The Role of the G20 in a Fragmented Global Political Order
In an era marked by intensifying geopolitical rivalries, economic uncertainty, climate stress, and the erosion of multilateral trust, the role of the has become both more complex and more significant. Originally conceived as a forum for economic coordination among the world’s major advanced and emerging economies, the G20 today operates in a deeply fragmented global political order where consensus is harder to achieve, norms are contested, and power is increasingly diffuse. Yet it is precisely this fragmentation that makes the G20 indispensable, even if imperfect, as one of the last remaining platforms where rival powers still sit at the same table.
The G20 brings together countries that collectively account for around 85 percent of global GDP, over three-quarters of international trade, and about two-thirds of the world’s population. Its informal structure, lacking a permanent secretariat or binding enforcement mechanisms, allows for flexibility and dialogue without the rigidity that often paralyzes more formal institutions. In a world where ideological divisions between democracies and authoritarian systems have sharpened, and where strategic competition—particularly between major powers—dominates international relations, the G20’s inclusive composition is both its greatest strength and its biggest challenge.
The fragmentation of the global political order has been driven by multiple overlapping crises. The aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis exposed structural weaknesses in global capitalism and accelerated skepticism toward globalization. The COVID-19 pandemic further strained international cooperation, revealing deep inequalities in health systems, vaccine access, and economic resilience. Simultaneously, geopolitical conflicts, most notably the Russia–Ukraine war, have polarized international forums and weakened consensus-based multilateralism. Traditional institutions such as the , the , and the have struggled to respond decisively, constrained by veto politics, outdated governance structures, and legitimacy concerns.
Against this backdrop, the G20 has increasingly functioned as a crisis-management forum rather than a long-term rule-making body. During the global financial crisis, it played a pivotal role in coordinating stimulus measures, strengthening financial regulation, and preventing a descent into protectionism. In more recent years, its agenda has expanded to include development financing, climate change, digital public infrastructure, debt relief for vulnerable countries, and global health governance. While outcomes are often incremental, the very act of sustained engagement among competing powers helps prevent complete diplomatic breakdown.
One of the G20’s most important contributions in a fragmented order is its role as a bridge between the Global North and the Global South. Emerging economies such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa use the forum to articulate development concerns that are often marginalized in Western-dominated institutions. Initiatives on debt restructuring for low-income countries, infrastructure financing, and inclusive growth reflect an attempt—albeit uneven—to rebalance global economic governance. In this sense, the G20 has become a platform where competing visions of development and global order coexist and negotiate, rather than confront each other outright.
However, fragmentation also limits the G20’s effectiveness. Political tensions frequently spill over into economic discussions, making consensus statements watered down or ambiguous. Sanctions regimes, trade wars, and strategic decoupling undermine collective commitments to open markets and cooperation. Climate action, though regularly reaffirmed, is slowed by divergent national interests and uneven responsibility for emissions. The absence of enforcement mechanisms means that many G20 pledges rely heavily on political will, which fluctuates with domestic pressures and leadership changes.
Despite these constraints, the G20 retains unique relevance precisely because alternatives are weak or fractured. Unlike exclusive groupings such as the G7, it includes both established and rising powers. Unlike universal bodies, it is small enough to enable relatively candid dialogue. In a world drifting toward blocs and spheres of influence, the G20 serves as a rare space for pragmatic engagement, agenda-setting, and norm signaling. Its presidency rotation also allows different regions to shape priorities, ensuring that the forum does not remain frozen in the interests of a few.
Looking ahead, the G20’s role in a fragmented global political order will depend less on grand declarations and more on its ability to deliver focused, realistic cooperation. Strengthening coordination on debt relief, climate finance, pandemic preparedness, and digital governance can produce tangible benefits even amid strategic rivalry. Equally important is preserving the G20 as a forum for dialogue itself. In times of division, talking is not a sign of weakness but a prerequisite for stability.
Ultimately, the G20 does not resolve fragmentation, nor was it designed to. Its value lies in managing fragmentation—containing its most destabilizing effects while keeping channels of cooperation open. In a world where trust is scarce and global challenges are increasingly interconnected, the G20 remains one of the few platforms capable of translating shared vulnerability into cautious, if limited, collective action.