional, with multilateral bodies like the WTO reinforcing existing inequalities under the guise of universal trade rules.2. World-Systems TheoryBuilding on dependency theory, Immanuel Wallerstein’s World-Systems Theory views the global economy as a hierarchical system composed of core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral states (Wallerstein, 1974). In this system, core countries extract surplus value from the labor and resources of the periphery through structured economic relations. The WTO, by institutionalizing rules that reflect the interests of core states—particularly in areas such as intellectual property rights and agricultural subsidies—maintains this exploitative global structure.Wallerstein (2004) argues that the legal and normative frameworks created by global institutions are not neutral but are shaped by historical power asymmetries, thereby sustaining the hegemony of the core.3. Critical Global Political Economy (GPE)Critical GPE challenges the neoliberal assumptions underpinning institutions like the WTO, emphasizing the role of power, ideology, and class interests in shaping global economic governance (Cox, 1981; Gill, 1995). From this perspective, the WTO is not merely a facilitator of trade but an instrument of global capitalist interests, particularly those aligned with transnational corporations and dominant states.Robert Cox (1981) famously argued that “theory is always for someone and for some purpose,” highlighting the political nature of institutional frameworks. The WTO’s legal-rational structures, when critically examined, serve to reproduce neoliberal capitalism and market fundamentalism at the expense of social justice.Stephen Gill (1995) extends this by discussing the “new constitutionalism” of global governance, whereby institutions like the WTO depoliticize economic decision-making and insulate neoliberal policies from democratic accountability.Together, these frameworks offer a robust critical lens to examine how the WTO contributes to the persistence and reproduction of global inequality. By moving beyond surface-level economic analyses and incorporating structural and historical dimensions of global trade governance, this study highlights the need for a fundamental rethinking of the WTO’s role in achieving equitable development.Literature Review1. The WTO’s Founding Principles and Liberal Trade IdeologyThe World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995 to provide a rules-based framework for international trade, with the goal of promoting economic growth through trade liberalization. Proponents argue that by reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers, the WTO enhances efficiency, market access, and economic integration (Bhagwati, 2004). From this perspective, trade liberalization is seen as a path to development for all countries, regardless of their starting point.However, critics note that the liberal trade ideology underlying the WTO assumes equal footing among nations, thereby ignoring historical inequalities and structural asymmetries (Chang, 2002). This critique suggests that liberalization often benefits countries with greater economic power and institutional capacity, while constraining the policy space of developing nations.2. Trade Liberalization and Structural InequalityEmpirical studies have highlighted how WTO-led trade liberalization has exacerbated global inequalities. For instance, Rodrik (2001) argues that globalization under WTO rules restricts the autonomy of developing states to implement industrial and social policies that could support inclusive development. Similarly, Wade (2003) asserts that the so-called ”level playing field” of WTO trade rules often reinforces the advantages of wealthier countries.One of the most contested issues is agricultural trade. Developed countries continue to subsidize their agricultural sectors while pushing for open markets in the Global South. These subsidies distort global prices and make it difficult for farmers in developing countries to compete (Clapp, 2006). Despite repeated attempts to reform the Agreement on Agriculture, little progress has been made, leading to what some scholars call “institutionalized inequality” within the WTO (Sharma, 2011).3. Intellectual Property Rights and Developmental DisparitiesThe WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has also come under scrutiny for its role in global inequality. TRIPS has been criticized for prioritizing the interests of multinational corporations, particularly in pharmaceuticals, over access to essential medicines in developing countries (Sell, 2003). The enforcement of strict intellectual property regimes limits the ability of poorer nations to engage in knowledge transfer, technological advancement, and local innovation.Matthews (2005) emphasizes how TRIPS negotiations were shaped by corporate lobbying in developed nations, particularly the United States, thereby reflecting an imbalance of power in global rule-making. The COVID-19 pandemic reignited this debate, with the Global South calling for a waiver of TRIPS provisions to access vaccines and medical technologies—an effort largely resisted by powerful WTO members.4. Dispute Settlement and Power AsymmetriesThe WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) is often hailed as one of the most advanced systems of international law enforcement. However, participation in the DSM is uneven, with wealthier countries initiating the majority of cases and having greater legal capacity to engage in complex litigation (Shaffer, 2003). As a result, smaller economies often refrain from pursuing disputes, fearing retaliatory trade sanctions or diplomatic fallout (Busch & Reinhardt, 2003).Moreover, the DSM has shown patterns of bias in favor of countries with higher geopolitical influence, raising concerns about the legitimacy and fairness of the WTO’s adjudicative process (Hopewell, 2016).5. Calls for Reform and Alternatives to WTO GovernanceIn light of these critiques, scholars and activists have proposed reforms to make the WTO more equitable. These include greater policy flexibility for developing nations (Rodrik, 2011), meaningful reform of agricultural trade rules (Clapp, 2016), and increased transparency and participation of marginalized voices in decision-making processes (Steinberg, 2002). Others advocate for a broader transformation of global economic governance, suggesting alternatives grounded in principles of climate justice, human rights, and postcolonial equity (Santos, 2006).Nonetheless, the WTO has struggled to respond to these calls for reform, leading to questions about its future relevance. The growing number of bilateral and regional trade agreements also points to a fragmentation of the multilateral system, potentially reducing the influence of the WTO while leaving unresolved the core issues of trade-related inequality.ResultsThe critical review of literature reveals five key patterns regarding the relationship between the World Trade Organization (WTO) and global inequality:1. Disproportionate Gains from Trade LiberalizationThe review finds that trade liberalization under WTO rules tends to benefit developed countries more than developing ones. While the WTO advocates for market openness as a universally beneficial approach, the empirical evidence suggests that wealthier nations reap greater rewards due to existing industrial capacities and trade advantages (Rodrik, 2001; Chang, 2002). Developing countries, on the other hand, often experience deindustrialization, job losses in vulnerable sectors, and an erosion of state capacity to implement development-oriented policies.2. Structural Inequities in Agricultural TradeAgriculture remains a critical sector where WTO policies perpetuate inequality. Developed nations continue to subsidize their agricultural industries, distorting global prices and impeding fair competition. Developing countries are pressured to open their markets without receiving reciprocal concessions, resulting in significant trade imbalances and food insecurity (Clapp, 2006; Sharma, 2011).3. Intellectual Property Regimes Favouring the Global NorthThe TRIPS Agreement has entrenched disparities in technological access and innovation. Pharmaceutical and technological monopolies established under WTO rules disproportionately benefit corporations in the Global North. The review finds that strict intellectual property enforcement limits the capacity of developing countries to address public health challenges and enhance local innovation (Sell, 2003; Matthews, 2005).4. Unequal Access to Dispute Settlement MechanismsThe WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM), while legally robust, shows a pattern of underutilization by developing nations. Due to limited legal expertise and resources, smaller states often refrain from launching or defending cases, while