Exploring the philosophical, political, and human questions shaping the BRICS+ world
Image: Xinhua
Does BRICS Have an Ideology?
BRICS has become one of the most talked-about formations on the global stage. Described as a counterweight to Western dominance, a champion of the Global South, or a pragmatic coalition of emerging powers, it raises a vital question: does BRICS actually have an ideology?
The answer is layered. BRICS is not an ideological bloc. It is a geopolitical coalition, a space where countries with different political systems, economic strategies, and social realities come together to pursue shared interests. What connects them is not a common vision of the world, but a shared dissatisfaction with how global power has been concentrated for decades in the hands of the United States, Europe, and the institutional networks that have shaped global governance – notably NATO, the IMF, the World Bank, and the broader Bretton Woods system. BRICS provides a platform to push back against this order, while opening debate on how economic and political systems might evolve outside Western hegemony.
At its heart, BRICS advances the principle of multipolarity – a geoeconomic arrangement that challenges the idea of a single global centre of power. It champions sovereignty, non-interference, fairer trade, and stronger representation for developing countries in global institutions. For much of the Global South, these demands are a response to long histories of colonisation, resource extraction, debt dependency, and exclusion from decision-making. The BRICS reformist drive to challenge and reshape the IMF, World Bank, and the broader Bretton Woods framework is central to this moment, alongside building alternative institutions such as the New Development Bank (NDB), signalling a desire to redistribute not only global influence, but also the terms of development, debt, and investment.
Yet a deeper question emerges: how will this new economic arrangement touch the lives of ordinary people, the masses already dispossessed through austerity, inequality, and structural adjustment programmes imposed under the old order? How will it ensure that prosperity does not remain confined to elites but filters down to uplift the many?
Each BRICS+ country offers a unique social landscape. Brazil is a powerhouse of agricultural production and industry, yet its indigenous peoples and rural communities face land dispossession and environmental pressure. Urban centres flourish, but inequality persists. India's digital and industrial growth is remarkable, yet caste hierarchies and rural poverty continue to shape life for hundreds of millions. Russia brings energy strength, geopolitical influence, and a commitment to multipolar partnerships, while also confronting regional disparities and social challenges – yet its strategic role within BRICS positions it as a bridge-builder, especially through energy, infrastructure, and security cooperation.
China stands out for its vast poverty alleviation achievements, lifting hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty over recent decades through state-led planning, large-scale investment, and targeted social programmes. This is not only a technical achievement but a social transformation that challenges the idea that global integration must leave the vulnerable behind. South Africa brings the symbolic and moral weight of its anti-apartheid struggle, but its post-liberation economy remains marked by white monopoly capital and a comprador elite that has not yet delivered meaningful redistribution to the majority. Land, employment, and economic inclusion remain unfinished work. The Gulf states contribute energy wealth and sovereign funds but come with monarchic and theocratic systems that raise new questions for social policy.
In looking to ethical and philosophical guidance, BRICS might draw on its members' cultural foundations. China's traditions, including Taoist ideas of harmony, social balance, and care for the collective, could inform models of development that go beyond profit. Africa offers ubuntu, an ethic of human interconnectedness, dignity, and collective well-being, alongside the political tradition of Pan-Africanism, which calls for solidarity, sovereignty, and justice among historically marginalised peoples.
There are examples from history worth studying. Libya, under Muammar Gaddafi, developed a social model that channelled oil wealth into free healthcare, education, housing, and basic income, aiming to circulate resources directly to the population. This system was violently cut short not by internal collapse, but by US and NATO intervention, which destroyed a social contract rare in the region. China's experience shows how state-directed development can change the life chances of hundreds of millions, challenging neoliberal claims that markets alone can deliver inclusion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
2 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Could Trump tariffs become Bric-building blocks?
US President Donald Trump has the Brics group of nations directly in his trade war crosshairs, slapping super-high tariffs on imports from Brazil and India, and accusing them of pursuing 'anti-American' policies. Washington's relations with Brasilia and New Delhi have sunk to new lows. But this belligerence could backfire. The White House said on Wednesday it will impose an additional 25% tariff on goods from India, citing New Delhi's continued imports of Russian oil. That brings the levy on most goods to 50%, among the highest rate faced by any US trading partner. Brazil also faces 50% tariffs on many of its US-bound exports, not because of trade imbalances, but because of Trump's anger at what he calls a 'witch hunt' against his ally, Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro, who has been charged with plotting a coup after his election loss in 2022. This breakdown in relations could be Trump's intention: push these countries to the brink so that they'll agree to trade deals that are heavily lopsided in Washington's favour. That strategy seemed to work with Japan and the EU. But hitting these Brics economies with eye-watering tariffs could push them closer together, strengthening the resolve of a group that appeared to be losing whatever momentum, purpose and unity it had.
