Von der Leyen’s EU group aims for asylum schemes like Rwanda’s

 The 16th BRICS Summit, scheduled from October 22 to 24 in Russia, is poised to be one of the most significant summits in the bloc’s history. This importance stems from two key reasons. First, the geopolitical context in which it is taking place is fraught with conflict, as Russia continues its military engagement in Ukraine. Second, and perhaps more critically, this will be the first BRICS Summit with an expanded membership, raising concerns about how the group will manage decision-making going forward.

The Geopolitical Backdrop: Russia at War

The backdrop of the BRICS 2024 Summit is dramatically influenced by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Russia has been embroiled in this conflict for over two years, following its military incursion into Ukrainian territory in February 2022. What began as a “special military operation” has now evolved into a full-scale war that has claimed thousands of lives on both sides. The war’s toll on Russia’s global standing, economy, and its international relationships will inevitably shape the tone and outcomes of the upcoming Summit.

The conflict has further polarized the international community, with many countries distancing themselves from Russia or imposing sanctions. In this context, BRICS — an organization originally founded as a coalition of emerging economies with no formal military alliances — finds itself navigating a more complex political landscape. Russia’s position as a founding BRICS member, combined with its current role as a global pariah in many Western circles, adds a layer of complexity to the group’s cohesion and decision-making processes.

The First BRICS Summit of Expanded Membership

While the geopolitical context is significant, the expansion of BRICS is perhaps the most transformative factor for this year’s Summit. Originally comprised of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, the group has now grown to include several new members. Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and others joined the economic bloc, and over 30 other countries have expressed interest in becoming part of BRICS.

This expansion marks a critical milestone for BRICS as it seeks to bolster its influence on the global stage. With the inclusion of new members, BRICS now represents a larger portion of the world’s population and economic output, positioning itself as a significant player in global governance. However, this newfound size also brings new challenges, particularly when it comes to decision-making.

Is BRICS Still Relevant?

To understand the relevance of BRICS today, it’s essential to look at its economic footprint. The group, initially formed as a coalition of emerging economies, has steadily gained prominence in the global economy. Between 2000 and 2023, the BRICS countries saw their collective share of global GDP, measured in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), increase from 21% to 35%. In contrast, the G7, which includes the world’s most industrialized economies, saw its share decline from about 43% to 30% during the same period.

This shift in economic power dynamics underscores the growing influence of the BRICS bloc. With the addition of new members like Saudi Arabia and Egypt — both of which bring substantial economic weight — the bloc’s share of global GDP is set to rise even further. This economic clout, combined with the bloc’s growing membership, positions BRICS as a critical organization in the evolving global landscape.

But is relevance solely tied to economic power? The answer may lie in the group’s ability to act cohesively. While the expansion of BRICS undoubtedly increases its influence, it also presents a new set of challenges, particularly in terms of decision-making. More members mean more voices at the table, which could make consensus-building a more strenuous exercise.

The Decision-Making Conundrum

The BRICS bloc operates on a consensus-based model, meaning that all major decisions require agreement from all member states. While this model has worked for the original five members, the addition of new countries with diverse political, economic, and social backgrounds could make decision-making more complicated.

With more members come more perspectives, interests, and priorities. For instance, Brazil and China may have different views on environmental regulations, while India and Russia may differ on geopolitical issues such as relations with the West. Adding new members from the Middle East and Africa — regions with their own complex political dynamics — could further exacerbate these divisions.

Saudi Arabia, for example, brings with it significant political and economic clout, but it also has its own regional and global priorities that may not align perfectly with the existing BRICS members. Similarly, Ethiopia and Egypt, both critical players in Africa, have a longstanding dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, a major infrastructure project on the Nile River. Such regional disputes could spill over into BRICS discussions, making consensus-building more challenging.

Moreover, the bloc’s expansion could lead to a dilution of its original purpose. BRICS was founded as a coalition of emerging economies with the goal of challenging the dominance of Western-led institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. With more members, the bloc’s focus may become more diffuse, with each country pushing its own agenda. This could make it harder for BRICS to present a unified front on critical global issues like trade, climate change, and global governance reform.

Expansion vs. Efficiency: A Balancing Act

The challenge facing BRICS is how to balance its expanding membership with the need for efficient decision-making. On one hand, the inclusion of new members broadens the group’s influence and gives it greater leverage in international negotiations. On the other hand, it risks turning BRICS into a cumbersome organization where decision-making becomes bogged down by internal disagreements.

Historically, larger international organizations have struggled with this balance. The European Union, for example, has faced similar challenges as it has expanded over the years. With more member states comes greater complexity in decision-making, as each country brings its own set of priorities and interests. BRICS could face a similar fate if it fails to develop mechanisms for managing its growing membership.

One possible solution could be the creation of smaller working groups within BRICS to tackle specific issues. These groups could be tasked with developing recommendations that are then brought to the broader membership for approval. This approach could help streamline decision-making while still allowing all members to have a voice in the process.

Another option could be the establishment of a rotating leadership structure, where different member states take turns leading the group’s initiatives. This could help ensure that all members feel represented while also preventing any one country from dominating the agenda.