wealthier countries dominate the dispute settlement process (Shaffer, 2003; Busch & Reinhardt, 2003). This reinforces power asymmetries and undermines the notion of a rules-based, impartial system.5. Limited Inclusion and Reform ResistanceAlthough reform proposals have been made to address inequalities within the WTO, progress remains limited. The decision-making processes are criticized for their opacity and for excluding voices from the Global South (Steinberg, 2002). The organization’s consensus-based model has often served to maintain the status quo, favouring the interests of dominant economies and limiting meaningful change (Hopewell, 2016).DiscussionThe results of this review highlight deep-rooted structural challenges in the global trading system, suggesting that the World Trade Organization, while founded on principles of fairness and multilateral cooperation, has often functioned in ways that entrench global inequality. Despite its promise of inclusive development, the WTO appears to reinforce existing hierarchies between the Global North and South.One of the most striking issues is the uneven distribution of benefits from trade liberalization. The expectation that open markets will generate widespread prosperity has not held true for many developing economies. Instead, liberalization has frequently led to a dismantling of protective measures that once supported infant industries and agricultural sectors in these regions. Without the necessary buffers and institutional support, developing countries are left exposed to competitive pressures they are ill-equipped to withstand.Agriculture remains a central point of contention. The ability of wealthier nations to subsidize their farmers while promoting open markets abroad has had a damaging effect on small-scale producers in less developed countries. These producers face declining incomes, market exclusion, and increasing vulnerability to price shocks—all of which undermine food security and rural development.The enforcement of intellectual property rights under WTO agreements also reflects a global imbalance. The rigid application of these standards has had the effect of concentrating technological and pharmaceutical advantages in already dominant economies. In doing so, it stifles innovation and autonomy in poorer regions, where access to essential technologies and medicines is often most urgent.Furthermore, the underutilization of dispute settlement mechanisms by developing countries points to deeper issues of access and representation. Legal and financial constraints, as well as geopolitical dynamics, limit the ability of weaker states to defend their interests effectively. This calls into question the WTO’s claims to neutrality and equal treatment.Efforts toward reform have faced significant resistance. The decision-making structure, often dominated by consensus and informal power dynamics, makes it difficult for smaller and poorer countries to effect meaningful change. The persistence of these dynamics suggests that the WTO’s institutional design may not be adequately responsive to the voices of the marginalized.Taken together, these findings challenge the prevailing narrative that global trade governed by the WTO is inherently development-friendly. Instead, the system appears to replicate and legitimize patterns of dominance. Addressing these inequalities will require not only technical reforms but a fundamental reimagining of the WTO’s role in shaping a fairer global order.ConclusionThis critical review has examined the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in shaping global inequality. While the WTO was established with the goal of fostering equitable trade and development among nations, its institutional practices and policy outcomes suggest otherwise. The mechanisms of trade liberalization, intellectual property enforcement, and dispute resolution—although framed as neutral and rules-based—have disproportionately benefited wealthier countries, while many developing nations have struggled to gain meaningful advantages from their participation in the global trading system.The review identified several key areas where the WTO’s structure and policies contribute to uneven development outcomes. From agricultural subsidies and restrictive intellectual property regimes to systemic exclusion from decision-making processes, the organization’s current configuration appears to reinforce historical imbalances rather than resolve them. The supposed neutrality of global trade rules masks the asymmetries in power and resources that shape their interpretation and application.Although there have been calls for reform within the WTO, the resistance from dominant economic powers and the consensus-driven nature of decision-making have largely hindered progress. If the WTO is to remain relevant and legitimate in the 21st century, it must undergo substantive structural changes that prioritize inclusivity, fairness, and the developmental needs of the Global South.Ultimately, addressing global inequality through trade requires more than technical adjustments; it demands a rethinking of the principles that underpin the global economic order. Only through such critical engagement and transformation can the promise of shared prosperity and global justice be realized.BibliographyBusch, M. L., & Reinhardt, E. (2003). Developing countries and GATT/WTO dispute settlement. Journal of World Trade, 37(4), 719–735.Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder: Development strategy in historical perspective. Anthem Press.Clapp, J. (2006). WTO agriculture negotiations: Implications for the Global South. Third World Quarterly, 27(4), 563–577.Hopewell, K. (2016). Breaking the WTO: How emerging powers disrupted the neoliberal project. Stanford University Press.Matthews, D. (2005). Globalising intellectual property rights: The TRIPS Agreement. Routledge.Rodrik, D. (2001). The global governance of trade as if development really mattered. UNDP.Sell, S. K. (2003). Private power, public law: The globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press.Shaffer, G. C. (2003). Defending interests: Public-private partnerships in WTO litigation. Brookings Institution Press.Sharma, D. (2011). Trade liberalisation and its discontents: The case of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture. In J. Clapp & D. Fuchs (Eds.), Corporate power in global agrifood governance (pp. 219–244). MIT Press.Steinberg, R. H. (2002). In the shadow of law or power? Consensus-based bargaining and outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization, 56(2), 339–374.Bhagwati, J. (2004). In defense of globalization. Oxford University Press.Busch, M. L., & Reinhardt, E. (2003). Developing countries and GATT/WTO dispute settlement. Journal of World Trade, 37(4), 719–735.Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder: Development strategy in historical perspective. Anthem Press.Clapp, J. (2006). WTO agriculture negotiations: Implications for the Global South. Third World Quarterly, 27(4), 563–577.Clapp, J. (2016). Food. Polity Press.Hopewell, K. (2016). Breaking the WTO: How emerging powers disrupted the neoliberal project. Stanford University Press.Matthews, D. (2005). Globalising intellectual property rights: The TRIPS Agreement. Routledge.Rodrik, D. (2001). The global governance of trade as if development really mattered. UNDP.Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. W. W. Norton & Company.Santos, B. de S. (2006). The rise of the global left: The World Social Forum and beyond. Zed Books.Sell, S. K. (2003). Private power, public law: The globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press.Shaffer, G. C. (2003). Defending interests: Public-private partnerships in WTO litigation. Brookings Institution Press.Sharma, D. (2011). Trade liberalisation and its discontents: The case of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture. In J. Clapp & D. Fuchs (Eds.), Corporate power in global agrifood governance (pp. 219–244). MIT Press.Steinberg, R. H. (2002). In the shadow of law or power? Consensus-based bargaining and outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization, 56(2), 339–374.Wade, R. H. (2003). What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The World Trade Organization and the shrinking of “development space”. Review of International Political Economy, 10(4), 621–644.Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501Dos Santos, T. (1970). The structure of dependence. American Economic Review, 60(2), 231–236.Gill, S. (1995). Globalisation, market civilisation, and disciplinary neoliberalism. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 24(3), 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298950240030801Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press.Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press.

