There is a growing narrative that Zimbabwe’s push to join BRICS represents a strategic economic pivot, driven in part by deteriorating relations with the West under Donald Trump’s hardline trade and visa policies. On paper, it sounds bold. In reality, it risks becoming another distraction from Zimbabwe’s real crisis.
Zimbabwe does not suffer from a lack of international partners. It suffers from poor governance.
The country already trades with China, South Africa, Russia, the UAE and others within or aligned to BRICS. Membership does not magically unlock markets that are currently closed. Zimbabwean goods are not failing to sell because of diplomatic exclusion. They are failing because of low productivity, weak competitiveness, inconsistent policy and chronic mismanagement.
BRICS is not an economic rescue package. It is a geopolitical club.
For countries with strong institutions, industrial capacity and export strength, BRICS offers leverage and optionality. For weak states, it offers symbolism and very little else. Zimbabwe risks mistaking alignment for advancement.
The argument that BRICS membership will attract foreign direct investment assumes investors are waiting for a badge rather than reforms. They are not. Investors look for predictable policy, enforceable contracts, independent courts and credible regulation. Zimbabwe currently struggles on all four fronts.
No multilateral bloc can compensate for that.
There is also a deeper danger rarely discussed. Zimbabwe’s integration into blocs like BRICS could further entrench its role as a passive consumer rather than an active producer. Without industrial revival, Zimbabwe risks becoming a dumping ground for cheap manufactured goods from better-managed economies within the bloc, while exporting raw materials at minimal value.
That is not development.
It is dependency with new branding.
The enthusiasm around de-dollarisation follows a similar pattern. Trading outside the US dollar sounds appealing politically, but currency sovereignty only works when supported by disciplined fiscal policy and public trust. Zimbabwe’s currency history is a catalogue of broken confidence, not because of sanctions or dollar dominance, but because of reckless domestic decisions.
The ZiG may be more stable than past experiments, but its long-term success will not be decided in Moscow, Beijing or Pretoria. It will be decided in Harare, by whether authorities resist the temptation to print, manipulate and interfere.
The fixation on BRICS also reflects a dangerous externalisation of blame. It implies Zimbabwe’s stagnation is primarily the result of Western hostility, rather than domestic failure. That narrative absolves those in power while changing nothing for ordinary citizens.
Zimbabwe’s most valuable resource is not gold, lithium or land.
It is its people.
And that resource has been systematically wasted through poor education outcomes, mass emigration, informalisation and political exclusion. No global bloc can fix that.
If Zimbabwe joined BRICS tomorrow, poverty would not disappear. Wages would not rise. Hospitals would not function better. Corruption would not evaporate. What would change is the rhetoric, not the reality.
True economic recovery will not come from choosing sides in global power struggles. It will come from boring, unglamorous work: rebuilding institutions, restoring trust, enforcing accountability and allowing talent to thrive.
Until that happens, BRICS membership will remain what it currently is for Zimbabwe:
a badge to brag about, with little benefit for the people who need change the most.
