As BRICS expands and asserts itself on the world stage, it embodies the Global South’s push for a more multipolar order, challenging Western dominance and reshaping international power structures.

The rise of the Global South: a challenge to the old world order?

In the last decades, the global balance of power has undergone a profound and rapid transformation. From the collapse of the bipolar world in the early 1990s to the unipolar system that emerged after the Cold War, dominated by the United States and Western institutions, the global order is now being reshaped as emerging economies and once peripheral nations challenge the status quo. By seizing on political, social, and economic fractures in Western democracies, the so-called “Global South is no longer a passive participant but an active driver of change. Their rapid economic growth, political assertiveness, and growing democratic weight have become crucial factors that compel a reevaluation of the traditional Western-centric worldview.

At the center of this transformation is the resurgence of non-alignment as a guiding principle in global politics. Originally a defining force during the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was originally conceived as the third vector in a bipolar world, proposing itself as the best alternative for the newly decolonized nations, allowing them to maintain sovereignty and independence while avoiding entanglement in superpower rivalries. Today, this principle is reemerging, most notably through the expansion of BRICS, which embodies a modern evolution of NAM’s original vision. Initially coined as an acronym to group emerging economies (specifically Brazil, Russia, China, India, and South Africa), the bloc has evolved well beyond its economic foundations. The recent enlargement with the inclusion of the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt, and Argentina signals a clear ambition to reshape global power structures.

Through its initiatives in finance, trade, and multilateral diplomacy, BRICS embodies the new expression of NAM, constituting an active platform for dialogue aimed at restructuring existing political frameworks rather than merely operating within them. As emerging nations assert their role in a multipolar world, the question is no longer whether this shift will occur, but rather how far it will go and what shape it will take.

From non-alignment to BRICS: a new vision with a common ground

The ideological and strategic foundations of BRICS can be traced back to the Non-Aligned Movement, a Cold War-era initiative primarily promoted by India, Yugoslavia and Egypt, which sought to create a third viable path between the United States and the Soviet Union. Landmark events such as the 1955 Bandung conference and the 1961 Belgrade Summit, provided newly decolonized nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America with an independent platform for development without forcing them to align with superpower influence. The movement was this way a direct response to the ideological and military pressures of the Cold War, advocating for sovereignty, non-interference, peaceful coexistence, and economic cooperation among developing nations. However, while NAM, which was newly born, immature and diverse in terms of membership, severely struggled to present a unified front and achieve tangible outcomes in international affairs, it planted the seeds of resistance to global dominance.

Building on these principles, BRICS represents a natural evolution of NAM’s original ideals, but with significantly greater economic and geopolitical weight. While initially born as an economic initiative to group the world's major emerging powers, BRICS has steadily increased its political and diplomatic influence, gradually evolving into a key player in global governance. The continuous expansion of the organization—most recently with the addition of the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt, and Argentina—reinforces its commitment to multipolarity and an alternative world order.

Unlike NAM, which remained largely reactive, BRICS takes a proactive approach to global governance. Following NAM, it places a premium on sovereignty and respect for regional leadership, but it also actively seeks to restructure existing power structures. The establishment of alternative and parallel financial institutions, such as the New Development Bank (NDB) or the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), reflects BRICS’ broader vision to establish an independent global economic framework that reduces reliance on Western-led institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.

BRICS in the age of global crises: a new role on the world stage

As the world faces unprecedented challenges, the need for multilateral cooperation beyond traditional Western-led frameworks has never been clearer. In recent years, the fragility of Western democracies, fragmented by internal divisions, has weakened their ability to respond swiftly and effectively to global crises. In this power vacuum, BRICS has been able to expand its influence, gaining support from developing nations eager for an alternative to the Western-dominated order. Once limited to mere reaction, BRICS and its members have been committed to reshaping the narrative around the distribution and exercise of global power, engaging actively and outside of great powers’ influence, and avoiding bandwagoning practices.

