The G20 logo at the launch of South Africa’s G20 Presidency at Imbizo Media Centre on 3 December 2024 in Cape Town. The G20 is a forum of the largest economies in the world who meet regularly to discuss the most pressing issues facing the global economy. (Photo by Brenton Geach/Gallo Images via Getty Images)
As the G20 summit unfolds, South Africa has assumed a pivotal role on the global stage. Hosting the summit for the first time on African soil, South Africa’s leadership offers a significant opportunity to address the interests of the Global South. But this position also brings challenges, especially amid current geopolitical tensions.
A notable concern is the United States’ approach to South Africa’s hosting duties. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio chose not to attend the recent G20 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Johannesburg, reportedly because of policy disagreements with South Africa. Instead, the US was represented by Dana Brown, the acting ambassador to South Africa. Additionally, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced he would not attend the G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting in Cape Town, citing domestic obligations.
This raises the question: does the US see South Africa as a mere host rather than an influential player? More importantly, does this selective engagement reveal that global decision-making remains firmly in the hands of a few elite nations, with others merely participating in a carefully controlled system?
Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony helps us understand this dynamic. Hegemony isn’t just about military or economic might — it’s about shaping ideas, narratives and global norms in a way that benefits the most powerful. The G20 is often framed as a space where emerging economies can engage with established powers on equal footing. Yet, when Western nations choose when and how to engage, their selective participation sends a clear message about who really holds power.
The glaring neglect of African crises in global governance discussions adds to this concern. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), for instance, remains embroiled in conflict, yet its struggles barely register in G20 agendas. While including the African Union in the G20 is hailed as progress, is it truly meaningful or just a symbolic gesture? The economic and political challenges facing many African nations — ranging from instability in the Sahel to governance crises in East Africa — continue to be sidelined in favour of issues deemed more strategically important to global powers.
Meanwhile, the US and Russia’s discussions in Saudi Arabia on Ukraine, a conflict that, while undoubtedly significant, has overshadowed other humanitarian crises, particularly in Africa. Why is it that conflicts in Europe command swift and sustained diplomatic attention while the suffering in places like the DRC is met with silence? The answer lies in the interests of global elites who shape the priorities of international governance.
Gramsci’s idea of a “passive revolution” — where dominant powers make limited concessions to maintain control — seems particularly relevant. The AU’s seat at the G20 table may appear to be a victory, but without real influence, it remains a controlled shift rather than a transformative one. African nations still await meaningful involvement in decisions that affect their future.
South Africa’s hosting of the G20 should be an opportunity to challenge these global hierarchies. But the reluctance of Western powers to fully engage suggests that true decision-making power remains out of reach for many in the Global South. If the G20 is to be more than a symbolic gathering, it must confront the deep-rooted inequalities that continue to define global governance. It must go beyond empty inclusivity and truly address the needs of marginalised nations, from the DRC to the broader African continent. Otherwise, it risks remaining yet another platform where the powerful dictate terms while the rest of the world listens.
Beyond the immediate questions of representation, the G20 summit also highlights the larger structural inequalities in global governance. Historically, forums such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have been dominated by Western nations, with developing countries having little say in decision-making processes.
Consider the issue of global economic policy. Decisions made at the G20 directly affect developing economies, particularly in Africa, where financial dependencies on Western institutions remain strong. When Western leaders prioritise economic discussions over diplomatic ones, they reinforce a system where financial control is maintained without meaningful discussions on broader political and social issues. The prioritisation of finance over diplomacy suggests a continued neoliberal agenda focusing on market-driven solutions rather than addressing deep-seated inequalities in governance, trade and development.
At the same time, the neglect of African issues in these discussions highlights the role of elites in shaping global narratives. While conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East receive extensive media coverage and diplomatic intervention, ongoing African crises are often dismissed as “local” problems rather than global concerns. This neglect is not accidental — it reflects a broader ideological positioning where African issues are deemed secondary to the interests of Western powers.
For example, the failure to address the conflict in the DRC is emblematic of this marginalisation. Despite its vast mineral wealth, which is critical to global supply chains for electronics and renewable energy technologies, the DRC remains mainly excluded from meaningful diplomatic interventions. The lack of international attention to the region’s crises reveals a hierarchy of global concern that privileges certain regions while ignoring others.
This selectivity is not a matter of oversight; it is a deliberate strategy ensuring the maintenance of global power structures. By keeping African nations on the periphery of key discussions, global elites reinforce a system where decision-making remains concentrated in the hands of a few. While symbolically significant, the AU’s inclusion in the G20 does little to challenge this entrenched hierarchy unless it is accompanied by real decision-making power.
What can be done to challenge this status quo? First, South Africa, as a host nation, must push for substantive discussions that go beyond surface-level inclusion. It must demand that African issues be given equal weight to those of Western powers. Second, African nations must unite in advocating for reforms in global governance structures, ensuring that their voices are not merely tokenistic but genuinely influential.
Finally, there must be a broader reckoning with the role of elites in shaping global policy. Gramsci’s analysis reminds us that hegemony is not maintained solely through force but through the control of ideas and narratives. Challenging this dominance requires institutional reforms and a shift in framing and addressing global issues. Until African nations are treated as equal players rather than passive participants, forums like the G20 will remain spaces of controlled participation rather than genuine collaboration.
As the G20 process unfolds, the world must ask itself: will this be another gathering where global powers reinforce their dominance, or will it mark a turning point in how international governance is structured? The answer is whether emerging economies, particularly in Africa, can break free from the cycle of passive revolution and assert their rightful place in shaping the global future.
Thabo Motshweni is a PhD candidate at the University of Johannesburg’s department of sociology and a research Intern at the Centre for Social Change and Centre for Sociological Research and Practice.
