BRICS, Migration, and the New Global Order

[embed]Suriname 1895-1898, 'Souvenirs de Voyage' Een fotoalbum over Suriname met 134 foto's van Théodore B. van Lelyveld uit de jaren 1895-1898. Théodore van Lelyveld…www.rijksmuseum.nl

Are Competing Power Blocs Rebuilding the Same Exploitative Systems?

I finished writing this article at nearly 6am.

Perhaps that is fitting.

For years, I studied law believing institutions existed primarily to protect human dignity, democratic accountability, and fundamental rights. But somewhere along the way, I began feeling increasingly disillusioned — not only with governments, but with the broader systems surrounding education, economics, migration, and power itself.

After struggling to complete my LLB at what is often called Africa’s leading university, I found myself asking difficult questions about whose voices institutions reward, whose concerns are dismissed, and how easily people can become economically or politically disposable within large systems.

As someone shaped by Western Europe, the Middle East, Southern Africa, and soon East Asia, I increasingly find simplistic geopolitical binaries unconvincing.

This article is therefore not written from loyalty to any bloc, ideology, or geopolitical camp.

It is written from growing concern that competing global powers may increasingly reproduce similar structures of inequality, surveillance, labor dependency, and human alienation — even while claiming to offer fundamentally different futures.

And perhaps that is why so many people across the world increasingly feel politically homeless.

Migration Is No Longer a Crisis — It Is an Economic System

Migration today is often discussed emotionally or politically, but rarely structurally.

People migrate because economic systems fail to create stability at home. Youth unemployment rises. Wages stagnate. Corruption expands. Public services deteriorate. Violence and insecurity spread. Eventually, people leave.

But the modern global economy has also become deeply dependent on migration itself.

In Gulf countries, millions of migrant laborers from Africa and South Asia work under sponsorship systems tied directly to employers. Human rights organizations and labor experts have long criticized the kafala system for creating conditions where workers can lose legal status, mobility, or housing if employers withdraw sponsorship.

The system was built to provide cheap labor for rapidly growing economies. Critics argue it also normalized extreme power imbalances between employers and migrants.

Even where reforms have been announced, concerns over enforcement remain.

This is not limited to the Gulf.

Across major economies, migrants often occupy the most vulnerable layers of labor markets:

construction,

agriculture,

domestic work,

logistics,

mining,

and low-wage urban service sectors.

The pattern repeats globally: economic systems increasingly depend on populations desperate enough to accept instability.

The Factory Model of Human Movement

Modern economies speak the language of innovation, but many still function through old industrial logic: maximize labor supply, suppress labor costs, and maintain economic growth.

Human beings become economic inputs.

This is why migration increasingly feels less like humanitarian policy and more like a global labor management system.

People move because they must. States benefit because labor remains cheap. Corporations benefit because competition weakens worker bargaining power.

Meanwhile, social tension rises between citizens and migrants, often distracting populations from the deeper structural causes of economic decline.

The result is a permanent cycle of instability.

Youth Unemployment and the Brain Drain Crisis

One of the clearest warning signs is youth unemployment.

According to the International Labour Organization, global youth unemployment remained around 12–13% in recent years, significantly higher than general unemployment levels. The ILO also estimates that approximately 262 million young people worldwide are not in employment, education, or training.

In South Africa, unemployment remains among the highest in the world. The World Bank notes that unemployment has remained above 30%, while nearly 60% of South Africans live below the upper-middle-income poverty line.

Young professionals increasingly leave countries facing economic stagnation, corruption, violence, or institutional decline. This “brain drain” weakens states further:

healthcare systems lose doctors,

universities lose researchers,

industries lose engineers,

and skilled youth lose faith in national futures.

Countries then become simultaneously dependent on emigration and immigration: exporting talent while importing vulnerable labor.

The Rise of the Surveillance State

At the same time, governments across the world are expanding surveillance capabilities at historic speed.

Facial recognition systems, biometric databases, AI-assisted monitoring, digital ID systems, internet censorship, and predictive policing technologies are becoming normalized globally.

China has become one of the most widely discussed examples of technologically integrated state surveillance. Reports from organizations such as Freedom House describe expanding systems involving facial recognition, mobile monitoring, social media surveillance, and digital tracking.

But this trend is not isolated to China.

Governments across multiple regions — democratic, authoritarian, and hybrid systems alike — are increasingly adopting similar technologies in the name of security, public order, border control, or misinformation prevention.

The concern many citizens express is not that societies are becoming identical.

It is that societies everywhere are becoming more comfortable with systems that normalize:

constant monitoring,

centralized information control,

algorithmic governance,

and shrinking privacy.

The fear is not one civilization replacing another.

The fear is global normalization.

Why Powerful Nations Rarely Intervene

If exploitation, surveillance expansion, labor dependency, and inequality are so visible, why do major global powers rarely challenge these systems in meaningful ways?

The answer may not be military weakness or political ignorance.

It may be mutual benefit.

Modern globalization has created a world where rival powers often depend on the same economic structures:

cheap labor,

resource extraction,

debt dependency,

consumer markets,

and transnational corporate interests.

Governments criticize one another selectively while simultaneously maintaining economic relationships that sustain shared systems of growth and extraction.

Publicly, the world appears divided into competing geopolitical camps.

Economically, many elites continue benefiting from remarkably similar machinery.

This is why the debate should not be framed simply as one civilization competing against another.

The deeper issue is whether competing geopolitical blocs are gradually converging toward similar models of centralized economic management, labor dependency, and technological control — even while presenting themselves as ideological alternatives.

Different governments use different political language:

democracy,

sovereignty,

development,

security,

anti-colonialism,

or free markets.

But ordinary citizens across many societies increasingly report similar experiences:

declining trust,

rising inequality,

political alienation,

housing instability,

and economic precarity.

Inequality Is Fueling Political Anger Everywhere

Economic inequality is no longer a side issue.

It is becoming one of the defining political pressures of the century.

South Africa is frequently cited as one of the world’s most unequal societies. World Bank reporting has highlighted severe wealth concentration and structural inequality.

At the same time:

housing costs rise globally,

informal work expands,

middle classes shrink,

and younger generations increasingly feel economically trapped.

This creates fertile ground for nationalism, polarization, xenophobia, and authoritarian politics.

When people lose faith in economic systems, they begin searching for someone to blame: foreigners, governments, corporations, or rival political groups.

But the deeper problem may be structural: a global economic order that increasingly treats human beings primarily as units of productivity.

The World Does Not Need New Empires

The twentieth century was shaped by colonial empires, Cold War superpowers, and ideological blocs competing for dominance.

The twenty-first century risks repeating that pattern through economics, technology, and data.

Whether power is concentrated in Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Brussels, London, or elsewhere, the danger remains similar: systems becoming more powerful while ordinary people become more economically insecure.

The world does not need new empires.

It needs societies capable of balancing:

economic growth,

human dignity,

labor protections,

privacy,

and democratic accountability.

Because when governments and corporations begin treating people primarily as economic resources, migration stops being a human story.

It becomes infrastructure.

And once human beings become infrastructure, exploitation becomes easier to justify.

Final Thought

The defining political question of the coming decades may not be which geopolitical bloc dominates the international system.

It may be whether ordinary citizens across all societies can prevent economic systems from reducing human life to labor, data, and geopolitical leverage.

Sources & Research Notes

International Labour Organization youth employment data

World Bank overview of South African inequality and unemployment

Reuters reporting on South African unemployment

Freedom House reporting on Chinese surveillance expansion

Council on Foreign Relations overview of the kafala labor system

Reporting on migrant labor conditions in Gulf states