Title: Revisiting policymaking and lawmaking in South Africa: An agency in the legalcurriculum and practiceBy Jacob Mahlangu (PhD Candidate: Political Sciences)University of PretoriaAbstractThis study aims to broaden legal education and its practice. Policymaking and lawmaking inSouth Africa have been known to be the activity of the legislature. They undergo differentphases and stages before they are sent to the executive to be turned into a bill, act, statuteand precedent and also for their implementation. The judiciary is highly absent in theprocess of policymaking and lawmaking. It only takes part when holding leaders or the publicaccountable for breaking the law. This paper argues that the legal practice should accelerateits pedagogy from not only teaching how to interpret and apply the law but also have lawstudents and law practitioners trained in making and amending the law. Although thelegislature is representative of the population therefore engaging in policymaking andlawmaking under the guise of democracy, they lack the legal skills, experience and merit tocreate sound policies and unbiased, independent and impartial laws. The manner in whichpolicy and law are made needs to be rigorous, robust, researched, studied, credible, solidand intellectually trusted from a team of experts from think tanks and from experienced lawpractitioners. The manner in which laws and policies are made should be technocratic andmeritocratic. The judiciary needs to be present when policies and laws are made to facilitatethe procedure with professionalism. This also introduces a new theme in legal pedagogywhere law students are introduced to new methods and frameworks in their curriculum whichfocus on practising law through creating it. This study utilises a case study methodologyinvestigating South Africa’s policymaking and lawmaking. It makes use of the transformationtheory. It is an extant literature review. It utilises document analysis. It is based on secondarysources, is descriptory and is a desktop study..IntroductionLawmaking is said to be the responsibility of the legislature or parliament in South Africa. South Africa has separation of powers between three branches, namely, the executive, the legislature and the Judiciary. Although it is the courts and judges that are well acquainted with the law, the judiciary’s role in the lawmaking process is not well defined (Ngandwe 2006). The judiciary has the duty to apply and interpret the law;. however, its powers according to many law scholars extend from this point, such as it setting precedents, pronouncements and discretion (Ngandwe 2006). The courts are also set to uphold the law and also develop the rule of law. Furthermore, scholars claim that other than a judicial review where judges can examine a law for its constitutionality and render it invalid they are also faced with dealing with disputes which allow them the opportunity to make the law in such cases (Okpaluba 2015: 185). Besides having a judicial function, courts are not only restricted to playing the role of being a branch in the separation of powers but are also the apparatus of the state. Scholars claim that the power of the courts to make the law is not against the doctrines of the separation of powers but rather serves as its feature (Murcott and Vinti 2024 cited from Botha 2012; Currie and De Waal 2013) . In South Africa law commissions have even been established for the purposes of reforming the law but they however, do not have law making powers themselves (Botha and Bekink 2018) . In order for courts, judges, judiciary and law practitioners to know how to make the law they must understand reality, the interactions of people and why rules are needed, they also need to understand the implications of the laws made (Rautenbach 2020). This means that they need to have expertise, they require training and this calls for a transformation in the law curriculum. Historically, the judiciary in South Africa had no authority to intervene in legislative text. Currently, it has the power to interpret and pass legislation, check for a law’s constitutionality but is restricted from taking part in formulating the law (Singh and Bhero 2016). This paper argues that although the separation of power exists, the judiciary should not be seen as a replacement to the legislature in lawmaking but as a part of it. Therefore the judiciary, law commissions, courts, judges and law practitioners deserve a role in the process of lawmaking, it should not be the duty of the legislature alone. The judiciary cannot replace the legislature because to have an all powerful lawmaking body that has authoritative qualifications to make the law undermines the democratic process of rule making by elected representatives and also undermines the electorate (Plessis 2000: 229). But its involvement in the process of lawmaking ensures that lawmaking is professional and informed, it does away with biases and enhances expertise, problems can be detected earlier during the lawmaking process rather than after the law has been established through a judicial review or evaluation. This will also enhance the respect that politicians have for the role of the judiciary to uphold the law and establish the rule of law. The law made this way is more concrete and has increased enforceable authority (Labuschagne 2013).Literature ReviewAccording to Ngandwe (2006) the role of the judiciary in the process of lawmaking is not defined well; historically, the judiciary has always asserted that its duty was merely to apply and interpret the law and it was not within its boundaries to legislate. It is however misleading to claim that the limitations of the judiciary lie in application and interpretation of the law as they make the law through precedents, the pronouncement of statutes and through discretion (Ngandwe 2006). All courts and tribunals have a function of law-reform that is indirect in which they interpret every law legislation and establish customary law and common law for the purposes of promoting the objects of the bill of rights (Botha and Bekink 2018). Law reform is not only restricted to intervention and changes by subordinate law making bodies, the legislature and the judiciary, the South African Law Commission was particularly formed for the facilitation of law in the Republic of South Africa which is an advisory body whose objective is aimed at improvement and renewal of the law of South Africa on a continuous basis but has no powers of lawmaking itself (Botha and Bekink 2018). The judicial branch is vested with the power to declare any conduct or law that is found to be inconsistent with the constitution invalid; but why do they restrict themselves where the constitution does not expressively impose barriers to their exercise of power? It is the court’s duty to have the rule of law enforced and to ensure that state organs function within the framework of the constitution (Okpaluba 2015: 185). Where does the power of the judiciary to review legislation end and where does judicial restraint begin? (Okpaluba 2015: 185). Without understanding and basic respect for the judicial role politicians in government can easily complicate the judiciary’s primary function to establish the rule of law and uphold the law in a country (Labuschagne 2013). According to Parliament (n.d) a law is a system of rules, mostly enforced through institutions as a set to have human conduct regulated. Law influences economics, politics and society in a lot of ways (Parliament n.d). The lawmaking body of South Africa is Parliament which is the national