An expanded BRICS faces a trade-off between more legitimacy and less cohesion. Discuss in the context of global governance reform and a multipolar order.

With its Member and Partner Countries, BRICS now represents about 49.5% of the world's population [1]. Expansion strengthens its claim to speak for the Global South. However, BRICS decides by consensus, and more diverse members narrow what it can agree on. This trade-off shapes its role in reforming global governance.

Legitimacy gains from expansion

• Representativeness: India championed expansion, which strengthened the voice and trust of the Global South in the grouping [1].
• Wider reach: Iran, the UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia bring in West Asia, Africa and Southeast Asia. The Kazan Summit (2024) added a tier of partner countries [3].
• Weight in setting norms: Ten BRICS Parliaments, including Iran's and China's, condemned the Pahalgam attack by name and backed zero tolerance on terrorism in 2025 [4].

Cohesion costs

• Lowest-common-denominator texts: On UNSC reform, Kazan backed only the "legitimate aspirations" of developing countries [3]. The New Delhi Declaration supports a "greater role" for India and Brazil but does not mention a permanent seat [2].
• P5 asymmetry: China and Russia hold vetoes. UNSC reform therefore divides BRICS from within.
• Divergent alignments: Some members are close Western partners while others face Western sanctions. This risks an anti-West bloc image that conflicts with India's multi-alignment.
• Institutional ambiguity: The rights of Partner Countries remain undefined [1].

Implications for governance reform and multipolarity

• Strengthened case: Greater legitimacy strengthens BRICS's case for "reforming and improving global governance" [2].
• Risk of drift: Weak cohesion risks turning BRICS into a talk shop or a China-centric bloc. That would recreate bipolarity rather than build a balanced multipolar order [1].

Way forward

• Codify partner roles so that a larger membership does not stall consensus.
• Build issue-based coalitions on counter-terrorism, health and disaster resilience, where members already agree.
• Strengthen the New Development Bank so that BRICS delivers results, not only declarations.
• Hold parliamentary follow-up by having member Parliaments report back on Forum pledges.

Legitimacy and cohesion need not be zero-sum. They can be reconciled if BRICS ties its larger membership to concrete, people-focused deliverables. India's "People-Centric, Humanity First" presidency vision [1] offers a template. It fits with Article 51's directive to promote international peace and cooperation. It can also help BRICS become a reform-minded pillar of an inclusive multipolar order rather than an opposing bloc.