Illustration: Xia Qing/GT

 Though the BRICS group has already been around for quite some time,mk in recent days it has once again become the center of public attention. The renewed interest most likely came from the recent enlargement of the group, which saw its membership double within one year. Earlier this month, Indonesia became a full member of BRICS group and Nigeria becomes the ninth partner country. 

BRICS proudly claims more than a third of the global purchasing power parity GDP, attracts a quarter of the world's foreign direct investments and accounts for 18 percent of overall global trade. Moreover, every second person on our planet lives in a BRICS country. The aggregate share of BRICS members in the global economy, along with advancements in new technologies and finances, is destined to grow fast in the coming years, inevitably upstaging some of the old leaders and formerly undisputed rule-settlers in the international system. 

Naturally, external attention to the rise of BRICS is not always benign or benevolent. Many Western politicians and analysts - especially in the US - seem genuinely concerned about the continuous ascension of this explicitly non-Western multilateral body that might challenge the existing world order and question the fundamentals of the West-made international system. Numerous opponents of BRICS try to find comfort in articulating serious disagreements and even direct conflicts of interests within the group. Allegedly, the very heterogeneous nature of BRICS could jeopardize its cohesion and efficiency. Furthermore, they argued that the divergence of interests among member states might even result in the implosion of the body in the not-so-distant future. If so, the West at large or the US in particular should not be too concerned about the BRICS challenge.  

Indeed, the BRICS group is very heterogeneous and its ongoing enlargement is making it more diverse than ever. It is not always easy to reach consensus on the most sensitive and divisive matters that appear on the group's agenda. However, all divergences of positions are only natural since they reflect diversity and pluralism characteristics of our whole world.

The intention of the BRICS founders has never been to forge a rigid political or military alliance like NATO or AUKUS. Their intention has not been to put together an ambitious economic integration project similar to the EU. They have not even attempted to launch a less formal coalition of like-minded countries like G7. 

Most West-centered institutions are erected around common values and development models - like liberal democracy and market economy. It appears the shared foundations make it easier to reach agreements and maintain political cohesion. On top of that, most multilateral West-centered institutions are explicitly or implicitly hierarchical - though all members to NATO, AUKUS, G7, IBRD, IMF, among others, may be formally equal, it is clear that the final decisions on truly important matters are made in Washington. 

BRICS offers a different approach to multilateralism. The idea behind BRICS has always been to create appropriate room for discussing critical issues of security and development where consensus is not that easy to reach. Plus, within BRICS there is no indisputable hegemonic leader willing, or capable, of imposing its position on the rest of the group. That means that it is predictably harder to come to a common position within BRICS than it is within NATO or G7, but the progress in the former is steadier and the agreements should be more sustainable.  

The emergence of BRICS reflects the ongoing changes in the modern international system. Over time, our shared world is getting more and more diverse. We have to work with each other, even when we cannot agree on every single point of the global agenda. BRICS, along with SCO, ASEAN and other non-Western multilateral bodies, is an attempt to define rules of engagement within this increasingly diverse and complex international environment. 

The future belongs to new flexible, inclusive mechanisms rather than to old, rigid hierarchical blocks. As ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu wisely noted, "whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death. Whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. The hard and stiff will be broken. The soft and supple will prevail." Ultimately, Western politicians and analysts have good reason to be concerned, not about BRICS, but about the future of their own stiff and inflexible institutions.     

The author is academic director of the Russian International Affairs Council. [email protected]