legislature. Its notable functions are to create new laws, change laws already in existence and have old laws repealed (Parliament n.d). The houses of Parliament which are the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces play a part in this process (Parliament n.d). A draft law, also known as a bill can only be introduced by a minister, a parliamentary committee, an individual MP or a Deputy Minister in Parliament (Parliament n.d). Most bills are written up by the government department under the command of the relevant minister or deputy minister (Parliament n.d). Such a bill has to have itself approved by the cabinet before it is transferred to parliament. Individual MP introduced bills are called private members’ bills (Parliament n.d). The manner in which a law is made in South Africa follows this particular step: the national assembly or the National Council of Provinces are introduced to a bill, it is then referred for public comment through first being sent to a relevant committee then published in Government Gazette, discussed in the committee and if necessary- amended, sent for further debate to a sitting house before having a vote taken, transferred for concurrence to the other house, goes to the president for assent, then becomes an act (Parliament n.d). According to Majuta et al. (2015: 1) there is a very minimal role played by the judiciary in the process of legislative lawmaking; its role is only limited to the review of government policies and judicial interpretation. In fact in the steps of lawmaking the judiciary, courts and judges are not referred to although the issue being about law, their input is not required. Courts are entitled on procedural grounds to comment on parliamentary actions, they however do not have the power to pronounce on the wisdom or content of legislation executed by the legislature (PLessis 2000: 228). The reason behind judges not being given the power to formulate the law which they apply and enforce is that the exclusive views of these judges replaces the role of democracy, and they as a body that is all powerful may directly disregard the will of an elected legislature, and the will of the electorate indirectly (Plessis 2000: 229). The principles that guide these functions in the separation of power and in the checks and balances amongst the executive, the judiciary and the legislature are noted as the most defining characteristics of a constitutional democracy (Majuta et al. 2015: 1). Mojapelo (2013: 37) asserts that judicial authority is the power to determine what the law is if there is a dispute, and how it should be applied in the said disputes. Most authors are silent about the role of judges, courts and the judiciary in rule making, as O’regan (2005) attests that the role of legislation making demonstrates the interconnected relationship between the legislature and executive. However, Botha (2012) by having the review function exercised and having legislation interpreted with reference to the constitutional underpinning values, sometimes courts may make law; and once a law has been made by a court non-compliance has consequences and therefore a responsibility to comply is in existence (Murcott and Vinti 2024). Although with their powers separated this paper advocates for a collaboration between the three branches in the making of law, this strengthens the law being made and makes it more trusted, legitimate and easy to adhere to. The paper also argues that for this role courts, judges and law practitioners need to be well prepared since this role is directly related to their profession, therefore requiring training to perform such a procedure from as early as in the academy. A curriculum transformation is needed to cater for the knowledge of the technical know how of such a procedure, the role given should have been well studied in order for them to be considered suitable for occupying such a role or position As the definition of democracy states that it is the “rule of the people, for the people and by the people” by Abraham Lincoln.According to the Cambridge Dictionary (2024) it is a government system based on the belief in which power is possessed by elected representatives. People in a South African political system elect their leaders in the form of political parties, who then win and occupy seats in Parliament forming the legislature; to fulfil the tenets of democracy, the elected representatives become the ones who then create, change or repeal laws for the South African society. This form of a system does not take into account the qualifications of the rulemakers, policymakers and lawmakers and their ability to make sound laws based on the level of their skill and education. This raises the inquiry whether it would not be wise to include the judiciary, courts and judges in the process of lawmaking, and not only in the outcome of such a process in terms of reviews, interpretation and application, such ensures that the law being made is well rounded, examined and contributed to by appropriate authorities, experts and knowledgeable participants who can analyse and apply corrective behaviour to a certain law’s implication in every societal aspect, sphere and dimension before it is enacted and evaluated.The power of the courts to make the law is not an infringement of the doctrine of separation of powers but a feature of it rather (Murcott and Vinti 2024 cited from Botha 2012; Currie and De Waal 2013). According to Rautenbach (2020) the courts of post-apartheid South Africa have wide powers of lawmaking when interpreting customary law, common law and legislation; a progressive constitution has empowered them which embodies a new understanding of the law that is judge-made and which is more faithful to reality. In fact in terms of rendering public service, the public sector has been branded as: having low professionalism, low levels of qualifications and skills, corruption and incompetence (Felix 2021). The public has aspects of low capacity to have its pronouncements translated into actionable policy (Felix 2021). This means that the policies and laws made fail to be successfully practised, come to realisation and be implemented effectively. This is because of the absence of the judiciary or courts in law making, as implementation failure is by the executive from the legislation taken from the legislature therefore the failure being due to how the law was made instead of how it was implemented, and also who was involved in its making as they may have lacked the necessary skills and expertise to formulate the law. Although some MPs have education and some even studied and practised law prior to their positions, this is not a requirement in order to serve, they serve along with uneducated people and their input is weighted equally with them as they possess the same parliamentary voting power, time and opportunity to comment on a particular law being made.Since the law curriculum has always neglected lawmaking, leaving it in the practicalities of politics, those well versed in law do not possess a framework, mechanism or the technical know how of how to make a law, they also do not have a setting, arena, or position in society that enables them to be considered the ones making the law. According to Singh and Bhero (2016) the role of judges in lawmaking has always been a controversial subject; for many years and most notably during the apartheid regime the position adopted was that the interpretation of legislation was to be within the framework of words in usage by the legislature. The courts had no power to make modification, alteration