BRICS Ambition: Ethiopian Scholar Says Bloc Can Enforce ‘Fairness’ and Challenge Dollar Power
An Ethiopian political scientist argues that BRICS’ growing, more inclusive membership gives it the leverage to push for a ‘fairer’ global order, positioning the bloc as a counterweight to Western‑led institutions. For emerging economies and investors, the debate is no longer theoretical: currency choices, energy deals and development finance are slowly tilting toward BRICS — with implications for the dollar’s dominance and global governance.
As the BRICS grouping expands and courts new members, voices from within the Global South are sharpening their view of what the bloc is for: not just an economic club, but a vehicle to rewrite rules they see as stacked in favor of the West.
Speaking on 30 May, Shishigu Abe, a lecturer in political science and international relations at Wollo University in Ethiopia, argued that BRICS now has the “strength to enforce fairness in [the] global system.” He pointed to the bloc’s inclusiveness — particularly the presence of lower‑income countries such as Ethiopia — as a key source of legitimacy and resilience, contrasting it with earlier groupings he said failed because of gaps in inclusivity. His comments, carried in African media, frame BRICS as a corrective to what many in the developing world view as an unequal international order dominated by the United States and its allies.
For citizens in countries like Ethiopia, the stakes are concrete. Access to infrastructure finance, trade credit and emergency balance‑of‑payments support can shape how quickly economies grow and how painful external shocks become. When traditional lenders such as the IMF and World Bank attach conditions that bite into subsidies or public employment, the perception of unfairness is not academic — it is felt in food prices, fuel queues and job prospects. A bloc like BRICS that promises alternative financing avenues, often with fewer political strings, offers governments another route to plug budget gaps or build big-ticket projects.
That promise also extends to currency and payment systems. Many emerging markets have watched with unease as Western sanctions cut Russian banks off from SWIFT and immobilized parts of Moscow’s foreign reserves after the invasion of Ukraine. For them, the message is clear: reliance on the dollar and Western‑controlled infrastructure carries political risk. A more assertive BRICS, especially one that experiments with local currency trade, alternative payment rails or even some form of shared financial instrument, appeals to countries that want more room to maneuver.
Strategically, Abe’s assertion that BRICS can “enforce fairness” reflects a broader ambition by member states such as China, Russia, India, Brazil, South Africa and newer entrants to act collectively in reshaping global governance. That includes pushing for greater voting power in legacy institutions, creating parallel structures such as the New Development Bank, and coordinating positions in international forums on issues ranging from climate finance to sanctions.
For Western powers, a BRICS that sees itself as an enforcement mechanism rather than a consultative club is a more serious competitor. It suggests the bloc will not just lobby for reforms, but may use its combined market weight — in energy, commodities, population and growth — to extract concessions or to establish parallel rules. Energy markets are an obvious arena: BRICS members are both major producers and consumers of oil and gas, and have already explored settling some trades in non‑dollar currencies.
Investors and multinational corporations cannot ignore this shift. Decisions about where to place factories, how to denominate long‑term contracts, and which legal jurisdictions to trust are increasingly shaped by political alignments. A stronger BRICS with a more coherent message about “fairness” may appeal to governments, but companies will look closely at dispute resolution mechanisms, capital controls and regulatory predictability before shifting too much away from dollar‑based systems.
At the same time, the bloc’s diversity is both strength and vulnerability. The interests of China and India diverge sharply on security and trade; Russia’s pariah status in Western markets complicates collective diplomacy; and newer, poorer members will push for more concessional finance than bigger economies may be willing to offer. Abe’s optimism about inclusiveness glosses over these internal frictions, which could slow or blunt BRICS’ capacity to act as a unified force.
Key Takeaways
- Ethiopian scholar Shishigu Abe says BRICS has the strength to “enforce fairness” in the global system, citing its inclusiveness and the participation of low‑income members like Ethiopia.
- His comments reflect broader Global South frustration with Western‑dominated financial and governance institutions.
- A more assertive BRICS could accelerate moves toward alternative financing, payment systems and non‑dollar trade.
- The bloc’s internal diversity and geopolitical tensions may limit its ability to act cohesively.
- Investors and policymakers must now treat BRICS as an emerging pole in global economic governance, not just a loose talk shop.
Outlook & Way Forward
In the coming years, the depth of BRICS’ impact will depend on whether it can translate rhetoric about fairness into operational tools: bigger and more flexible lending from the New Development Bank, practical mechanisms for local‑currency trade, and credible dispute‑resolution forums that give investors confidence. Without such instruments, claims of being able to “enforce fairness” will ring hollow beyond political speeches.
Western governments will weigh their responses. They can either treat BRICS primarily as a competitor to be contained — tightening sanctions on certain transactions, discouraging allies from participating in BRICS‑led initiatives — or as a signal that long‑promised reforms to global institutions are overdue. A measured approach that expands representation within the IMF and World Bank and offers more responsive crisis finance could blunt BRICS’ appeal.
For countries like Ethiopia, the immediate priority is pragmatic: extracting maximum development benefits from all sides while avoiding over‑dependence on any single bloc. As the competition between governance models intensifies, smaller states may find new bargaining power — but also new pressure to align their foreign and domestic policies with the expectations of whichever camp they lean toward.
Sources
- OSINT