BRICS, an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is increasingly becoming a formidable and reliable socio-economic and political structure. This alliance seems to be challenging Western-dominated institutions such as the United Nations (UN), the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and many other global organizations. It is, therefore, an oversimplification to describe BRICS solely as an economic bloc. One must look beyond the economic lens and consider its political dimensions.
A key point of appreciation is that economics influence the political superstructure, and politics in turn shapes the economic substructure. Thus, International Political Economy (IPE) requires one to delve into the political dynamics to fully understand the economic framework of BRICS.
BRICS represents a powerful economic coalition of emerging economies that, according to the IMF, accounted for 61% of global growth. Initially, BRICS sought to empower emerging economies to have a stronger voice in international financial institutions and promote a diversified global monetary system. To further this cause, the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Dialogue Forum was created to exert economic pressure on the Western powers. In this context, South Africa, as an economic patron, promoted the African Agenda and created new opportunities for value-added exports and investment. This marks a paradigm shift from the Washington Consensus to the Beijing Consensus. It is important to note that China and Russia are the driving forces behind BRICS, with China acting as the engine and Russia playing a key supportive role.
South Africa also believes that BRICS membership, along with the IBSA, is crucial for fostering South-South political dialogue. The question is: What is Uganda’s position in all of this? What does Uganda have to offer within the BRICS family that is worth consuming? Can Uganda compete within the BRICS market, or will it simply become a consumer and dumping ground for BRICS countries? These questions should guide us in determining whether it is too early, or just the right time, for Uganda to engage with BRICS. Failing to rationally address these concerns could lead Uganda into a situation similar to Ukraine, which has been caught in the geopolitical rivalry between the USA and Russia at the expense of its own people.
Currently, China is the largest trading partner for Brazil and South Africa, yet neither of these BRICS countries appears in China’s top trading partners list. Could this be the case for Uganda as well? What can Uganda offer in the BRICS market? Beyond serving as a market for the exploitation of its natural resources, what will Uganda contribute to the BRICS economic ecosystem?
As BRICS continues to grow, its cooperation spans political, security, economic, and social spheres. This expansion seems to be destabilizing traditional Western institutions such as the UNSC, NATO, the World Bank Group, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). BRICS is currently focused on two key objectives: reforming the governance of multilateral institutions and establishing international peace and security. In this regard, BRICS countries have repeatedly demanded voting rights at the IMF and the World Bank, and have called for reforms to the UN, including its Security Council.
I am inclined to believe that BRICS is an alliance for major economies with significant political leverage. Any smaller country, including Uganda, joining BRICS could risk being economically and politically marginalized, becoming a pawn in the impending global conflicts. Could we envision a scenario where BRICS member states, particularly Russia under Putin, might want to establish military bases in Uganda to counter the USA? Additionally, BRICS has established an international bank for its members, not only to facilitate economic transactions but potentially for political and military purposes as well.
I have even speculated that this bank could be used for military transactions, such as purchasing ammunition for developing nations. Russia has also unveiled a BRICS currency to challenge the dominance of the US dollar, which directly undermines Western economic power and shifts the balance of geopolitical influence. In this context, China is determined to promote its currency as an alternative to the American dollar. This shift represents not just an economic war, but also a political and military one. The question remains: Will this transformation succeed? Is the United States simply watching, or are they preparing a response? Can BRICS eventually replace the dollar as the global currency? This is uncertain and may take considerable time, if it happens at all.
For Uganda, joining BRICS would signal a move into a new economic alignment, one that pits the country against Western interests. Can Uganda sustain this economic battle, given its colonial history and ongoing dependency on Western powers? If the West decides to fund Uganda’s political opposition and revive regime change campaigns, can the current government in Kampala withstand such pressure? How confident are we that BRICS will stand with Uganda in the face of Western opposition?
In 2011, South Africa and Brazil served on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), joining Russia and China. This marked the first time all five BRICS countries were represented, offering them an opportunity to influence the UNSC agenda and challenge the dominance of the USA, France, and Britain. However, they failed to present a unified front against the European intervention in Libya. South Africa supported the UNSC resolution authorizing the Anglo-French-led intervention, while Brazil, Russia, and China abstained. What does this mean for a lesser-known political entity like Uganda? Can BRICS truly stand by Uganda in times of global crisis?
The transition of Uganda into BRICS should be approached cautiously and strategically. Joining this economic and political conglomerate without a clear plan may lead Uganda into deeper uncertainty. The country’s economic struggles and political challenges may make it tempting to align with BRICS, but without carefully calculating the potential risks and rewards, this decision could backfire.
Uganda knows that its political and economic future has long been shaped by Western powers. The West has historically played a role in determining Uganda’s leadership through covert operations and orchestrated coups. Moving away from Western influence into BRICS, without acknowledging the past, could lead Uganda back into a regrettable future. Let us apply the formula: Past and conglomeration (PP = FP).
The reality is that the West is gradually distancing itself from Africa’s economic interests, including those of Uganda. The economic hardships Uganda faces today, along with the withdrawal of Western donor support, should be a wake-up call. We must look beyond the present and consider what we do not yet see, projecting into the future rather than reacting to current trends.
Celebrating Uganda’s integration into BRICS without proper consideration is akin to Charles Dickens’ “Great Expectations”—an over-exuberant dream without solid foundation.
Moreover, I wonder if Uganda has aligned its economic policies with those of BRICS, or if it continues to pursue Western policies while expecting BRICS to accept Uganda’s contradictory economic standards. Does Uganda have the intellectual capacity to promote BRICS’ philosophy? Is BRICS prepared to support Uganda, especially regarding the significant loans it has accumulated from the IMF and World Bank? Can Uganda rely on BRICS for military support? How will Uganda continue to engage with the West while being part of BRICS? This is akin to living in the West while grazing in the East.
Uganda would be better off consolidating its position within the East African Community (EAC) before extending its reach into BRICS. A country that is unprepared for this shift has little to gain. History teaches us the consequences of hasty decisions: When Milton Obote denounced the West in his Common Man’s Charter, his regime faced severe repercussions. When Idi Amin turned to Gaddafi and the Arab world, we know what followed. We must learn from history and approach decision-making with careful consideration, not excitement.
Joseph Schumpeter’s theory on national benefits and international strategies has been criticized by Peter Drucker, who emphasized the importance of positioning economies at national, regional, and multinational levels before going global. Has Uganda successfully navigated this process? It is not too late for Uganda to return to the drawing board, devise a clear plan, and strategically envision its future, considering the influence of both BRICS and Western powers. As the African proverb goes, “A dog that will die begins by losing its sense of smell.”