or addition to text that was legislative, as the function was entirely the legislature’s responsibility, however, since 1994 the position has changed significantly (Singh and Bhero 2016). The prevailing view has been that the judiciary has been able to have its influence asserted on the development of the law and the prevailing jurisprudence, as a result of the constitutional derived powers and in particular section 39(2) (Singh and Bhero 2016). The law curriculum should be transformed so that law students learn about societal organisation and how to go about making and enforcing laws that are binding and which improve societal conduct. To support this, Botha (n.d) argues that it has become evident that individuals need certain rules to regulate and guide their interactions, therefore rules are needed to structure and order societies to establish what conduct and actions are acceptable and what are not. If the entrustment of the powers of policymaking is rested on the judiciary, then it should be made aware of the political realities of the society and that their judgements will affect the new society (Motala 1991). Currently this is left to the representatives of the country but even they claim ignorance as they consult with think tanks and experts who supply them with knowledge, research, intelligence and information regarding certain topics discussed on the agenda during law making, they also provide recommendations and opinion pieces to lawmakers and policymakers based on their policy and law expertise. In fact Barkow (2021: 1029) had this to say about experts in the United States’ Congress: the disrespect for experts is increasing in society, but the decrease in their usage is troubling particularly in congress as it worsens the inherent deficiencies to the legislative process. Sometimes though rarely, congress has relevant facts and arguments gathered about various factors of an issue before acting; and if there exists little expert fact-finding in place to have a proposal studied cognitive biases may go without being dealt with (Barkow 2021: 1029). This indicates that a forum is needed in a real world setting where a group of policy and law experts come together to investigate laws, collaborate, discuss and deliberate on certain issues that require the creation of new policies and laws. This ensures that the proposed law is studied in all angles and is informed. Rulemaking should not only consider a democratic process but also technocracy and meritocracy. This problem does not only reside in South Africa only but also in a lot of developed countries. Although in the United States of America laws are made by Congress and passed to the President for vetoing purposes, the courts play a major role as ordinary people challenge these laws and appeal to courts for reconsideration, with courts having the power to rule against these laws if found unconstitutional, discriminative or with other discrepancies. In fact sometimes courts make the law in the United States of America through their court judgements setting new standards and precedents. However, the practice of law by lawyers has always utilised this feature in South Africa. In fact Davies (2019: 3) argues that South African law has numerous sources such as: legislation or statutes, common law, court decisions (Judicial precedent), indigenous law, legal academic writings and custom, is of practical essentiality for lawyers to be aware of these various sources, which supply the key to the content of the law. This provides lawyers with authority for their arguments as they have to have an ability to have their assertions justified of their certain viewpoints (Davies 2019: 3). To be able to do this, lawyers depend on the provisions of a court decision or a statute (Davies 2019: 3). If courts, judges, law practitioners and experts play a role in the process of lawmaking it should ideally and academically follow a system that is similar to the process of policy making such as:(i) Studying and researching about the law introduced, (ii) state out how the law will impact society and how it will affect its recipients (iii) Find and cover all discrepancies, omissions and gaps recognised through examining the law (iv) develop alternatives as to how the law can be applied and interpreted to better suit the whole population (v) choose an alternative that makes the law impartial, unbiased and independent of any societal influence (vi) Implement and enforce the law (vii) evaluate how the law has worked, dealt with and handled by society at large comparing its actual results with its set objectives and amending it in accordance with the principles of fairness. Such a model is not exhaustive, but it at least lays the groundwork, a foundation or a starting point as to how law students, practitioners, the judiciary, court and judges can be provided with workable tools to go about analysing and taking part in the process of law creation. This does not divert the duty of lawmaking from the hands of the legislature to the judiciary, commissions and committees but rather is a collaborative process where all the parties concerned have a space to have their input counted.DiscussionAlthough the legislature makes the law in South Africa other sources of the law exists which are not particularly from the legislature such as statutes, common law, court decisions (Judicial precedent), indigenous law, legal academic writings and custom (Davies 2019: 3). The current view posited by scholars about the law-making process is that the judiciary has been given power to influence the establishment of a law by the constitution section 39(2) (Singh and Bhero 2016). The function of review given to the judiciary allows it to make the law and once that law is made compliance is required with disobedience accompanied by consequences (Botha 2012). Judicial authority enables it to make or determine the law and such an opportunity produces itself in terms of disputes (Mojapelo 2013: 37). The judiciary is argued to be restricted in the lawmaking process such as it having the function of review, application and interpretation of the law while it is the legislature that makes the law. The paper has gone through various literature to ascertain if there are any instances where courts, judges and the judiciary makes the law and it discovered that these instances do exist through court decisions, precedents, pronouncements of statutes and discretion (Ngandwe 2006). The courts, judges and the judiciary are the most suitable to make the law as they have legal expertise and authority. What prevents them from this practice when it comes to legislation is the aspect of democracy, that people rule themselves, so they have elected representatives who are given the legitimacy of rulemaking and the judiciary should not undermine this fact (Plessis 2000: 229). When there is an involvement of the judiciary, courts and judges in the process of law making the process is improved and laws are renewed (Botha and Bekink 2018). For courts to make the law is not a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers but rather serves as its feature (Botha 2012). This role is only expected to increase and it is therefore important that law experts are prepared for it, this means ensuring that law practitioners are skilled in their profession to make the law. This not only requires a platform and a new mechanism or process of making the law but also a new curriculum that trains law students for this function so that they are well equipped to perform this function. The paper argues that lawmaking should