Two obstacles and distorting prisms compromise understanding of the power strategy of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF) in the global political arena. The first obstacle to understanding La Francophonie is the lingering perception that the OIF is a modern extension of France’s historical hegemonic and neo-imperialist ambitions. According to this view, discussing the OIF’s power strategy is seen as inherently linked to questioning France’s global influence policies. In this perspective, the OIF is seen as merely a tool of hegemony used by France to pursue, safeguard, and promote its own national interests, defined in terms of power (Battistella, 2006a). Specifically, the OIF is often viewed as “simply an organization designed to perpetuate the dominance of a former colonial power faced with its decline” (Bourmaud, 1994).
This clarification is not meant to deny the ontogeny or colonial origins of the OIF. To be intellectually honest and sincere, it must be acknowledged that at some point in its history—from its inception on 20 March 1970 to the Hanoi Summit in Vietnam in November 1997—the OIF was a clear expression of France’s hegemonic ambitions (Phan and Guillou, 2011). It should also be recognized that the OIF was established on the foundation of the French empire’s primary legacy—the French language (Massie and Morin, 2011). Therefore, the issue is not about refuting the imperialist origins of the OIF or suggesting that it was not born from the French colonial empire. Nor is there any intent to deny France’s significant influence within the organization, given its status as the largest contributor to the OIF budget. In 2023, France voluntarily contributed 40% of the overall budget, followed by Canada at 27.6%. Belgium (10.7%) and Switzerland (8.4%) followed suit (Poissonnier and Sournia, 2006). Additionally, the headquarters of the OIF is in Paris, the capital of the French Republic. However, it is crucial not to overly connect the OIF with France. The aim of this discussion is to challenge the automatic assimilation of the OIF with a presumed French “neo-colonial complex” (Massie and Morin, 2011), or with a nearly “blind” alignment of former French colonies behind France to the extent of overlooking the practical and pragmatic achievements of the organization as a political entity capable of power and influence in contemporary world geopolitics.
The second obstacle is related to the persistent perception of the OIF as primarily a cultural and linguistic organization. It is true that the institutional OIF was not initially politically oriented (Calmy-Rey, 2010). While the founding fathers envisioned creating a politically oriented “‘organic community”’ of French-speaking countries (Najjar, 2010) modeled after the British Commonwealth—hence the term ‘Commonwealth à la française’ (French Commonwealth) coined by Senegalese President Léopold Sédar Senghor—it is important to note that the Agence de Coopération Culturelle et Technique (ACCT), established on 20 March 1970, in Niamey (Niger), had a purely cultural and technical mandate. The founding fathers of the modern post-colonial Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie were Senegalese President Léopold Sédar Senghor (1906-2001), Tunisian President Habib Bourguiba (1903-2000), Nigerian President Hamani Diori (1916-1989), and Cambodian Prince Norodom Sihanouk (1922-2012).
The persistent perception of the OIF as primarily focused on cultural and linguistic matters continues to influence public opinion about the organization. For many, the term “Francophonie” immediately evokes linguistic issues, such as the global spread of the French language, and cultural issues related to the promotion of French culture worldwide. Therefore, discussing a potential power strategy for the OIF in global politics might be seen as a misleading notion, disconnected from reality and common sense. However, as the study’s context indicates, the OIF has been actively expanding its international presence and engagement, demonstrating a “growing openness […] to the political field” (Thérien and Lutard, 1994) in recent years.
Our methodology to analyze OIF
In this qualitative and inductive analysis, we revisited data consistently, a practice described by Guillemette and Luckerhoff (2023) as a “constant return to the data”. This approach helped to establish a circular movement in our analysis, by which the interchange between empirical data and analysis facilitated the comprehension of the OIF’s power strategy in the global political arena and led to theorization. This progressive and ongoing exchange, as described by Strauss (1987), between empirical data and analyses has the significant merit of guiding, as noted by Hatch (2002), toward the initial stages of theorization.
Several intriguing reflections and scholarly works have inspired and guided the refining of this study. The Belgian political scientist Françoise Massart-Pierard is known for her extensive and high-quality scientific analyses of the Francophonie, which have earned her international acclaim. Her work is particularly relevant to this research work. In her article “La Francophonie, un nouvel intervenant sur la scène internationale” (The Francophonie, a new actor on the global arena) (Massart-Pierard, 2007), she offers a highly pertinent analysis of the contemporary role of La Francophonie in international affairs. After outlining the institutional architecture of La Francophonie, its distinctiveness as an international organization, and the specificity of its vision of international relations, the article examines the OIF’s capacity to assert itself as a key player in global politics. The article asserts and postulates that the Francophonie is a form of soft power (Massart-Pierard, 2007), leveraging its cultural capital comprised of universal values and a shared language to exert “moral leadership” (Massart-Pierard, 2007) in the international arena. A potential limitation of this insightful analysis is its relatively brief treatment of the challenges and shortcomings in the Francophonie’s engagement with global politics, often focusing more on descriptive aspects.
