-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
BRICS's growing appeal reflects a shifting world order as nations seek flexible, multipolar cooperation over rigid Western-led frameworks. Will it deliver?
Image Source: Getty
This article is part of the series—Raisina Edit 2025
Which set of cooperation schemes holds greater promise for constructing the new stable world order and offers higher appeal to the countries looking for better service of their interests in today’s ocean of disorder and conflict? One characterized by order, precluded decision-making, and a lack of freedom of expression, or one defined by flexibility, the prioritization of national interests, and a sometimes slow pace of reaching common ground?
The former approach, originating from the Trilateral Commission and Library group—later embodied by G7—sought to secure the world order, which would sustain the United States (US) leadership, offering calculated bonuses to its allies. The cherished principle of “what is good for Caesar…” is not a welcome format for wider use as the main principle of international relations, thus leading to the ‘rules-based order’. These rules are designed to maintain economic preferences, ensuring that the ongoing objective process of development of the rest of the world doesn’t go in an undesired direction. This allows control, ensuring that the ‘golden share’ remains in the same hands of the old powers.
For half a century, this group has made numerous attempts to impose what it saw as an ideal world order, proclaiming the ‘end of history’ and securing an unchallenged place on the global Olympus. The end of the Cold War, the demise of the West’s biggest challenger, the global reach of the international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) expansion seemed to provide all the necessary instruments to control the globe.
Western elites are neglecting the basic needs of their populations, causing caution and distrust on the part of societies globally.
The G7’s open disregard for the developing world pushes the rest of the world away. Several missteps have made this group increasingly unattractive, except when nations seek occasional aid. Western elites are neglecting the basic needs of their populations, causing caution and distrust on the part of societies globally.
The latter set seems much more amorphous and doesn’t provide for the strict common agenda and could be interpreted as too vague to provide a durable foundation for the global order, especially as we talk about competing ideologies and visions of the international order models. Strict hierarchy and unification provide for a stronger position, albeit according to common logic. Nonetheless, this could function only as long as there is deep understanding and respect of the vital interests of all the actors in the system. Long-term neglect of such interests, in turn, leads to more amorphous structures to combine the complexity of divergent and incompatible interests of all the actors. This is key for BRICS.
We also saw Argentina being invited to join BRICS and then going back on its desire to join the club very much oriented towards America. We are witnessing extremely cautious behaviour of Saudi Arabia that traditionally has very close ties with the US and is ever more ready for such cooperation with the advent of Trump. We all remember Trump’s threats to introduce 100 percent tariffs on all the BRICS countries if they continue with their path of more independence from the dollar and work on a common currency. We also saw discussions in the press on the death of BRICS and the possibility of some countries withdrawing from the club.
The group has not only strengthened as a political actor and gained momentum but also become a much more appealing alternative for the non-Western rest of the world.
In practice, despite all the geopolitical confrontation, endless attempts to blackmail BRICS members, coupled with detailed studies on why BRICS is bound to fail, served the opposite purpose. The group has not only strengthened as a political actor and gained momentum but also become a much more appealing alternative for the non-Western rest of the world.
There’s no rigid decision-making. The only principle is aimed at fully considering each country’s concerns. Even when agreements are adopted, they are still positioned within the framework of the existing Western-led system of coordinates. BRICS is often criticised for doing too little, moving too slow, and relying too much on an evolutionary process with the current system imposing its limitations on good intentions enclosed in the programmes and institutions created. It showcases areas where BRICS should be moving faster to provide for real change, which matters most. After all, NDB is the only international development bank that consists only of emerging and developing countries, with no Western supervision.
The prioritisation of national interests may seem like a dividing factor, especially when those interests are not only incompatible but also mutually exclusive. However, when all members stand on equal footing, no country can claim superiority.
Another appealing factor of the BRICS is their different philosophies and civilisational choices. Rigid homogenisation and the demand to accept Western lifestyle and philosophy as the only appropriate eventually led to general rejection of such impositions by elites and peoples of BRICS.
Another stark contrast of the BRICS communication is its positive agenda. Even though some countries in BRICS are in confrontation with the West, this is never part of the club’s agenda. The group works on common solutions to the problems that are threatening the well-being of their citizens and are not dictating the others lines of appropriate behaviour.
Rigid homogenisation and the demand to accept Western lifestyle and philosophy as the only appropriate eventually led to general rejection of such impositions by elites and peoples of BRICS.
Other commonalities would emphasise adherence to the sovereignty concept, belief in a multipolar world and lack of alternatives for fair and equal negotiations, UN centrality, and mutual respect. All offer principally different sets of relations that are characteristic of BRICS and no other institution. This is why today we have 11 countries as full members, nine partners, and about three dozen others willing to acquire memberships.
Such simple counting demonstrates that BRICS has already achieved the upper hand vis-à-vis the G7 strength. BRICS cumulative Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (by Purchasing Power Parity) accounts for US$ 65.3 trillion, reaching 39.29 percent of the global share, while the G7 has lost its leadership, accumulating just US$ 47.3 trillion and less than 30 percent of the international share. Moreover, BRICS accommodates around 3.93 billion people, while the G7 represents just 779.2 million people or only about 10 percent of the global population.
However, this counter-positioning is probably not serving the full purpose or is not offering a sample element of BRICS's attitude or understanding of its role. Those figures vividly demonstrate why the BRICS bloc could be seen as legitimate to offer new impetus for global cooperation and is a relevant platform to work out the new model of international system.
Multiple applications for partnership suggest that this is, in a way, a vote of legitimacy and a sign of trust on the part of the countries from the developing world striving for a new, fairer world.
The club is not anti-West; it is just non-West. No matter how many hurdles are on the way, BRICS, for now, looks like the only institution having both the means and desire to come up with a new order. Multiple applications for partnership suggest that this is, in a way, a vote of legitimacy and a sign of trust on the part of the countries from the developing world striving for a new, fairer world. The model elaboration is still underway. We should be cautious about overestimating its capabilities.
Victoria V. Panova, vice-rector, HSE-University, head, BRICS Expert Council, Russia, W20 sherpa, Russia
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Victoria V. Panova is the Provost for International Relations of the Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU). ...
Read More +
PREV