include technocracy and meritocracy. Just as politicians and policymakers consult experts regarding certain issues that are on their agenda in policy making, the lawmaking process requires intelligence, research, an evidence-based approach, expertise, knowledge and the involvement of law experts to make the process more enhanced, reliable and trusted.ConclusionThe paper first delved into how the role of the judiciary was limited in the lawmaking process such as it being restricted to the application and interpretation of the law. However, the paper discovered that there are some cases where law experts such as the courts get to make the law, such as when there is a dispute, or through precedents, discretion and pronouncements. This feature was said not to be in violation of the separation of powers. To improve or renew the law there is an establishment of law commissions in South Africa. The law made by courts is binding and its disregard or disobedience has consequences. Authors argue that politicians need to respect the judiciary as it upholds the law and establishes the rule of law. The role of the judiciary is estimated to increase in its functions to include the power to make the law. This then requires that law experts are prepared for this function in their profession. This also requires that law students are prepared through their studies for such a function thus calling for new knowledge, research, frameworks, mechanisms and intelligence in the law curriculum and pedagogy as a form of a transformation.BibliographyBarkow, R. E. 2021. The Wholesale Problem with Congress: The Dangerous Decline of Expertise in the Legislative Process, 90 Fordham L. Rev. Online. Available:: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol90/iss3/1 Date accessed: 17 August 2024Cambridge Dictionary. . Democracy. Website. Available: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy Date accessed: 14 August 2024Botha, C. & Bekink, B. 2018. LAW REFORM IN SOUTH AFRICA: 21 YEARS SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL DISPENSATION. SIne qua nonDavies, E. 2019. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW. RHODES UNIVERSITYFelix, J. 2021. Laziness, incompetence and corruption continue to taint SA’s public service - Senzo Mchunu. Website. Available: https://www.news24.com/news24/laziness-incompetence-and-corruption-continue-to-taint-sas-public-service-senzo-mchunu-20210603 Date accessed: 14 August 2024Labuschagne, P. 2013. LEGISLATIVE IMMOBILITY AND JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: THE IMPACT ON THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IN SOUTH AFRICA. JOURNAL/JOERNAAL, Vol. 38(1)Majuta, M.J., Tsoeu, M. Kgalema, M. 2015. The Judicial Role in the Legislative Lawmaking Process in Africa: the South African Case. The African Review: A Journal of African Politics, Development and International Affairs, Vol. 42 (1), pp. 1-28Parliament. N.d. How a law is made. Website. Available: .https://www.parliament.gov.za/storage/app/media/EducationPubs/how-a-law-is-made.pdf Date accessed: 14 August 2024Mojapelo, J. P. M. 2013. The doctrine of separation of powers(a South African perspective)*. AdvocateMotala, Z. 1991. Independence of the judiciary, prospects and limitations of judicialreview in terms of the United States model in a new South African order: towards an alternative judicial* structure.XXIV CILSAMurcott, M.J. & Vinti. 2024. The Judge-Made ‘Duty ‘ to Consider Climate Change in South Africa. Journal of Human Rights Practice. Vol. 16, pp. 125-145. Website. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad0669 Date accessed: 19 August 2024Ngandwe, P.J. 2006. The role and impact of the judiciary in the law-making process in South Africa. Boloka Institutional Repository. Website. Available: https://repository.nwu.ac.za/handle/10394/3119 Date accessed: 20 August 2024Okpaluba, C. 2015. Can a court review the internal affairsand processes of the legislature? Contemporary developments in South Africa. XLVIII CILSAO’Regan, K. 2005. ”CHECKS AND BALANCES Reflections on the development of the doctrine of separation of powers under the South African Constitution”. F W De Klerk Memorial Lecture. Delivered at PotchefstroomRautenbach, C. 2020. The Influence of Foreign Judgments on the Development of Post-Apartheid Constitutional Law in South Africa: Judicial Law-Making in Action?. 7 J. Int’l & Comp. L. 99Singh, A. & Bhero, M.Z. Judicial law-making: unlocking the creative powers of judges in terms of section 39(2) of the constitution. Vol 19(1), pp. 1-22. Online. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2016/v19n0a1504. Date accessed: 17 August 2024Plessis, M. 2000. The legitimacy of judicial review in South Africa’s new constitutionaldispensation: insights from the Canadian experience*. Judicial review in South Africa’s new constitutional dispensation

Jacob MahlanguUniversity of PretoriaPhD: Political Sciences2025Topic:Classical realism and state of the art international relations: US hegemony under donald TrumpAbstractThis study asserts that there is a reemergence and relevance of classical realism in contemporary international relations by investigating U.S. foreign policy under the Trump administration. Extracting from the foundational principles of classical realism — such as the state-centric approach to international politics, imperial power, hierarchy and dominance, balance of power, the nature of war and conflict— the study interrogates the ”America First” agenda by Donald Trump, transactional diplomacy, the U.S acting unilaterally, leading and spearheading international politics. This study makes use of the theoretical overview of realism. This is a descriptive study making use of secondary sources such as newspaper and online articles, websites and journal articles. This is a qualitative study. It makes use of thematic analysis to analyse findings, draw meanings, identify trends, meaning and confirm initial assumptions. This is a desktop study. While often perceived as irregular and unexpected, Trump’s foreign policy, diplomacy, and conduct in international politics demonstrates a nostalgic return to the U.S hegemony in the international order rooted in ruthless self-interest, nationalism, and a rejection of liberal institutionalism. By comparing the U.S’ unilateral behaviour from intergovernmental organizations, anti-immigration policies, tariff impositions on other countries’ products or U.S’ imports, travel bans, aid withdrawal on development aid, military missions focused on tracing and eliminating terrorist networks posing a threat to the U.S, interest in space travel and technological leadership with the classical elements and key features of realism - the study makes an argument that the U.S under Trump is a return to the state of the art realism perspective of international relations with strategic methods of engaging in competition with other countries while avoiding war, prioritising protectionism or mercantilism, while attributing itself a watchdog role which holds other states accountable for not only their international conduct but also domestic politics.IntroductionFollowing the end of the world wars, the international order has been examined and analysed by using intergovernmental organizations and international institutions as a unit. This helped because such entities regulated the behaviour of states, ensured their actions are captured by them, regulated their behaviour, promoted democratic and collective decision-making, enforced legal frameworks, the rule of law and also transformed the classical state-centric