In “Francophonie-Puissance. L’équilibre multipolaire” (Francophonie-Power. The multipolar balance) (Guillou, 2005), Michel Guillou, a prominent French researcher and prolific author on contemporary topics related to the French-speaking world, offers an exemplary analysis of the geopolitical, economic, and cultural resources and assets of the OIF in the modern world. In his analysis, Guillou describes and evaluates the potential influence of La Francophonie as a significant player in a rapidly evolving international system. He is among the first authors to explicitly explore the relationship between La Francophonie and the concept of power, demonstrating that the OIF can stand on equal footing with the major players shaping today’s international dynamics. In the face of neo-imperial ambitions from certain quarters, the OIF has the capacity to contribute as a constructive force in building a multipolar, anti-hegemonic form of globalization. A key limitation of this analysis is its tendency to read like a passionate call for France to recognize the immense potential of the French-speaking world—much as it has for the European sphere—and to leverage and exploit this potential for the sake of global influence.
In his book, “Francophonie. Lieu de mémoire, projet d’espoir” (Francophonie. A time to remember, a project of hope) (Tabi Manga, 2010), Jean TABI MANGA, a member of the Académie des sciences d’outre-mer (French Academy of Overseas Sciences), employs compelling semantics and an engaging style to address the specific challenge of connecting La Francophonie project with the demands of contemporary globalization. After offering a political history and sociology of the institutional Francophone actor, the author outlines pathways for an OIF capable of presenting a credible alternative to liberal universalism and commercial globalization. For the OIF, the aim is to assert its “magistracy of influence” by furthering its alter-globalist vision of a humanist and multipolar form of globalization.
Expanding on his ideas, the author highlights the issue of insufficient integration within the French-speaking economic sphere. He argues that despite its potential, the international influence of La Francophonie remains limited due to the overall fragility of this economic area. Building lasting influence for the OIF in the global political arena, he suggests, requires serious consideration of enhancing its economic dimension.
In his impactful article “Francophonie et géopolitique: la troisième francophonie” (Francophonie and geopolitics: the third francophonie), published in the prestigious journal Géostratégiques in the second quarter of 2012, Michel Guillou delves once more into the current international dynamics of the Francophonie, examining its potential utility and value in the contemporary world. He aims to establish a groundwork for thoughtful consideration of the French-speaking world’s capacity to capitalize on its major assets, seeking to rebalance the global playing field. In today’s world, increasingly focused on the pursuit of peace and equilibrium, there is a growing need for actors akin to those found within the Francophonie to aid in its stabilization. This “third Francophonie,” distinctively different from its nineteenth and twentieth-century predecessors, has the potential to serve as a “laboratory” and “pilot area” in this regard. Therefore, an analysis of the role and relevance of the OIF in contemporary international relations must necessarily consider its impact and influence on a global scale.
The author advocates for an accelerated development of Francophonie’s influence to effectively address the challenges posed by unipolar globalization. Historian and philosopher Khadim Ndiaye delves into the deep roots of the expansive “Francophonie” project, which predates the colonial conquests led by France in the latter half of the 19th century. He suggests that underlying this project was the ambition to establish an empire akin to the grandeur of ancient Rome, which “subjugated peoples by capturing their souls,” implying that France sought to conquer African peoples through its language (Ndiaye, 2021). According to Ndiaye, from its inception, the concept of Francophonie has carried connotations of “an ideology of domination”.
From this initial review of writings on the OIF, it becomes evident that the OIF’s international standing possesses a geopolitical dimension. The institution is progressively asserting itself, evolving, and becoming indispensable in the global political landscape.
The 1986 Paris Summit as the anchor point for the construction of the OIF’s power strategy in the global political arena
The Paris Summit, held from 17 to 19 February 1986, was the very first conference of Heads of State and Government of countries that share the use of French. This historic event brought together 42 countries, with 26 represented at the Head of State and Government level. The summit is widely regarded as a milestone in the modern history of the Francophone organization, representing a pivotal moment with the potential to have a lasting impact on the future. It marked a significant shift, or even a break, between the old and new OIF, as it was during this summit that the organization took “the most crucial step in its expansion” (Therien and Lutard, 1994). The Paris Summit marked a historic moment as the heads of state and government of French-speaking countries convened at such a high level for the first time to discuss issues that transcended their cultural and linguistic boundaries. This summit paved the way for more regular meetings in an appropriate setting, where discussions would encompass not only the consolidation and intensification of cultural cooperation but also political, economic, and social issues of global interest and international resonance. It was at this significant meeting that the concept of political Francophonie was born. It is important to note that the biennial frequency of summits was not yet established at that time. This practice was introduced and institutionalized at the Quebec Summit in 1987.
