BRICS has invited six new members to join the group. This article explores the history of the group's name and the possibilities regarding a name change. 

The recently concluded BRICS Summit in Johannesburg has created waves in the world of geopolitics, international economics and multilateral diplomacy. The final day of the summit, 24th August, saw the release of the 

 during a joint press conference of BRICS leaders led by the host, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. He was also accompanied by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The declaration contained 94 points, most of which were about reaffirming the goals and commitments of the group as well as procedural updates. Yet, one sentence, point 91 in particular, has been the main talking point amongst scholars and enthusiasts of international relations ever since. It mentions that BRICS has decided to invite six countries to join the group as full members from 2024. This includes Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. There have been several discussions about the significance and implications of the move on international monetary policy, geopolitics, changing power dynamics, etc. However, the question that has intrigued analysts and bystanders alike, is what will happen to the name of the grouping?

Leaders at the XV BRICS Summit in Johannesburg - August 2023

BRICS is an acronym made up of the first letter of all members of the grouping - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The name of the group holds significant importance. In fact, in the case of BRICS, the name came much before the idea of the grouping ever existed. In 2001, British economist 

”, describing four rapidly growing economies that he predicted would dominate the world economy by 2050. Informal meetings between the foreign ministers of these countries started in 2006, and a more formal grouping was only formed in 2009, eight years after the name was coined. In 2010, South Africa was accepted as a full member, giving the group its current name. 

British economist Jim O’Neill who coined the term “BRIC” in 2001

The success of the term comes from its resemblance to the English word ‘bricks’, which is defined as “

a block of clay used to build structures.

” Similarly, the word suits the group, as the member countries can be seen as bricks that are helping build a new global economy, different from the existing one led by mostly western countries from Europe and North America. BRICS is often compared directly with the 

, consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States (and the European Union). In April 2023, 

a report published by Acorn Micro Consultancy

 showed that BRICS had surpassed the combined gross domestic product (GDP) of the G7 countries in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms.

The addition of new members is quite a rare sight at BRICS. It is only the second time in 15 years that the group has expanded, and the first time that multiple members would be joining at once. Similarly, the group has only had one name change. The renaming decision and process were much easier when South Africa was admitted, as only one alphabet needed to be added, and the ‘S’ fit perfectly at the end of ‘BRIC.’ However, the current expansion poses a much bigger challenge for BRICS. Before speculating on a new name, it would first need to be considered whether the existing members would go for a name change in the first place. This in itself would be a decision requiring in-depth discussion and consensus amongst member states. While this decision does not impact the material economic strength of the group, there are multiple factors to be considered regarding other implications. Firstly, the term “BRICS” is already fairly well-known amongst scholars, practitioners and the general public alike. While subject enthusiasts will catch on to the new name in no time, the term might not gain immediate traction amongst the masses. Secondly, while BRICS has often been 

criticised for being symbolic rather than a group for real change

, it is often seen as a true representative of the Global South’s aspirations to get their rightful say in shaping the global economic order.

There have already been multiple suggestions and speculations regarding a possible new name for the group. China’s Xi and Russia’s Putin have already suggested the name “

.” While this could be a possible option, the new members would clearly want to be well represented individually in the new name. Similarly, the name resembles those used by other groups such as the Association for Southeast Asian Nations (

 for dialogues and cooperation with member countries. However, such names suggest that the Plus represents countries that are external to the grouping, which would contradict the decision of BRICS to admit the six nations as ‘full members’, who would then be a part of BRICS rather than being external partners.

However, the suggestion is not without rationale, as it would avoid the difficult task of coming up with a name based on the traditional BRICS approach of just adding the first letter of each county’s name - AEEISU. The easiest option would be to go with the name “BRICSAEEISU”, which clearly does not read or sound well. Furthermore, it would be too long and complicated for people to remember. Another approach could be to keep every alphabet only once, meaning the alphabets I,E and S would represent two countries each, so as to avoid repetition and keep the acronym short. In this case, the probable name could be “BRICSEAU.” This limits the length to 8 alphabets and gives a French touch to the existing name, keeping it soft on the ear. Many have also voiced the possibility of a completely new and different name, doing away with the system of representing individual countries in the name. For example, a name containing the words, “alliance”, “emerging economies”, “global south”, etc. Similarly, the conclusion of a number could solve the problem, for example, taking inspiration from the “

.” However, such a move could take away the uniqueness of the group’s identity.

China and Russia suggested the name “BRICS Plus”

Although the name of the group might not be as important as the actual significance of its expansion, it is certainly something worth pondering on, for both experts and casual readers. While I have presented some possibilities and my thoughts on the current situation, only time will tell what BRICS’ identity will become in 2024. In the meantime, it would be rather interesting to read and listen to takes from scholars and readers that would appear over the next few weeks. 

Let us know your thoughts on the #BRICSNameGame. Do you think BRICS will change its name? Do you have a suggestion?

What’s in a Name? BRICS - Plus, AEEISU and more

5 Comments