MWE Correspondent
The expansion of BRICS is no longer being discussed only as a diplomatic headline. It is becoming a real financial and geopolitical story for Africa one that could reshape how the continent borrows, trades, and protects itself from external monetary pressure.
As the bloc grows in influence and continues to push alternatives to Western-dominated financial systems, African policymakers are paying closer attention not because BRICS offers a magic solution, but because it offers leverage in a world where many countries are increasingly uncomfortable with overdependence on the dollar, on traditional lenders, and on institutions whose conditions often come with heavy political or economic strings.
The latest signals show that BRICS is becoming more deeply connected to Africa’s long-term economic strategy. Reuters reported this week that Ethiopia is now on track to finally join the World Trade Organization after more than two decades of negotiations, and that officials and analysts in Addis Ababa are framing this as part of a broader three-part strategy: WTO accession, deeper participation in the African Continental Free Trade Area, and engagement with BRICS. Former Ethiopian planning official Endalkachew Sime told Reuters that BRICS membership is seen as a route to “more affordable development financing and less onerous conditions.” That sentence alone captures why the bloc matters so much to many African countries right now. BRICS is not simply being viewed as a political club; it is increasingly being seen as a negotiating instrument against traditional financial dependency.
That shift matters because the global financial system remains heavily tilted toward the U.S. dollar. Most international trade is still invoiced in dollars, major commodity markets are largely dollar-priced, and debt distress in developing countries often becomes worse when local currencies weaken against the greenback.
Also Read: ICC Pressure Renews Africa’s Sovereignty Debate Worldwide
In Africa, where many economies face foreign exchange shortages, rising import costs, and external debt burdens, that creates a painful cycle: countries earn in weaker currencies, borrow in stronger ones, and then spend years managing pressure from exchange volatility and lender conditions. This is why the BRICS conversation around local currency trade, payment alternatives, and development finance is attracting such serious interest.
Still, it is important to separate ambition from reality. Despite popular talk about “de-dollarization,” the more realistic near-term BRICS goal is not to destroy the dollar. It is to reduce unnecessary dependence on it. That distinction is crucial. Even analysts who are sympathetic to BRICS acknowledge that a single BRICS-wide currency is still unlikely in the near future because such a project would require deep political coordination, shared monetary discipline, and far more institutional integration than currently exists. In practical terms, the bloc’s most credible path is not one new currency, but more bilateral and regional trade settled in national currencies, stronger cross-border payment systems, and expanded use of development banks that lend without automatically forcing everything through Western-centered financial channels.
For Africa, that could be transformative if handled carefully. Countries that trade more in local or regional currencies can reduce transaction costs, lower exposure to dollar shortages, and keep more monetary flexibility during external shocks. That is especially important for regional trade, where the logic of paying for neighboring goods in distant reserve currencies often makes little economic sense. If African states can connect BRICS-linked payment innovations to existing continental efforts such as the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System and AfCFTA implementation, the result could be a more resilient trade ecosystem one that supports small businesses, manufacturers, and regional supply chains rather than just commodity exporters.
This is where the role of the New Development Bank becomes especially important. Unlike traditional lenders that are often associated with long policy conditionality, the BRICS bank is increasingly being watched as a possible source of infrastructure and industrial financing that gives borrowers more room to shape their own priorities. That does not mean every loan is automatically better or risk-free. Debt is still debt, and poor project selection can hurt any country no matter who lends the money. But the political value of alternatives is powerful. When African governments have more than one serious financing channel, they can negotiate harder, reject predatory terms more confidently, and structure development plans around national priorities rather than donor preferences.
There is also a sovereignty angle that many African leaders are starting to take more seriously. Financial independence is not only about reducing debt. It is about building systems that allow countries to make strategic choices without fearing instant punishment from currency markets, sanctions spillovers, or liquidity shocks. The more diversified Africa’s financing options become, the less vulnerable the continent is to external pressure disguised as technical policy advice. This is one reason why BRICS appeals beyond its formal membership. Even countries outside the bloc are studying its mechanisms because they see a world moving gradually toward multipolar finance, not a clean break but a widening of options.
At the same time, caution is necessary. BRICS should not be romanticized. Some of its members have competing agendas, different monetary priorities, and unequal levels of economic power. China and India do not always align. Russia’s sanctions experience shapes its urgency differently from Brazil’s. South Africa often emphasizes reform rather than rupture. And African states themselves must avoid replacing one dependency with another. If BRICS financing, payment systems, or trade arrangements become dominated by a few powerful actors without enough local safeguards, the continent could still face asymmetric influence only under a different banner.
That is why the smartest African strategy is not blind enthusiasm, but strategic engagement. Governments should use BRICS to expand financing choices, deepen local currency trade, negotiate better infrastructure deals, and build institutional tools that support sovereign development. But they must also strengthen domestic tax systems, improve export competitiveness, expand industrial capacity, and coordinate regionally. Without those foundations, no external bloc East or West can deliver real independence.
The bigger story is that Africa is entering a more flexible global moment. The old financial order is not collapsing overnight, and the dollar is not disappearing tomorrow. But the monopoly of options is weakening.