TimesLIVE
3 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
M23 rebels say no invitation received to Doha peace talks with DRC
The Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group has not received an invitation to peace talks with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) scheduled to begin in Doha, Qatar, on Friday, its leader Bertrand Bisimwa told reporters on Thursday. A delay to the start of the talks risks scuppering an ambitious pledge by the two sides to end the fighting in eastern DRC that has killed thousands of people this year and displaced hundreds of thousands more. M23 rebels seized eastern DRC's largest city Goma in late January as part of a rapid advance that has given them control of more territory than ever before. US President Donald Trump's administration has mediated talks between DRC and Rwanda that Washington hopes will produce a sustainable peace and attract billions of dollars of Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper and lithium. Rwanda, which has long denied helping M23, says its forces act in self-defence against DRC's army and ethnic Hutu militiamen linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Under a separate but parallel mediation effort hosted by Qatar, DRC and M23 signed a declaration of principles on July 19 in which they vowed to start negotiating a peace agreement no later than August 8 with the goal of reaching a deal by August 18. Bisimwa told Reuters on Thursday, however, that M23 had not received an invitation to Doha and that for now there was no M23 delegation there. Another rebel leader, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the group would not go to Doha "until Kinshasa begins to respect the declaration of principles, which provides for the release of our detained members". An official with knowledge of the matter said there had been a delay in releasing prisoners, but that both sides were still working to implement the terms outlined in the declaration of principles. "This includes ongoing negotiations to establish a mechanism — with involvement from the International Red Cross — for the exchange of prisoners, which has taken longer than initially anticipated," the official said. "However, progress is being made — and once there is an agreement on this point, implementation of the deal is expected to pick up pace." A Congolese government official directly involved in the talks told Reuters that prisoners could only be released after an agreement — rather than the declaration of principles — is signed. That person said they could not confirm whether DRC would attend the talks. Tina Salama, spokesperson for Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi, said DRC was still participating in the Doha peace process and would attend any meetings scheduled.
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Exploring the philosophical, political, and human questions shaping the BRICS+ world
This photo taken on July 3, 2025 shows a logo of the BRICS Summit outside the Museum of Modern Art in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The 17th BRICS Summit will be held here from July 6 to 7. Image: Xinhua Does BRICS Have an Ideology? BRICS has become one of the most talked-about formations on the global stage. Described as a counterweight to Western dominance, a champion of the Global South, or a pragmatic coalition of emerging powers, it raises a vital question: does BRICS actually have an ideology? The answer is layered. BRICS is not an ideological bloc. It is a geopolitical coalition, a space where countries with different political systems, economic strategies, and social realities come together to pursue shared interests. What connects them is not a common vision of the world, but a shared dissatisfaction with how global power has been concentrated for decades in the hands of the United States, Europe, and the institutional networks that have shaped global governance – notably NATO, the IMF, the World Bank, and the broader Bretton Woods system. BRICS provides a platform to push back against this order, while opening debate on how economic and political systems might evolve outside Western hegemony. At its heart, BRICS advances the principle of multipolarity – a geoeconomic arrangement that challenges the idea of a single global centre of power. It champions sovereignty, non-interference, fairer trade, and stronger representation for developing countries in global institutions. For much of the Global South, these demands are a response to long histories of colonisation, resource extraction, debt dependency, and exclusion from decision-making. The BRICS reformist drive to challenge and reshape the IMF, World Bank, and the broader Bretton Woods framework is central to this moment, alongside building alternative institutions such as the New Development Bank (NDB), signalling a desire to redistribute not only global influence, but also the terms of development, debt, and investment. Yet a deeper question emerges: how will this new economic arrangement touch the lives of ordinary people, the masses already dispossessed through austerity, inequality, and structural adjustment programmes imposed under the old order? How will it ensure that prosperity does not remain confined to elites but filters down to uplift the many? Each BRICS+ country offers a unique social landscape. Brazil is a powerhouse of agricultural production and industry, yet its indigenous peoples and rural communities face land dispossession and environmental pressure. Urban centres flourish, but inequality persists. India's digital and industrial growth is remarkable, yet caste hierarchies and rural poverty continue to shape life for hundreds of millions. Russia brings energy strength, geopolitical influence, and a commitment to multipolar partnerships, while also confronting regional disparities and social challenges – yet its strategic role within BRICS positions it as a bridge-builder, especially through energy, infrastructure, and security cooperation. China stands out for its vast poverty alleviation achievements, lifting hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty over recent decades through state-led planning, large-scale investment, and targeted social programmes. This is not only a technical achievement but a social transformation that challenges the idea that global integration must leave the vulnerable behind. South Africa brings the symbolic and moral weight of its anti-apartheid struggle, but its post-liberation economy remains marked by white monopoly capital and a comprador elite that has not yet delivered meaningful redistribution to the majority. Land, employment, and economic inclusion remain unfinished work. The Gulf states contribute energy wealth and sovereign funds but come with monarchic and theocratic systems that raise new questions for social policy. In looking to ethical and philosophical guidance, BRICS might draw on its members' cultural foundations. China's traditions, including Taoist ideas of harmony, social balance, and care for the collective, could inform models of development that go beyond profit. Africa offers ubuntu, an ethic of human interconnectedness, dignity, and collective well-being, alongside the political tradition of Pan-Africanism, which calls for solidarity, sovereignty, and justice among historically marginalised peoples. There are examples from history worth studying. Libya, under Muammar Gaddafi, developed a social model that channelled oil wealth into free healthcare, education, housing, and basic income, aiming to circulate resources directly to the population. This system was violently cut short not by internal collapse, but by US and NATO intervention, which destroyed a social contract rare in the region. China's experience shows how state-directed development can change the life chances of hundreds of millions, challenging neoliberal claims that markets alone can deliver inclusion.
