Elizabeth Soer’s new article for News24, published on 2 June 2026, asks whether the present moment of geopolitical instability may also create space for renewed debate on a more equitable international order. We encourage readers to read the article on the News24 website; it is also republished below for the convenience of NSI readers. The piece draws on questions developed in Soer’s recent New South Institute working paper, Another World was Possible: Anti-Apartheid World-Making and the Unfinished Struggle for a New Global Order, which examines anti-apartheid world-making and the unfinished struggle for a new global order in greater depth.

.

Is it time for a New International Economic Order 2.0?

by Elizabeth Soer

.

The “In Defence of Democracy” summit held in Barcelona, Spain, in April 2026 brought together leaders such as South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa, Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum and Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, to discuss how to combat democratic backsliding, rising authoritarianism, and deepening global inequality.

There are undoubtedly contradictions between the domestic and international policies of some of the governments in attendance. Some governments are taking a left-leaning stance internationally, while pursuing quite conservative policies domestically. Moreover, many of the leaders face allegations of corruption and incompetence. While these limitations should not be glossed over, the Summit nonetheless speaks to a moment of possibility, amid a shifting international order, that could allow for a progressive advance.

The shifting international order is reminiscent of the moment of possibility that followed World War Two. At that time, countries across the Global South were gaining independence from colonisers, giving rise to initiatives such as the Non-Aligned Movement and the campaign for a New International Economic Order (NIEO). In Adom Getachew’s formulation, it was a moment of worldmaking with anti-colonial activists envisioning and seeking to create an egalitarian post-imperial world by challenging legal, political, and economic hierarchies.

In due course, this broader worldmaking project intersected with the anti-apartheid movement – another worldmaking project. To be sure, anti-apartheid activists were fighting against apartheid, but they also envisioned liberation as part of a global transformation. For some activists, this transformation was a liberation struggle against an international imperial order, while others, including African American activists, saw themselves as engaged in a fight against a “global colour line”. Despite these variations, many activists understood that true liberation could only be achieved in a more equitable global order.

Past promises and expectations of liberation continue to cast a long shadow over contemporary South Africa. After the African National Congress (ANC) came to power in 1994, it adopted economic policies that were seen by many as a betrayal of its liberation-era commitments. On the one hand, the ANC’s economic policies have run counter to its rhetoric of liberation and constrained its ability to pursue a truly transformative progressive internationalism. On the other hand, South Africa’s transition from apartheid happened directly after the Cold War ended, during a unipolar moment of American hegemony and capitalistic triumph. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the ostensible failure of socialism restricted the futures that seemed to be available. This context limited the options available to the newly elected ANC-led government because of both international power relations and a deficit of emancipatory economic imaginaries. This tension reflects a broader dilemma faced by Global South countries: how can states effectively challenge a highly unequal global order while being constrained by that same order?

What can we learn in 2026 from this enduring tension as well as past worldmaking projects? Firstly, it is not enough to defend existing institutions that were highly unequal to begin with. The inequalities generated by an international capitalist system are at least partly responsible for the contemporary increase in authoritarianism. The answer therefore cannot be to return to this system. This is not to advocate for revolutionary upheaval, but perhaps for revolutionary reforms, as Rosa Luxemburg might have put it.

Secondly, the post-Cold War unipolar moment seems to be fracturing, creating an opportunity to challenge established hierarchies and promote a more equal international system. This can only be achieved by a reinvigorated South-South solidarity project that learns from past mistakes. While it is impossible to provide an exhaustive account of these mistakes here, a few, such as divisions between Global South countries, are particularly relevant today. The so-called Third World debt crisis and the ability of the US and other Western powers to assert their dominance over global economic institutions also greatly contributed to the decline of the project to create a NIEO. In this regard, revolutionary reforms within these institutions and the ongoing struggle for debt cancellation are crucial. The original NIEO also ignored gender and the concerns of women’s organisations in the pursuit of statist developmentalism. An effective progressive international movement surely cannot ignore the concerns of half of the world’s population? Finally, domestic and foreign policy are inextricably intertwined and the push for international progressivism must be reflected domestically.

As the “In Defence of Democracy” summit recognised, the world is facing a precarious situation characterised by deepening inequalities and intensifying authoritarianism. South Africa is, of course, deeply acquainted with both structural inequality and authoritarianism, which makes the world-making visions of anti-apartheid activists a particularly rich resource in our current moment. While there is undoubtedly a risk that the world will become more unjust, the shifting international order also presents a moment of possibility to push for a more progressive and equal system. A New International Economic Order 2.0, if you will.