The war in Ukraine, for example, by posing a direct challenge to the post-Cold War status quo, has exposed the divergent responses of Western and non-Western powers. While the United States and the European Union swiftly implemented sanctions against Russia, BRICS members took a more cautious approach. China and India, for instance, refrained from outright condemnation of Moscow, prioritizing strategic autonomy and economic interests over alignment. Though widely criticized in Brussels and Washington D.C., this stance reveals the bloc’s deep-rooted commitment to non-interference, a core principle inherited from NAM. Instead of endorsing punitive measures, BRICS members have emphasized dialogue, multipolarity, and diplomacy, challenging the notion that economic and political pressures from the West are the only valid tools for addressing international conflicts.

A similar pattern is visible in the Middle East, where BRICS has consistently opposed Western interventionist policies. The bloc has repeatedly criticized NATO-led military interventions, particularly in Libya and Syria, advocating instead for diplomatic solutions and regionally led conflicts and dispute settlements. The inclusion of the United Arab Emirates and Iran—longtime regional rivals—into BRICS is highly significant in this regard. Their membership not only enhances the bloc’s energy influence but also signals a shift towards a new diplomatic paradigm, where once geopolitical adversaries are encouraged to engage under a multipolar framework for the sake of regional stability rather than being drawn into Western-led security alliances.

This is why the Middle East crisis, particularly the ongoing instability in Gaza and the broader Arab-Israeli tensions, further underlines BRICS’ evolving role. Differently from the U.S., which has been steadfast in its support of Israel, BRICS members have emphasized a more balanced approach, condemning disproportionate military actions and advocating instead for a multilateral diplomatic resolution. This stance aligns with BRICS’ broader critique of Western policies that have historically prioritized military responses over diplomacy, frequently disregarding regional dynamics. For this reason, by positioning itself as a champion of sovereignty and regional autonomy, BRICS has become an increasingly attractive partner for nations, particularly in the developing world, that have grown frustrated with Western interventionism.

BRICS at crossroads: multipolarity or fragmentation?

While BRICS continues to expand its influence and membership, its future role in the global order remains a subject of considerable debate: Is the bloc truly capable of shaping a lasting multipolar order, or will its internal differences ultimately lead to fragmentation?

While BRICS has grown into a key player in global affairs, also thanks to the enormous growth of its members, the alliance remains complex. As it was for the Non-Alignment Movement in the Cold War, BRICS brings together a diverse group of nations with distinct political systems, regional priorities, and strategic interests. This heterogeneity is both its strength and its greatest challenge. On one hand, it allows BRICS to represent a broad spectrum of the Global South, offering an inclusive platform for countries of different regions. On the other hand, it raises fundamental questions about the bloc's ability and effectiveness to maintain cohesion in the face of geopolitical rivalries and diverging foreign policy goals.

For instance, China and India, two of the most influential BRICS’ members, have longstanding border disputes and broader contrasting regional ambitions in Asia. While they share a common interest in reducing Western influence, especially in the region, their strategic rivalries pose a challenge to BRICS internal unity. Similarly, Russia’s increasing isolation from the West due to the Ukraine war has driven it closer to China, while India, Brazil, and South Africa have maintained more balanced relationships with both Western powers and BRICS partners, making it difficult for the bloc to ultimately adopt a fully unified front on global issues.

The rising tide of multipolarity

Despite these internal challenges, BRICS has proven remarkable resilience, maintaining its commitment to reforming and reshaping global governance, promoting sovereignty and inclusivity, and challenging Western economic and political hegemony. Moreover, the bloc’s continued expansion indicates that a growing demand for multifaceted alternatives to the Western-led order is stronger than ever. Being able to navigate and overcome internal differences and consequently present a unified strategy on global economic development and multiregional diplomatic engagement would ultimately cement BRICS as a defining pillar of the multipolar world.

The fate of the organization, though, will depend on its evolution and its ability to ultimately evolve from a loose economic forum into a fully-fledged geopolitical alliance able to implement concrete global reforms. If the bloc succeeds in unifying its members under the founding pillar of NAM, it could signal the beginning of a truly multipolar global order.

One thing, however, seems clear: the era of Western U.S. unilateral dominance is over. The Global South, under the aegis of BRICS and other rising powers, is no longer willing to accept a world order dictated solely by Western interests. Whether BRICS will be able to reshape the system or merely coexist within it, its continued rise in appeal and enlargement signals a historic shift in global power dynamics, one that will define international relations for decades to come.