Is Zimbabwe's BRICS ambition a strategic move or pure political fantasy?

Zawya

10-03-2025

Zimbabwe's bid to join BRICS—an economic bloc comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—raises serious questions about the country's economic trajectory, governance record, and geopolitical positioning.
Foreign Minister Amon Murwira's recent visit to Russia and his statements regarding Zimbabwe's push for BRICS membership demonstrate the government's desire to align itself with emerging global powers.
The official narrative suggests that such a move would unlock new trade and investment opportunities, allowing Zimbabwe to bypass Western financial institutions and forge stronger economic ties with BRICS nations.
However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that Zimbabwe's economic and governance realities present significant challenges that undermine the feasibility and benefits of this ambition.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
The primary argument advanced by the Zimbabwean government is that BRICS offers an alternative economic framework that is not dominated by Western powers.
The formation of BRICS was largely driven by the desire of emerging economies to counterbalance Western influence in global financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
The New Development Bank (NDB), established by BRICS, provides funding for infrastructure and development projects without the stringent conditions often imposed by Western lenders.
In theory, Zimbabwe could benefit from such financial assistance, especially given its exclusion from mainstream global credit markets due to poor creditworthiness and longstanding disputes over debt repayments.
Yet, this assumption is overly simplistic and ignores the fundamental reasons why Zimbabwe has struggled to attract meaningful investment from any part of the world, including BRICS nations themselves.
One of the major barriers to Zimbabwe's economic revival is not necessarily a lack of access to funding, but rather the deep-seated issues of policy inconsistency, corruption, and economic mismanagement.
Even if Zimbabwe were to be admitted into BRICS, there is no guarantee that it would receive significant financial support.
It is important to consider that even China, historically one of Zimbabwe's key economic allies, has become increasingly cautious in extending credit to Zimbabwe due to the country's poor debt repayment record.
The government has, in the past, secured numerous loans from China for various infrastructure projects, but its failure to meet repayment obligations has strained relations.
This raises an important question: if Zimbabwe cannot maintain the confidence of one of BRICS' core members, how can it expect the broader BRICS bloc to view it as a viable economic partner?
Beyond financial considerations, the argument that BRICS membership would boost Zimbabwe's trade prospects is equally flawed.
Zimbabwe already has strong trade relations with BRICS members, particularly China, South Africa, and Russia.
Joining BRICS would not automatically create new trade opportunities, nor would it address the country's core economic challenges.
The real issue Zimbabwe faces is its inability to produce competitive goods and services for export markets.
Years of economic decline, mismanagement, and underinvestment in key productive sectors have left the country struggling to generate significant foreign exchange earnings.
BRICS membership would not solve Zimbabwe's chronic power shortages, deteriorating infrastructure, or weak industrial base—all of which severely limit the country's export potential.
In essence, while BRICS provides a platform for economic cooperation, Zimbabwe's fundamental problem is not a lack of trading partners but rather a lack of economic productivity.
Another factor to consider is Zimbabwe's political and economic stability, or rather, the lack thereof.
BRICS, despite its internal differences, has positioned itself as a bloc of emerging economies that are either major global players or have significant regional influence.
Even South Africa, which has faced its own economic struggles, still maintains a relatively stronger financial system and institutional framework compared to Zimbabwe.
BRICS membership does not inherently guarantee economic success, as seen in South Africa's case, where economic stagnation and policy uncertainty have continued despite its participation in the bloc.
If South Africa, with its comparatively more developed economy, has not seen transformative benefits from BRICS, it is highly unlikely that Zimbabwe—whose economy is in far worse shape—would experience any substantial improvements simply by joining.
Furthermore, Zimbabwe's inclusion in BRICS would not necessarily be in the best interests of the existing members.
One of the key objectives of BRICS is to strengthen its collective influence in global economic governance.
Adding Zimbabwe to the bloc does little to enhance BRICS' strategic goals, as Zimbabwe is not a significant economic player on the global stage.
The country's GDP is minuscule compared to the economies of the existing BRICS members, making it more of a liability than an asset.
The credibility of BRICS as a grouping of emerging economic powers could even be undermined by admitting a country that has consistently ranked among the world's most mismanaged economies.
In this sense, Zimbabwe's inclusion would likely be seen as an act of political symbolism rather than a move that brings tangible economic value to the bloc.
Proponents of Zimbabwe's BRICS bid argue that the country's vast natural resources make it a valuable partner.
It is true that Zimbabwe possesses significant mineral wealth, including lithium, gold, diamonds, and platinum.
However, having natural resources is not enough to make a country an attractive economic partner.
The key issue is how those resources are managed and whether they translate into sustainable economic growth.
Zimbabwe's track record in this regard is dismal.
Corruption, policy inconsistencies, and opaque mining deals have resulted in a situation where the country's vast mineral wealth has not translated into broad-based economic development.
BRICS nations already have access to numerous resource-rich countries that offer more stable and predictable investment environments.
It is unlikely that Zimbabwe's resource wealth alone would be enough to convince BRICS to welcome it as a member.
Additionally, the geopolitical argument for Zimbabwe's BRICS membership is weak.
While Zimbabwe has historically sought to align itself with nations that challenge Western hegemony, geopolitical considerations alone do not determine BRICS membership.
Other countries, such as Indonesia and Turkey, have already secured or are actively pursuing membership, while Nigeria has expressed interest and is set to participate as a partner country in the upcoming summit.
These nations possess stronger economic credentials, larger markets, and more significant regional influence than Zimbabwe, making them more attractive candidates.
If BRICS continues its expansion, it is likely to prioritize countries that bring substantial economic and strategic value to the bloc rather than those seeking membership purely for political positioning.
Zimbabwe's bid to join BRICS is therefore more about optics than substance.
The government wants to portray the move as a way to break away from Western economic dominance and secure alternative avenues for investment and trade.
However, the fundamental issues that have kept Zimbabwe's economy in crisis for decades will not be solved by BRICS membership.
The real problem lies in the government's unwillingness to implement meaningful economic reforms, improve governance, and create a stable business environment.
Without these changes, even if Zimbabwe were to be admitted into BRICS, it would struggle to derive any meaningful benefits from its membership.
Ultimately, Zimbabwe's push for BRICS membership is a distraction from the more pressing issues facing the country.
Instead of focusing on symbolic gestures, the government should prioritize addressing its domestic economic challenges, tackling corruption, and restoring investor confidence.
These are the real prerequisites for sustainable economic recovery, not mere membership in an international bloc.
Until Zimbabwe demonstrates that it can manage its economy effectively, it will remain on the sidelines of global economic progress—whether inside or outside BRICS.
Syndigate.info).