approach from a violent, competitive, unstructured, unconventional, anarchical and rogue to promoting the ideals and values of peace and cooperation. This meant that states could be examined in a controlled setting guided by laws, rules, processes and structures. However, in today’s era these entities have become ineffective in reducing state actions to within their confines, though these entities are still in existence and states are still members with obligations from them, states tend to act outside these entities.Although these entities promoted cooperation, democratic participation in decision-making and states acting as a collective, they were and still attributed certain positions, power and privileges to powerful states based on their technology, wealth and military prowess. This was done so that such states would not find such entities to be an inconvenience and voluntarily agree to operate under such entities. This also ensured that the entities ideological ambitions, values and beliefs about international politics did not distort the true reality of international politics. Using the United States as an example, Donald Trump’s return to office has redirected the focus of examining international politics from intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations to a focus in powerful states. One may argue that it was actually Russia’s war with Ukraine which introduced this refocus as Russia acted disobedient to international law, acted unilaterally internationally and intentionally acted rebellious from the United Nations. However, the United States of America has cemented this refocus, because in Russia’s case, the intergovernmental organization superiority over a state prevailed while in the United States’ case, it seems the state is narrating international relations and dictating the behaviour of other states and therefore the international system apart fout of the intergovernmental organization.Trump’s U.S has reintroduced the realist approach to the international liberal order, premised and prioritising: nationalism and unilateralism. The U.S has withdrawn from international organizations and agreements such as the World Health Organization and Paris Climate Agreement. Demonstrated its influence and reasserted its hegemonic position by using its foreign aid as a tool. Attributed to itself a role of mediator in diplomatic affairs exemplified by its engagement in the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Engaging in unconventional warfare with other countries such as economic competition using trade and tariff policies. The U.S promotes nationalism, patriotism and discourages liberalisation exemplified by its immigration laws. This study argues that the current international system is rooted on the ideologies, ambitions and strategic decisions of powerful states. Despite progressive and left-leaning critical theories having been adopted and promoted in international politics with a major shift away from the dominant mainstream theories in the discipline and practice of international politics, current events, actions and behaviours of powerful states in the international politics has reinforced the idea that such theories remain dominant, persistent, the status quo and unaffected by all attempts to challenge them. Based on the premise and supposition that states are interested in power and operate on self-interest within an anarchic international order. Hegemonic powerful states in the hierarchy and balance of power of the international system tend to act in the manner which reintroduces and reinforces the existence and continuation of the realist school of thought and perspective regarding international politics either based on nostalgia or for other reasons. In recent years, Trump’s United States has spearheaded international politics through diplomacy, foreign policy focus to a renewed scholarly interest in the relevance of classical realism to eh study of international politics or modern international relations.Trump’s doctrine and Agenda of “America First” is made up of features that highlight Unilateral action. Transactional diplomacy, transactional diplomacy, and a move away from the norms of the international liberal order which reinvigorate, reinforce, and reflects an empirical case which describes the current international system by operationalising the central tenets of classical realist thought. From the U.S. opting out of multilateral agreements and international institutions to imposing tariffs, placing travel bans, and cutting development aid, the Trump’s United States portrays a strategic assertion of power and national interest. These actions suggest a new status, perspective and form of U.S. hegemony—one that embraces competition, prioritizes protectionism, and aims to reshape the global order in accordance with American priorities or which places the U.S as the global leader able to independently control, reward and punish other states’ conduct both internationally and domestically if the U.S finds them unsuitable.This study investigates the reemergence and contemporary relevance of classical realism by critically examining U.S. foreign policy under the Trump administration. Drawing from the foundational principles of classical realism—such as state-centrism, imperial dominance, the balance of power, and the inevitability of conflict—the research analyzes how Trump’s conduct on the global stage aligns with and reinvigorates realist theory. Through a qualitative, descriptive, and desktop-based methodology, the study employs thematic analysis to examine secondary sources, including journal articles, news reports, official statements, and policy documents. The aim is to uncover patterns and draw meaning from Trump-era policies that reflect a return to a realist mode of engagement in international affairs.By contextualizing the U.S.’s unilateral behavior—ranging from its disengagement with global institutions to militaristic strategies against non-state threats and an intensified interest in technological supremacy—within the framework of classical realism, the study argues that Trump’s foreign policy marks a significant shift in how American hegemony is projected and justified. Ultimately, this research contributes to the broader discourse on realism in international relations by showing how a historical theory continues to shape and explain the strategic behavior of dominant powers in the 21st century.Theoretical FrameworkClassical RealismIn International Relations, the theory of realism is regarded as one of the dominant theories; under this theory international politics has a more forceful and competitive nature and is dedicated to a self-helping system (Lomia 2020 cited from Sleat 2016: Griffiths, Roach, & Solomon 2016). States are concerned with their own security, act with the intention of fulfilling their self-interest, and struggle for power (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2023). Realism argues that international politics is a domain that has no justice, is rooted in potential and active conflict among states where ethical standards do not apply (StanFord Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2023). Realism assumes that states operate in an anarchical environment, without any authority internationally (Antunes and Camisao 2018). Actions pursued by states are rooted on their relative power in relation to other states (Antunes and Camisao 2018). Realism is pessimistic and stresses on the reappearing trends of power politics as realised by reoccurring wars, rivalries and conflicts (Pashakhanlou 2009 cited