3.2 – Global governance: political and economic
3.6 – Comparative theories
The 2025 Johannesburg G20 summit, the first ever hosted on African soil, produced a substantial declaration on climate finance, debt relief, fairer trade structures and more inclusive global governance. South Africa’s role as the inaugural African host gave the summit particular symbolic weight, strengthening demands for the development needs of the Global South to move from the margins to the centre of global economic governance. Many leaders argued that addressing structural inequalities, such as debt burdens, climate vulnerability and limited representation in global institutions, is essential if the G20 is to remain legitimate in a rapidly changing world. The agreements therefore reflected a broader push to rebalance global governance frameworks in favour of states historically overlooked by Western-dominated institutions.
However, the political fallout after the summit has overshadowed these achievements. Donald Trump’s announcement that South Africa would not be invited to the 2026 G20 summit in the United States represents an unprecedented challenge to the forum’s cooperative norms and demonstrates the fragility of global governance when institutions lack formal legal authority. South Africa rejected Trump’s justification for this move, including allegations of human rights abuses against white farmers and dismissed his anger over the ceremonial handover of the G20 presidency as politically motivated. The dispute highlights how heavily the bloc relies on informal norms of respect, equality and reciprocity; when a major power breaks these norms, the institution has no entrenched mechanism to resist.
The controversy becomes even clearer when compared to earlier debates about Russia’s position in the G20 after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Despite strong Western pressure, Russia was not banned because the G20 has no formal procedure for permanent exclusion and no consensus on turning it into a sanctions-enforcing body. Many members, especially China, India and Brazil, insisted on maintaining dialogue. This precedent demonstrates that even severe norm-breaking behaviour did not lead to expulsion, making Trump’s attempt to exclude South Africa from the 2026 Summit, a state without comparable violations, a stark breach of established practice.
From a realist perspective, the episode illustrates the dominance of state sovereignty and power politics: powerful states can unilaterally reshape participation because no authority sits above them. For liberals, however, Trump’s stance threatens the predictability and mutual trust that global governance needs to function effectively. If unilateral exclusion from specific summits becomes normalised, institutions like the G20 risk losing legitimacy, weakening their capacity to coordinate responses to climate change, economic instability and development challenges. The incident reveals the fundamental tension in global politics; global governance expands opportunities for collective action, yet its reliance on voluntary norms leaves it vulnerable to nationalism, geopolitical rivalry and the enduring primacy of state sovereignty.