In recent weeks, I have found myself following some TV talk shows on the national networks more frequently than usual. I am always struck by the ability of many colleagues to dispense ‘biblical truths’ and pronounce definitive judgments on complex international issues. I find particularly irritating the puerile and binary way in which the BRICS debate is approached. In October, with the BRICS+ summit held in Kazan, Russia, there was once again talk of this economic-political bloc. Yet, the topic was reduced to a simplistic narrative: democratic ‘us’ versus autocratic ‘them’. A short-sighted approach, unable to grasp the complexity and implications of an evolving phenomenon that is redrawing global balances.

Before delving deeper, it is useful to recall a few figures. The BRICS represent 41% of the world's population, with over 3.2 billion people distributed among its members, China, India, Brazil, Russia and South Africa. Economically, the group's combined nominal GDP stands at around $28 trillion (27% of global GDP), while at purchasing power parity (PPP) it rises to $65 trillion, representing 35% of the world economy. With the addition of new members such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, their weight could increase further.

It is evident how the BRICS constitute a crucial bloc, both demographically and economically. And it is equally evident how all projections, demographic and economic, indicate that this bloc is set to grow in the coming decades.

The Western view of the BRICS tends to emphasise its political value, often interpreted as a counterweight to the economic and strategic dominance of the United States and Europe. However, looking at the phenomenon from the African continent, a different perspective emerges. Here, the economic potential of the BRICS assumes a preponderant role. For many African countries, net importers of essential goods such as food and medicine, the possibility of diversifying trade currencies and reducing dependence on the dollar represents a revolutionary prospect. And the possibility of diversification offered by the BRICS is viewed with great interest by the entire global south, which is grappling daily with ‘precious currency’ problems.

A concrete example was offered to me in a conversation with an African entrepreneur in the construction sector. He told me how the lack of foreign currency, rationed by the central bank for government priorities, had forced him to stop construction sites that had already begun. The bank, not having them, postponed the exchange of the local currency into dollars, preventing him from buying materials on the international markets. ‘If they offer me an alternative to buy cement, I will use it immediately,’ he explained. This anecdote reflects a common reality in many emerging economies, where the rigidity of international financial systems is a direct obstacle to development.

Over the past two decades, economic exchanges along the South-South axis (Latin America, Africa, Asia) have grown significantly. The BRICS embody this new paradigm of global cooperation, presenting themselves not only as an alternative to Western hegemony, but also as a platform to strengthen emerging economies. Their project to create an alternative payment mechanism to the dollar - with instruments such as the New Development Bank - could prove crucial in reducing the economic vulnerabilities of many countries.

Reducing the BRICS to a simple comparison between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is not only reductive, but also harmful. A polarised analysis contributes to reinforcing the very narrative of division that one fears, pushing the rest of the world to seek alternative paths. Instead, it is crucial to understand that the BRICS is not a monolithic entity, but a complex phenomenon, an expression of evolving economic, demographic and political needs. Only an honest and thorough analysis can avoid turning a challenge into a sterile and unproductive confrontation.

See, Il ruolo dei BRICS in un mondo in trasformazione