-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
Image Source: Freepik
As we approach the end of 2025, the world is more fractured than it has been in decades. The global governance architecture, rooted in post-World War structures, is increasingly out of sync with contemporary political, economic, and demographic realities. The very institutions created to preserve peace, facilitate cooperation, and promote development are now viewed as outdated, unrepresentative, and often ineffective.
While Samuel Huntington's “clash of civilisations” continues to echo, today's global divisions are far more layered. Instead of a simple East vs. West binary, the world today faces a complex multipolar environment, divided by divergent political systems, economic interests, technological development, and environmental vulnerabilities. As a result, global governance is not only contested in values but also in its structure, authority and legitimacy.
The winners of World War II laid the foundations of current global governance. Institutions like the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were created to shape a stable and rules-based international order, reflecting the realities of the post-World War II era. While these organisations managed to keep the world relatively peaceful for 80-odd years, it is increasingly failing to do so. One particular reason behind its failure is its outdated structure, where a handful of powerful states decide for the entire planet.
The same imbalance persists at the IMF and World Bank, where voting power remains skewed in favour of wealthy nations, even as developing countries face the brunt of debt, climate, and health crises.
Indeed, the UN Security Council, the central body for maintaining international peace and security, still reflects the power dynamics of 1945. The veto-wielding permanent members (P5), the US, UK, France, Russia, and China, frequently paralyse the Council when their interests clash. From the war in Palestine, Syria, Ukraine, Myanmar, Sudan and elsewhere, the UN has failed to prevent it. Instead of serving as a guardian of peace, the UN is often seen as a stage for geopolitical posturing.
The problem isn't only about inaction. It's also about representation. Paradoxically, while over half of the Security Council's agenda concerns African conflicts, no African nation holds a permanent seat. Despite widespread support for the Ezulwini Consensus, Africa's official position since 2005, calling for greater representation, the continent remains excluded from top decision-making roles. The same imbalance persists at the IMF and World Bank, where voting power remains skewed in favour of wealthy nations, even as developing countries face the brunt of debt, climate, and health crises.
The emergence of BRICS+ and various other minilateral organisations can be attributed to the perceived shortcomings of the UN-led multilateral system. This development calls into question the effectiveness, relevance, and representativeness of existing international frameworks. However, this shift toward a multipolar world brings both promise and peril. On one hand, new formations like BRICS+ offer alternative platforms for countries of the Global South seeking more autonomy in global affairs. On the other hand, these platforms often operate in silos and lack the institutional strength of traditional multilateral systems.
Meanwhile, akin to the bipolar world of the Cold War era, the world is again witnessing two competing models of governance: the US-led market-driven framework versus China's state-led development model. Europe, caught between caution and dependency, leans toward the former while hedging risks. In between lies the Global South, a diverse set of nations navigating between these powers while scrambling to establish their own governance paths.
The emergence of BRICS+ and various other minilateral organisations can be attributed to the perceived shortcomings of the UN-led multilateral system.
This fragmentation produces what scholars call epistemic dissonance, deep structural disagreements over policy as well as the fundamental nature of what governance should look like. The challenge is no longer just bias or underrepresentation; it's the imposition of a Eurocentric governance model, with systemic exclusion of diverse worldviews.
The failures of current institutions go beyond exclusion. Many multilateral frameworks were created under the assumption of Western primacy and homogeneity. They do not reflect the plural, multilingual, culturally diverse realities of the 21st century.
A reimagined governance model for Africa must go beyond simply adding new voices to existing systems. It must recognise the continent's rich diversity, value indigenous knowledge, and respect the right of African nations to define their own development paths. Too often, Africa's complexity is ignored in externally imposed governance frameworks. What is needed is not a shift in dominance, but the creation of flexible, decentralised, and fair systems that distribute power more equitably and reflect the realities on the ground.
The 2023 accession of the AU to permanent membership of the G20 was a crucial breakthrough. Finally, Africa is represented as a bloc in the premier forum for economic cooperation, alongside the European Union (EU). This moment reflects a growing consensus that the continent can no longer be sidelined. It also coincides with more African nationals taking leadership positions in key global institutions, such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), World Health Organisation (WHO) and most recently the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).
Africa is represented as a bloc in the premier forum for economic cooperation, alongside the European Union (EU).
The G20 Leaders' Summit in November the first on the African continent - will occur in the context of deep frustration over the continued exclusion of African perspectives. It is a historic opportunity to showcase African priorities: restructuring unsustainable debt, charting a way to reduce the climate finance gap for developing countries by 2035, and embedding the African Continental Free Trade Area in global trade frameworks.
The world stands at a governance crossroads. Traditional institutions are losing relevance, while emerging powers are asserting themselves, in these changing realities, the future of global governance will not be decided by reform alone. It will be shaped by those who build new systems from the ground up — systems that are fairer, more inclusive, and better suited to the entire world, not just the interests of a few historically powerful countries.
Thankfully, South Africa's G20 offers that rare window of opportunity, Africa is more visible than ever in global governance, its demographic and economic importance are growing, and major powers, including the US, EU, China, Russia and Gulf States, are competing for its partnership. However, Africa must move beyond being a passive arena for global competition, as it was during the Cold War. Instead, it should use this renewed visibility to influence global norms and shape outcomes on its own terms. South Africa's G20 Presidency is a critical platform to champion this shift, from symbolic inclusion to meaningful influence in decision-making.
This commentary originally appeared in BRICS and the Global South.
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.
Samir Bhattacharya is an Associate Fellow at Observer Research Foundation (ORF), where he works on geopolitics with particular reference to Africa in the changing global ...
Read More +
PREV
