Protests against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have increased worldwide in recent years, showing dissatisfaction with the economic policies it recommends. From Kenya to Bangladesh, and particularly Nigeria, these demonstrations have highlighted the intricate and sometimes controversial connection between the IMF and the nations it aims to assist. While the IMF aims to stabilize economies and foster growth through its interventions, the backlash resulting from the impact of its policies on daily life has prompted civilian discontent, outbursts, important debates about economic sovereignty and social justice.
In Kenya, the ongoing protest which was sparked by tax hikes have put the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the spotlight. African countries have long criticized the IMF for giving loans with strict conditions that unfairly impact the less privileged. In Kenya, this anger is renewed due to the recently-withdrawn tax hikes and similar legislation passed in 2023, which are both linked to IMF loans. Despite government assurances that the loan was necessary to support essential services and infrastructure, the widespread fear was that the ordinary Kenyan would bear the brunt of the IMF’s conditions, deepening inequality and poverty. The worries of the masses are not unfounded as the policies have now intensified the economic hardship faced by many Kenyans, who are already struggling with high living costs and soaring debt.
Similarly, in Bangladesh, the protests, along with the government’s strong response, shows the increasing dissatisfaction with the IMF’s approach to economic management in Bangladesh. While the organization’s programs have contributed to economic growth, they have also unintentionally widened inequality and overlooked the social implications of these policies. The widespread mobilization of students and civilians against the quota system was not solely about job distribution—it reflected a broader concern with economic policies that many felt had left significant portions of the population behind.
Nigeria also presents a very powerful illustration of the profound anger towards the IMF’s control. Protests against IMF policies in Nigeria have been ongoing since the 1980s, particularly 1989, when the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) was introduced. SAP refers to a series of economic changes that a nation is required to follow in order to receive financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund and/or the World Bank.
During his 8 year tenure, Babangida implemented the extremely harsh SAP, which had mixed results at the time. 35 years later in 2023, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the current Nigerian President, has been carrying out neoliberalism which is literally the same with SAP. The objective of this program is to address Nigeria’s economic crisis through measures like devaluing the currency, eliminating price controls, removing subsidies, lowering trade barriers and implementing austerity measures. However, it has led to significant economic hardships for countless Nigerians, leading to widespread demonstrations and turmoil.
This outcome has continued to shape perceptions of the IMF in Nigeria, with many seeing it as a symbol of economic imperialism. In 2020, demonstrations regarding higher gas prices and news about elimination of subsidy, which were both tied to recommendations from the IMF, sparked concerns about the IMF’s impact on Nigeria’s economic strategies. The protests revealed intense resentment towards a system that seems to cause financial hardships for the most vulnerable while benefiting the affluent and foreign investors.
The worldwide demonstrations against the IMF holds more than just economic strategies – they also involve matters of authority, dominance, and a nation’s ability to determine its economic direction. Lots of individuals believe that the IMF gives more importance to the benefits of global capitalism rather than the requirements of local communities due to its emphasis on strict budget regulations and free-market changes. The terms of IMF loans, such as austerity measures and structural adjustments, are frequently seen as encroaching on a country’s sovereignty, compelling leaders to implement policies that could be controversial and harmful to the public.
The effectiveness of the IMF’s approach is also being questioned by the protests. While the primary objective of the IMF is to encourage lasting economic development and achievement for its 190 member countries through backing economic policies such as austerity measures that enhance financial stability and monetary collaboration, the extensive social and economic consequences of these programs can be significant. Austerity measures are often condemned for increasing poverty, widening inequality, and eroding social unity. In nations such as Kenya, Bangladesh, and Nigeria, where significant portions of the population are already living in unstable situations, implementing these measures could result in severe outcomes.
These situations highlight the need for a more inclusive and equitable approach to global economic governance. For many protesters, the current system is seen as inherently unjust, favoring the interests of wealthy nations and corporations at the expense of the poor. There is a growing demand for alternatives to the IMF’s model of economic management, with calls for greater investment in social programs, debt relief, and policies that promote sustainable development and reduce inequality.
