Is the BRICS+ bloc a real alternative to the G7?

As global power dynamics shift, the question of whether the BRICS+ bloc can emerge as a genuine counterweight to the long-standing dominance of the G7 is gaining traction. The original BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) group was formed to represent the interests of emerging economies. With the expansion into BRICS+ — incorporating countries like Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, and the UAE — the bloc is positioning itself as a potential alternative to Western-led global governance frameworks.

The G7, composed of the world’s most advanced economies, has traditionally set the tone in global economic policy, development aid, and geopolitical decision-making. However, its declining share of global GDP — now under 45% compared to over 70% in the 1990s — highlights a more multipolar world. BRICS+, on the other hand, claims to represent over 40% of the global population and an increasing share of global output, especially in areas like energy, food, and critical minerals.

BRICS+ offers several advantages that bolster its claim to being a credible alternative. First, it includes major resource producers and consumers, giving it leverage in energy and commodity markets. Second, its members are increasingly engaged in de-dollarization efforts, promoting local currency trade and financial institutions like the New Development Bank. This could weaken the financial dominance of the G7, which relies heavily on the US dollar’s role as the global reserve currency.

However, significant internal divergences challenge the bloc’s coherence. BRICS+ countries differ widely in political systems, strategic goals, and economic performance. For instance, India’s strategic alignment with the U.S. sharply contrasts with Russia’s and Iran’s positions. Additionally, the bloc lacks a unified foreign policy, consistent institutional architecture, and collective enforcement mechanisms — all elements that have given the G7 lasting influence.

Another key point is institutional maturity. The G7 benefits from decades of collaboration, standardization, and policymaking cohesion. While BRICS+ holds summits and promotes cooperative projects, it lacks the executive coordination capacity of G7 countries, which often act in unison on trade, sanctions, and security matters. This absence of unity undermines BRICS+ as a single geopolitical actor.

Nevertheless, the BRICS+ initiative speaks to a global frustration with Western dominance. Many countries in the Global South see in BRICS+ a more inclusive platform for voicing their concerns on issues like development finance, climate justice, and trade equity. The bloc also seeks to reshape multilateral institutions — such as the IMF and World Bank — which critics say underrepresent emerging economies.

From an economic standpoint, BRICS+ shows signs of self-reliance. China, India, and Brazil boast large consumer markets and robust industrial bases. Russia and Iran remain key energy exporters, while countries like Ethiopia offer new frontiers for infrastructure development. If leveraged well, this internal economic diversity could reduce dependence on Western capital and demand.

Yet, skepticism remains. Investors and analysts often highlight the lack of transparency, democratic governance, and political stability in several BRICS+ nations. Without institutional reforms and strategic alignment, BRICS+ risks remaining more of a political statement than a functioning economic coalition.

Ultimately, the BRICS+ bloc is a rising force but not yet a full-fledged alternative to the G7. Its potential is real — demographically, economically, and diplomatically — but it must overcome serious structural and ideological divisions. Whether it will evolve into a true global challenger depends on its ability to transition from symbolic unity to actionable cohesion.