From September 3-5, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are gathering in Xiamen, China, for the 9th BRICS Summit. Strengthening economic partnerships, enhancing cooperation on development and seeking ways to preserve international stability will be high on their agenda.
In terms of the issues to be discussed, this BRICS meeting has similarities with the recent G20 Summit in Hamburg. But one thing will be noticeably absent: the voices of citizens. There won’t be tens of thousands of protesters on the streets of Xiamen, loudly calling for BRICS leaders to listen to their demands.
Due to severe civic space restrictions in China, it’s highly unlikely that there will be any protestors at all; and civil society will have very little influence over the discussions that take place. While this might comfort BRICS leaders, the absence of citizens’ voices in fact represents a missed opportunity.
Accounting for over 40% of the world’s population and over 20% of its GDP, BRICS countries individually and collectively exercise substantial regional and global influence.
Moreover, in a rebalancing world, BRICS countries have an opportunity to constructively re-shape the global discourse – previously skewed towards the priorities of disproportionately powerful Western countries – towards addressing the developmental needs of the “global South.”
Notably, the Goa Declaration from the last BRICS Summit in India in October 2016 makes several references to the group’s vision of a “just, equitable and democratic multi-polar international order.”
The theme of the upcoming BRICS Summit – stronger partnership for a brighter future – seeks to take “South-South cooperation to a new high, accelerate the implementation of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and open up a brighter future for the economic development and social progress of all developing countries.”
If BRICS is to achieve such lofty aims in any meaningful way, the group’s leaders have to allow for robust civil society participation in agenda setting, in key discussions and in ensuring accountability for decisions taken at summits.
Civil society organisations (CSOs) contribute to sustainable development in myriad ways. They assist in service delivery activities and find innovative solutions to complex problems, while exercising a watchdog role over the disbursement of public resources.
To discharge these responsibilities effectively, CSOs need to be able to act independently and rely on the availability of resources from multiple avenues.
Fundamentally, they need an enabled civic space where core civil society freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly are respected, protected and fulfilled.
Recent research from the CIVICUS Monitor, a collaborative new research platform, shows that civic space is worryingly “repressed” in China and Russia, “obstructed” in Brazil and India and “narrowed” in South Africa.
Behind these ratings, the deliberate targeting of human rights lawyers in China, LGBTI activists in Russia and organisations and activists receiving international funding in India have been widely documented.
The situation in host country China is particularly serious, with the government recently carrying out a sweeping crackdown against human rights lawyers and human rights defenders, introducing laws severely restricting the activities of international and internationally-funded CSOs and further tightening controls over internet access through virtual private networks (VPNs).
Recent research from the CIVICUS Monitor, a collaborative new research platform, shows that civic space is worryingly “repressed” in China and Russia, “obstructed” in Brazil and India and “narrowed” in South Africa
Alas, if BRICS’ civil society voices are silenced at the national level, they can have little positive influence over the direction of BRICS at the international level in resolving interlinked global political, social, economic and environmental crises. To disregard independent civil society input is a lost opportunity for the world’s pre-eminent powers.
As BRICS leaders sit down in Xiamen, new forms of mobilisation, organising and associational life are taking root across the planet.
BRICS countries need to open up and recognise the power and legitimacy of people’s voices if they are to achieve their stated aim of creating a just, equitable and democratic international order.
As it stands, this Summit’s focus on “people-to-people” exchanges is limited to discussions on culture, education and sports, with little space for critical conversations on the state of human rights and democratic standards across BRICS member states.
As a symbolic exercise in civil society engagement, a “Civil BRICS” meeting was held in June. It was tightly controlled by Chinese authorities, however, and the concluding declaration was pre-drafted before the meeting even took place.
It’s high time that BRICS governments expanded the scope of these exchanges to discuss avenues for citizen participation in the future direction of BRICS cooperation.
Healthy involvement of civil society can only enhance the legitimacy of the outcomes of BRICS summits in the eyes of the world. Guaranteeing respect for citizens’ fundamental freedoms at home is also essential.
If this happens, BRICS will tap into an unlimited pool of ideas to spur innovation, social cohesion and better standards of living. These are the true unexplored resources of BRICS countries.
Mandeep Tiwana is chief programmes officer for the World Alliance for Citizen Participation, CIVICUS. Cathal Gilbert is a researcher at CIVICUS.
More regime change type propaganda. Such people cannot feed their families without peddling the same old same old. Pathetic indeed
Why do the guys here at Asia times keep criticizing America?
Isn’t it okay for them to focus on infrastructure and improving its own industry?
Why do they find a lack of leadership when they are right here in Asia addressing the North Korean issue, checking Chinese growth and strengthening their allies?
Delegating to India and other allies, is this not leadership?
The Trump administration has also chosen its favorites in the middle east and defined its policies there.
They have also shown their faces in Europe, although it isn’t really needed over there.
I would say American leadership is still very present in the world and I wouldn’t be so quick to judge Europe either because they can still deal out hard power if need be and are still very much united across the whole western world.
Why do the writers here fear China so much and keep assuming that the United States will decline?
Even if China gets richer than the US it would still take alot more than that to knock the West off top spot. They are alot smarter and more organized than the writer gives them credit for.
Wouldn’t you say that the under developed countries are developing quite quickly?
Wouldn’t you say that western society is quite a good role model indeed as a free and civilized place where people enjoy a good standard of living?
I think that the reason many other nations don’t prosper under the current world structure is often because of resistance and belligerence as you yourself say..
Countries who put aside their pride and earnestly strive to become a civilized democracy, well they make it and get accepted into the international community.
Countries who don’t, who cling to archaic structures, who try to fight the way things are, these countries end up causing alot of trouble for their own people, it’s as simple as that.
And you can easily say that the United States and its allies come up with excuses to invade other countries but I honestly think that some crack pot leader like the guy in North Korea atm getting his hands on nuclear weapons is reason enough to invade.
Only with Russia, Turkey and all the other powers that be fighting for a piece of the pie make it very complicated to be truly effective.
Know the western world is not perfect by a long shot but it is the best model we have for a civilized world and I am grateful that it is the west who holds power on this earth.
Propaganda and hogwash.
Important point rased, and food for thought. If BRICS+ is to be a major alternative to Western neoliberal capital (the current governments of BIS aside for the moment), it is criucial that the people’s voice be heard. This should be a new front in civil society advocacy.
What is on Bricks’ agenda that would cause civil protest?