As BRICS leaders gather in New Delhi, the expanded bloc represents nearly half of the world’s population and a growing share of the global economy. But can it genuinely challenge Western dominance — and what would that mean for Africa?
NEW DELHI, INDIA — Nearly two decades after Brazil, Russia, India, and China held their first summit, BRICS has evolved into a major platform for emerging economies seeking greater influence over the global political and financial system.
South Africa joined the original four countries in 2010, followed by an expansion that brought in Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.
As leaders gather in New Delhi for the 18th BRICS Summit on September 12 and 13, the bloc faces a defining question: can its growing economic weight translate into enough political influence to reshape a world order still heavily influenced by the United States and its Western allies?
For Africa, the more immediate question is whether BRICS can deliver greater influence, investment, and financial options for the continent.
BRICS Represents a Growing Share of the Global Economy
The expanded BRICS grouping now accounts for about 49.5% of the world’s population, 40% of global GDP, and 26% of global trade, according to figures released by India ahead of the summit.
But BRICS was never created as a military alliance or formally established to oppose the West.
The term “BRIC” was coined in 2001 to describe the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Their governments later transformed the concept into a diplomatic platform, holding their first summit in 2009.
Today, the group increasingly presents itself as a voice for emerging economies and the Global South, particularly in calls for reform of international institutions.
Africa Gains a Bigger Voice Inside BRICS
Africa’s representation has expanded significantly.
South Africa is now joined by Egypt and Ethiopia, giving the continent three full members in the bloc.
That matters as African governments continue demanding greater representation in global institutions. Despite having 54 member states, Africa still has no permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
African states have also pushed for reforms at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, where voting power has historically favored advanced economies.
BRICS finance officials have similarly called for more representative global financial institutions, making institutional reform one of the areas where members share significant common ground.
New Development Bank Offers Another Financing Option
One of BRICS’ most concrete achievements is the New Development Bank, created to finance infrastructure and sustainable development projects.
For African economies facing major infrastructure financing gaps, the bank provides another potential source of capital alongside institutions such as the World Bank.
Its significance does not necessarily lie in replacing Western-backed lenders. Instead, additional financing options could give developing countries greater negotiating power.
For Africa, that competition could become one of BRICS’ most practical benefits.
Can BRICS Challenge the US Dollar?
BRICS countries have also explored reducing their dependence on the US dollar by expanding trade in national currencies and improving cross-border payment systems.
But the prospect of a single BRICS currency replacing the dollar remains distant.
The bloc contains dramatically different economies and political systems, from China and India to major energy exporters such as Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
Agreeing to reduce dollar dependence is considerably easier than agreeing on what should replace it.
Expansion Is Both a Strength and a Weakness
BRICS’ expansion has increased its global influence while making political consensus more difficult.
China and Russia generally favor a stronger challenge to US influence. India maintains extensive partnerships with the West while positioning itself as a leader of the Global South.
South Africa promotes strategic independence and multilateralism, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE maintain deep ties with the West even as they strengthen ties with emerging powers.
The conflict involving Iran, itself a BRICS member, has further exposed the difficulty of forging a common position on major security crises.
BRICS can often agree on development, trade, and institutional reform. Building a unified foreign policy is far more difficult.
BRICS Does Not Have to Replace the West
The debate over whether BRICS can “defeat” Western dominance may miss the larger transformation already underway.
Countries across the Global South increasingly have more choices. They can trade with China, seek BRICS-backed financing, maintain relations with Washington and Europe, attract Gulf investment, and pursue regional partnerships simultaneously.
BRICS may therefore be contributing to a more multipolar world without necessarily becoming a unified replacement for the Western-led system.
What BRICS Means for Africa
For Africa, the opportunity should not be reduced to choosing between East and West.
Replacing dependence on Western powers with dependence on another group of powerful countries would not represent genuine economic independence.
China, India, Russia, the Gulf states, Europe, and the United States all pursue their own interests. African countries must do the same.
The continent can use increased competition among global powers to negotiate better infrastructure financing, technology transfer, industrial investment, stronger local supply chains, and greater representation in international institutions.
That includes ensuring Africa’s mineral resources support African industrialization rather than simply supplying raw materials for industries elsewhere.
Ultimately, BRICS has not replaced the Western-led global order. The dollar remains dominant, Western financial institutions retain enormous influence, and the United States and Europe remain major economic and political powers.
But global power is becoming more dispersed.
BRICS’ greatest impact may not be the creation of an anti-Western world order, but the emergence of a system in which the West is no longer the only center of economic and political gravity.
For Africa, the real test will be whether that changing balance produces greater investment, development, and negotiating power — not simply a new set of geopolitical alliances.
