Features
BRICS taking centre stage in new world order
Quite rightly, the latter states want to benefit from emerging, BRICS-centred economic growth prospects in particular and are fashioning their foreign policies accordingly. However, it is apparent that among some of these hopefuls, politics is proving as important as economics. Palestine, Syria and Myanmar are some cases in point.
For all intents and purposes, BRICS is the Southern answer, so to speak, to the hitherto North-centred international political and economic order. Quite rightly, it is seen as an effective challenger to the dominance of the G7. If the world’s hapless and vulnerable, such as Palestine, are aspiring for BRICS membership, the inference is inescapable that they are compelled to do so by their current powerlessness. That is, politics is primarily at the heart of their BRICS-related decision.
Since the US and its allies are firmly behind Israel, Palestine has no choice but to seek the security guarantees that BRICS may be seeming to offer it. Such considerations apply to most other powerless Southern states intent on gaining BRICS membership.
That is, the North is failing to meet some of the cardinal expectations of the more vulnerable countries of the South. Needless to say, the latter are right in their assessment since it would not be too long before BRICS surpasses the G7 in economic, military and political strength.
No less a quarter than the UN recognizes that the old order is fast changing and that BRICS would be a global formation to contend with in time to come. This possibility is underscored by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ presence at the ongoing BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia. Herein we have an important endorsement of a BRICS-centred world order that is fast replacing the West-dominant international political order that came into being close on the heels of the ending of World War Two which the UN itself was instrumental in installing.
The rush on the part of Southern states to acquire membership of BRICS is understandable in view of the poor development prospects of most Southern states currently but there could be some perils in the latter allowing economics to crowd out politics completely.
This applies mainly to those countries of the South that desire to tread the path of democratic development. Put simply, they would need to guard against endangering their democratic identity in the process of being dependent for their economic sustenance on principal BRICS members that are authoritarian and autocratic. Unfortunately, only India could be described as a vibrant democracy from among the founding fathers of BRICS, for instance.
To be sure, the more powerless Southern states are unlikely to be pressurized in a major way, in the short and medium terms, by the foremost powers of BRICS to refashion their political and economic systems to be in keeping with the predilections of the heavyweights of the grouping, but prolonged economic dependence on the latter by the vulnerable could have the effect of compelling the latter to cave into pressures exerted by the powerful. That is, the democratic credentials of the vulnerable and ‘small’ may eventually come to be compromised. That most threadbare cliché; ‘There’s nothing called a free lunch’, remains relevant.
The above considerations point to the need for balanced, nuanced and farsighted foreign policy initiatives on the part of the vulnerable and powerless. They would need to be committed to Non-alignment, which should be understood as a policy of cordiality towards all countries. From this viewpoint, the powerless would need to be on equal cordiality with both South and North.
Equally importantly, the South would need to ensure that it is on a path of democratic development. Since there is no advisable alternative to the latter at present, democratic development, which translates into growth with equity in all conceivable respects, remains the only policy ‘trajectory’ to traverse.
Sri Lanka has made the notable decision to seek membership of BRICS, and this initiative cannot be faulted, but the country needs to ensure that it remains a representative democracy. This observation is prompted by a recent comment made by Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) to the effect that, ‘There is no need for an Opposition in parliament’.
President AKD needs to be reminded that a parliament minus an Opposition is unthinkable in what is considered a representative democracy. Such a situation would smack of a totalitarian regime; an antithesis of democracy. This way forward all right thinking Sri Lankans are likely to reject totally.
Accordingly, the weaker states of the South should ensure for themselves stepped-up growth by virtue of future BRICS membership, but it would be enormously counter-productive for these countries to barter away their democratic identity for the sake of material prosperity. Thus, growth with equity remains the desired development ideal.
Achieving this ideal is no uphill challenge. Social democracy or growth with equity has not proved difficult to achieve for countries such as Germany. It is also encouraging to note that Great Britain is currently, to a good measure, social democratic in orientation under its Labour government. Many are the Scandinavian countries that are taking this road to development. But the majority of these states remain democratic in their essential character.
The onus is on the governments of the South to ensure that their populations are in a position to access the essentials of living: food, water, shelter and sound health care. Interestingly, such access is most possible only under representative and accountable democratic governments. This has been the world’s experience. Thus, while getting the best out of BRICS membership it would be in the best interests of the peoples of the South for their governments to work within a social democratic governance framework.
Moreover, the South would do well not to lose sight of the fact that Europe and Asia are continuing to be vibrantly interdependent in the field of trade, to consider just one dimension in international economic development. Currently, the South cannot do without the North in this area and vice versa. It would be naïve on the part of the South to lose sight of these facts, going forward.