A Renewed BRICS for a Polycentric World: From Global Chaos to Orderly Multipolarity

In its recent report, “A Renewed BRICS for a Polycentric World: From Global Chaos to Orderly Multipolarity”, the BRICS Expert Council-Russia presents a strategic vision for the group following its expansion. Prepared by Igor Makarov, Alexandra Morozkina, Dmitry Suslov (lead author), and Prokhor Tebin from a situational analysis conducted under the aegis of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the report asks whether BRICS should remain primarily a flexible forum for coordinating positions or take on a more substantial role in global governance. The authors favour the latter, arguing that growing international disorder and what they describe as a vacuum in global governance require BRICS to become a more influential institution representing the interests of the “World Majority”.

The assessment begins with BRICS’ evolution and achievements. The authors highlight the expansion of its agenda from trade and finance to energy, climate change, digitalisation, AI, healthcare, security, science, and humanitarian cooperation. They point to mechanisms such as the BRICS Business Council, Think Tank Council, and Network University, as well as the New Development Bank and Contingent Reserve Arrangement, as evidence of growing institutional depth. The 2024–25 expansion, which brought Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the UAE into the group, is presented as a major increase in BRICS’ economic, demographic, and political weight. At the same time, the authors acknowledge that expansion has made the group more diverse and therefore more difficult to manage.

A central weakness, according to the authors, is the gap between BRICS’ growing influence and its limited capacity to implement collective decisions. Member states can coordinate positions on a number of international issues, but disagreements over geopolitical priorities, relations with the United States, and internal rivalries, particularly between India and China, constrain deeper cooperation. The informal structure that gives BRICS flexibility also creates problems of institutional memory, continuity, and implementation. The authors therefore argue that BRICS needs some degree of institutionalisation without losing its consensus-based and flexible character.

The broader argument rests on the authors’ diagnosis of a changing international system. They contend that multipolarity has already emerged, but that existing global governance institutions have failed to adapt to the new distribution of power. They point to growing competition among major powers and the absence of effective international rules in areas such as AI, cyberspace, and unmanned systems. Against this background, BRICS should move beyond being a platform for consultation and contribute more directly to global governance. The proposed approach is not presented as replacing existing institutions, but as filling gaps and gradually reforming the wider system.

The proposed expansion of BRICS’ agenda is wide-ranging. In finance, the authors call for accelerating the BRICS Cross-Border Payment Initiative, the Clear Settlement and Depository System, the Investment Platform, and the (Re)Insurance Company, alongside proposals for a BRICS Bridge payment platform, greater use of national currencies, and stronger digital financial infrastructure. In food security, they support accelerating the BRICS Grain Exchange and developing independent insurance, transport, and logistics systems. On climate, they propose a broader “BRICS Nature” agenda focused on adaptation, environmental protection, green technology, and the development needs of poorer countries. They also propose stronger cooperation on energy, including nuclear energy, disaster response, and emerging security issues such as military applications of AI and unmanned systems.

Institutional reform is consequently placed at the centre of the proposed transformation. The authors support a permanent BRICS Secretariat, or a virtual or distributed equivalent, to preserve institutional memory, maintain continuity between chairships, and help implement decisions. They stress that such an institution should remain technical and administrative rather than political, and should not undermine consensus or the flexibility that has characterised BRICS. On future expansion, they favour keeping the group open to the wider developing world but avoiding another large enlargement, recommending limited additions after prospective members have first participated in the Partner Countries framework. The underlying objective is to make BRICS more capable of producing and implementing collective initiatives while retaining its flexible structure.

India's World