from Jackson and Sorenson 2007: 60).Literature ReviewThe U.S’ usage of realism in international politicsAccording to Jones (2025) a blended liberal/realist internationalist foreign policy has been followed by American presidents since the end of the cold war. Trump’s foreign policy approach is rooted on the assumption that the global position of the US is decreasing due to its leadership enabling the country’s exploitation in recent decades by both its enemies and friends (Kohut 2025). Trump’s first term exposed his distrust of international institutions, global organisations and multilateral agreements and his choice for bilateral relations (Kohut 2025). An instance that confirms his lack of belief for globalism, multilateralism and international organizations is his withdrawal from the World Health Organization and climate change agreement (Ataman 2025). Trump’s foreign policy is isolationist as it promotes the imposition of tariffs in opposition to free trade in order to protect and isolate the American economy (McFaul 2025). In his first term Trump practiced and articulated a clear preference for unilateralism, isolationism and realism (McFaul 2025). While Trump’s “America first” agenda implies a realist perspective; his administration possesses features which match the realist paradigm such as: more mercantilism, less common causes (regional, global or continental), more government intervention, big power arrogance, less free trade (Ataman 2025).ResultsU.S’ return to state of the art International RelationsU.S hegemonyOnce the primary champion and architect of multilateralism, the U.S is now abandoning commitments, retreating behind its borders, and hindering trade agreement with its long-standing partners (Liy 2025). Trump’s view is simple: only the strong get to negotiate. Trump believes in applying pressure and having the existing order broken (Liy 2025).Anti-immigration policiesTrump has freezed the resettlement of refugees in their tens of thousands who have been vetted and approved already in their application of relocating to the United States; with this number including 15000 Afghans (Trevizo 2025). Humanitarian parole for immigrants from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela with 500 000 already living in the U.S in legal limbo (Trevizo 2025).Tariff impositionsTrump says tariffs will motivate US consumers to purchase American produced goods, increase the amount of tax raised, and also result in high levels of investment in the US (Clarke 2025).Development aidThe Rationale behind freezing funding is that the “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values (Cullinan 2025).DiscussionThe study investigated if Trump’s foreign policy reintroduces the realism perspective of international politics. The results suggest that there are certain actions taken by Trump which are intended for specific purposes aimed at advantaging the US in the global arena and also which portray its power. For instance, Realism is rooted in powerful states being dominated by weaker states, and the results suggest that Trump used aid withdrawal as a tool to manipulate weaker states to align to US priorities. Realism suggests that states are self-interested or are interested in their own security and the findings support this by providing the actions performed by the US such as imposing tariffs on imports for the intention of domestically raising tax, promoting locally produced goods, and attracting investment. Realism suggests there is no central authority internationally and that international politics is based on an anarchic system, the US actions that support this notion is how the US is acting rogue, breaking out of international organisations, agreements, retreating behind its borders, promoting nationalism, anti-immigration policies and mercantilism.BibliographyAntunes, S & Camisao, I. 2018. Introducing Realism in International Relations Theory. Online. Website: https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/27/introducing-realism-in-international-relations-theory/ Date accessed: 25 April 2025Ataman, M. 2025. Alarm in West: Trumpian realism mingles friends and foes. Online. Website: https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/alarm-in-west-trumpian-realism-mingles-friends-and-foes Date accessed: 25 April 2025Clarke, J. 2025. What are tariffs and why is Trump using them? Online. Website: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn93e12rypgo Date accessed: 25 April 2025Cullinan, K. 2025. As US Retreats from Global Health, Africa Looks for New Sources of Financial Support. Online. Website: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/as-us-retreats-from-global-health-africa-looks-for-new-financial-sources/ Date accessed: 25 April 2025Jones, W. J. 2025. Trump, Realism and the Multipolar World. Online. Website: https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/02/07/trump-realism-and-the-multipolar-world/ Date accessed: 25 April 2025Kohut, A. 2025. The world according to Trump: the new US administration’s foreign policy vision. Online. Website: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2025-01-20/world-according-to-trump-new-us-administrations-foreign-policy Date accessed: 25 April 2025Liy, M.V. 2025. Trump, the president unraveling US hegemony. Online. Website: https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-03-10/trump-the-president-unraveling-us-hegemony.html Date accessed: 25 April 2025Lomia, E. 2020. Political Realism in International Relations: Classical Realism, Neo-realism, and Neo-Classical Realism. International Journal of Social, Political and Economic Research, Vol. 7 (3), pp. 591-600McFaul, M. 2025. Foreign Policy: Where Is Trump Going? Online. Website: https://www.hoover.org/research/foreign-policy-where-trump-going Date accessed: 25 April 2025Pashakhanlou, A.H. 2009. Comparing and Contrasting Classical Realism and Neorealism. Online. Website: https://www.e-ir.info/2009/07/23/comparing-and-contrasting-classical-realism-and-neo-realism/ Date accessed: 25 April 2025StanFord Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2023. Political Realism in International Relations. Online. Website: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/ Date accessed: 25 April 2025Trevizo, P. 2025. Donald Trump’s immigration executive orders: Tracking the most impactful changes. Online. Website: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/02/07/donald-trump-immigration-executive-orders/ Date accessed 25 April 2025

Jacob Mahlangu

The racial and Gender inequality that continues to exist post the colonial era. The majority of blacks and women in developing countries are facing a Stagnant Economy. They are mostly found in the informal sector selling products at Central Business Districts. They lack employment and access to financial institutions that could empower them economically. With colonialism gone it reintroduces itself in the form of neo-colonialism. Developed countries still exploit the resources of developing countries while offering the natural inhabitants cheap labour. Utilizing the theoretical frameworks of post colonialism and feminism the paper seeks to highlight the factors that hinder the Sustainable Development Goal of global equality.

Qualitative research study analyzing economic inequality in Nigeria. Employing the black feminist perspective to explore the laws, norms, values, traditional authority, government and financial institutions that exclude women in the matters of economic empowerment. The study is an extended literature review and utilizes document analysis.