Why Emerging Powers Keep Joining BRICS, Even When They Disagree

The summits of the emerging economies group known as BRICS have long been characterized by a blend of diplomatic ambition and pragmatic hesitation. As leaders gather in New Delhi this weekend, the organization stands at a critical juncture, balancing its aspiration to reshape the global financial architecture against the realities of deepening geopolitical fractures. The group, originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, has expanded significantly in recent years, absorbing new members from across the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America..

This rapid growth reflects a widespread desire among developing nations for a more multipolar world order, yet it also introduces complex contradictions that threaten to dilute the bloc’s coherence. The upcoming gathering is not merely a ceremonial meeting of minds but a critical test of whether the alliance can maintain internal cohesion when its members hold fundamentally divergent views on international conflict, trade policy, and economic strategy.The primary driver behind the influx of new members is the perception that the current global economic system is increasingly exclusionary. For many emerging powers, the dominance of Western-led institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Group of Seven has felt less like inclusive governance and more like structural marginalization..

These nations argue that their growing economic weight is not accurately reflected in their political influence within these traditional frameworks. Consequently, BRICS offers an alternative platform where decision-making power is distributed more equally among its members. The appeal lies not in forming a cohesive military or political alliance, but in creating a counterweight to Western hegemony, allowing member states to negotiate trade, investment, and financial policies on their own terms.However, this unity of purpose is frequently undermined by profound disagreements among member states regarding global security and diplomacy..

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine serves as a stark illustration of these divisions. Russia’s aggressive posture has drawn severe condemnation from many Western allies, but within BRICS, reactions are varied and often cautious. India, a key member and a major economic partner of both the West and Russia, has maintained a stance of strategic neutrality, prioritizing its energy security and national interests over ideological alignment..

Similarly, countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which have strong ties to both Europe and the United States, are wary of being drawn into a bloc that could impose diplomatic costs on their broader international relationships. This hesitation to take a unified stance on conflicts highlights the difficulty of aligning the foreign policies of nations with such diverse geopolitical outlooks.Energy prices further complicate the dynamics of the group, particularly as global markets react to geopolitical instability. While some members, such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, are major energy exporters who benefit from high prices, others, like India and China, are massive energy importers that suffer economically when costs soar..

This divergence creates inherent tensions within the bloc’s economic agenda. High energy prices can lead to inflationary pressures in importing nations, forcing central banks to raise interest rates and slowing down economic growth. For BRICS to present a unified front on economic issues, it must reconcile these conflicting interests, yet doing so requires a level of coordination that has proven elusive in practice..

The lack of a common monetary policy or coordinated energy strategy leaves the group vulnerable to external market shocks.Despite these challenges, the momentum for expansion remains strong. The accession of new members such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates signals a broader trend of Global South nations seeking greater autonomy in international affairs. These countries view BRICS not as a replacement for existing institutions, but as a complementary forum that amplifies their voices..

The inclusion of these nations brings with them significant economic weight, particularly in terms of energy resources and strategic location. Iran’s membership, for instance, adds a major oil producer to the group, while the Arab states bring influence in regional trade routes and financial markets. This expansion strengthens the bloc’s collective negotiating power, even if it complicates internal consensus-building.The question of de-dollarization remains one of the most discussed yet under-delivered promises of BRICS..

Many members advocate for reducing reliance on the US dollar in international trade and finance, citing concerns over sanctions and exchange rate volatility. While there have been incremental steps toward using local currencies in bilateral trade, the practical challenges of creating a viable alternative to the dollar are substantial. The dollar’s dominance is entrenched in global liquidity, depth of markets, and institutional trust..

Replacing it requires not just political will, but also the development of robust financial infrastructure and stable monetary policies among member states. Until these conditions are met, the push for de-dollarization will remain more rhetorical than operational, limiting the immediate impact of BRICS on the global financial system.Internal political differences also pose a significant hurdle to coherence. The members of BRICS span a wide spectrum of governance models, from liberal democracies to authoritarian regimes and monarchies..

This diversity allows for a broad coalition but makes it difficult to agree on common standards regarding human rights, governance, and economic regulation. Critics argue that the lack of shared democratic values undermines the moral authority of the group. However, proponents counter that the primary goal of BRICS is economic cooperation and strategic autonomy, not political homogenization..

This practical approach allows disparate regimes to collaborate on trade and infrastructure projects without needing to align on broader ideological issues.The economic complementarities among members offer some promise for deeper integration. Countries like India and Brazil possess large domestic markets and growing service sectors, while China offers advanced manufacturing capabilities and technological innovation. Resource-rich nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia provide essential raw materials..

In theory, this mix could facilitate a self-sustaining economic ecosystem within the bloc. Efforts to establish a New Development Bank address this potential by providing financing for infrastructure and sustainable development projects, offering an alternative to Western-dominated lending institutions. The success of this bank in delivering tangible projects will be a key indicator of BRICS’ ability to translate political rhetoric into economic reality.Yet, the logistical and bureaucratic challenges of coordinating such a diverse group are immense..

Decision-making within BRICS is consensus-based, meaning that any single member can block or dilute initiatives they find unfavorable. This structure ensures inclusivity but often results in lowest-common-denominator outcomes that lack transformative impact. The upcoming summit in New Delhi will test whether the expanded membership can streamline its processes and achieve concrete agreements on trade facilitation, technological cooperation, and financial integration..

Leaders will need to navigate not only internal disagreements but also external pressure from Western powers who view the bloc as a strategic competitor.The role of India as the host nation adds another layer of complexity. India has consistently emphasized its independent foreign policy, often acting as a bridge between the West and the Global South. Its leadership may struggle to push for strong joint statements on issues like the Russia-Ukraine conflict or climate change, given the divergent views of other members..

India’s focus will likely be on securing tangible economic benefits for its rapidly growing economy, such as increased investment and trade partnerships. This pragmatic approach may help maintain.