The OIF is no longer perceived as an extension of French imperialism or as the “last avatar of the French colonial empire” (Massie and Morin, 2011). It has evolved beyond being a post-colonial institution exclusively comprising former French colonies and focused solely on promoting the French language. Instead, it is now recognized as a genuine international organization that brings together states from around the world. These states are not necessarily former colonies of France and the OIF can take a stance on various international policy issues and the organization of world affairs. Today, the OIF stands out as one of the few international organizations that includes states and governments from across the globe, boasting 88 full members, associates, or observers.
In essence, the OIF has moved beyond its original linguistic focus and has ventured into the realm of politics.
The Hanoi Summit and confirmation of the OIF’s ambition to influence the international political arena
Indeed, while the political Francophonie began to take shape in the late 1980s, the Hanoi Summit in Vietnam, held from 14 to 16 November 1997, marked a significant milestone. This summit not only solidified the political dimension of the OIF but also underscored its ambition to influence global political dynamics and issues. At this pivotal event, the OIF initiated efforts to enhance its presence in the international political arena by adopting concrete measures. Subsequently, the OIF embarked on a path to redefine its international image, notably through reforms to its institutional framework. In Hanoi, the members of the OIF elected Boutros Boutros-Ghali as the first Secretary-General of the organization. He was tasked with representing the organization on the international stage, becoming its symbolic face (Legendre, 2008). Boutros-Ghali was described as the “determining institutional element” and the “driving force” behind the OIF’s political actions (Sada, 2008). The Hanoi Summit also saw the adoption of the first OIF Charter, a landmark document that laid the groundwork for the organization’s actions on the international stage. This charter covers various areas such as the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, conflict prevention, and development cooperation.
The OIF’s drive to modernize and assert itself as a credible player in international relations reflects a unique vision and a desire to influence global geopolitics in both linguistic and strategic dimensions. The affirmation of the OIF’s political dimension is closely linked to its ambitions to establish itself as a significant player in world geopolitics. This historical evolution and paradigm shift provide the foundation for understanding the OIF’s strategy for asserting its power since 1997.
References
Bourmaud, D. (1994), La Francophonie. Revue internationale de politique comparée, 1 (2), 265-273.
Calmy-Rey, M. (2010), La Francophonie dans la gouvernance mondiale. Géoéconomie, 4(55), 31-37.
Guillemette, F., and Luckerhoff, J. (2023), “L’approfondissement de l’analyse qualitative inductive,” dans Lalancette, M. & Luckerhoff, J. (dir), Initiation au travail intellectuel et à la recherche, Presses de l’Université du Québec. P. 303-321.
Guillou, M. (2005), Francophonie-puissance. L’équilibre multipolaire. Ellipses.
Hatch, J. A. (2002), Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings, New York, State University of New York Press.
Legendre, J. (2008), Les limites de l’”État francophone” : vers un réseau mondial de la Francophonie, Revue internationale et stratégique, 3(71), 49-52.
Massart-Pierard, F. (2007), La Francophonie des Sommets. Consensus et déchirures, Revue internationale de politique comparée, 14(1), 69-93.
Massie, J. et Morin, D. (2011, septembre), Francophonie et opérations de paix. Vers une appropriation géoculturelle, Études internationales 42(3), https://doi.org/10.7202/1006220ar
Najjar, A. (2010), La Francophonie, un mouvement culturel ou politique?, Géoéconomie 4(55), https://doi.org/10.3917/geoec.055.0131.
Ndiaye, K. (2023), La francophonie, un dispositif néocolonial, Sur le site Histoire coloniale et postcoloniale, https://histoirecoloniale.net/La-francophonie-un-dispositif-neocolonial-par-Khadim-Ndiaye.html.
Phan, T. et Guillou, M. (2011), Francophonie et mondialisation. Histoire et institutions des origines à nos jours, Belin.
Sada, H. (2008), Un dispositif en faveur de la gestion et de la prévention des conflits en plein développement, Revue internationale et stratégique, 3(71), 101-104.
Strauss, A. L. (1987), Qualitative analysis for social scientists, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Tabi Manga, J. (2010), La Francophonie. Lieu de mémoire, projet d’espoir, Afrédit.
Therien, J.-P. et Lutard, S. (1994), La Francophonie entre le Nord et le Sud, Revue internationale de politique comparée, 1(2), 183-200.
