Reimagining Global Governance: The Imperative for United Nations Reform in a Multipolar World

The global governance architecture established after World War II, anchored by institutions like the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank, was designed to bring stability and cooperation in a world emerging from conflict. However, as we move deeper into the 21st century, it's becoming increasingly clear that the system crafted by the victors of WWII is struggling to keep pace with today's global challenges and shifting power dynamics.

The world has changed dramatically since 1945. Emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil have risen as significant global players, yet the existing frameworks still reflect a Western-dominated worldview. The voting power in institutions such as the IMF remains skewed, with the U.S. and its allies retaining disproportionate influence, while rising powers and the Global South remain underrepresented. This imbalance hampers the ability of these institutions to act effectively and in a way that is legitimate and responsive to today’s multipolar world.

A glaring example of this imbalance is the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The current permanent members – the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France – reflect the geopolitical landscape of 1945, not today’s world. Great Britain and France, for instance, with a combined population of about 150 million, hold permanent seats with veto power. Meanwhile, major nations such as Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan, despite their large populations and growing geopolitical significance, remain outside this exclusive club.

Many proposals have been made to reform the UNSC, one of the most notable being the expansion of its permanent members. Countries like India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan have been suggested for permanent membership due to their economic clout and regional influence. However, under most proposals, these new members would not be granted veto power, which raises questions about the fairness and effectiveness of such reforms. How can these nations be expected to play a meaningful role if they lack the veto authority that the original members wield?

This proposal, while a step toward greater inclusivity, reveals deep flaws. Without veto power, the new permanent members would essentially be permanent in name only, while the real decision-making power would remain concentrated in the hands of the original five. This creates a two-tier system that could further entrench the current inequities rather than resolve them. The logic of keeping the veto power with countries like Great Britain and France, whose global influence has waned relative to countries with larger populations and more significant geopolitical roles, seems increasingly indefensible. Why should countries with relatively small populations retain this immense privilege, while nations, such as, India with a population of over 1 billion, Brazil, with over 200 million people, Indonesia, home to 270 million, and Pakistan with a population 250 million, remain excluded?

The argument for maintaining the veto power of the original members often rests on tradition, historical precedent, and the belief that these nations played a key role in shaping the post-WWII order. But history should not be an excuse to perpetuate inequity. In today’s interconnected world, the influence of nations is measured not only by their historical roles but by their current economic, political, and demographic weight. Countries of the global majority, with their large populations, significant regional roles, and growing economies, are too important to be left out of decisions that shape the global order.

Beyond representation issues, new challenges like climate change, digital governance, and global inequality require more than the post-war institutions were designed to address. The climate crisis, in particular, exposes the limitations of the current system. We need global mechanisms that can enforce climate agreements, finance adaptation, and hold nations accountable to their commitments. Similarly, rapid technological advancements and the digital economy demand a new governance framework that current institutions have not adequately developed.

As the world grapples with these global shifts, reforming the international system is not just an option—it is an imperative. The architecture needs to be restructured to reflect contemporary realities, with emerging economies playing a more prominent role in shaping decisions. It’s time for the voting systems at the IMF and World Bank to be updated, for the UN Security Council to expand to include major regional powers with genuine decision-making authority, and for specialized institutions to be created to tackle climate change and technology governance.

Reform should also focus on enhancing regional governance structures like the African Union and ASEAN, empowering them to act as pivotal players in global cooperation. Additionally, we need a more inclusive approach to governance that brings in civil society, private sector leaders, and indigenous voices to ensure that decision-making is diverse and reflective of all those affected.

The global governance architecture established in 1945 no longer fits the world of today. We live in a multipolar world, with emerging powers and new global challenges that require a more inclusive, flexible, and legitimate governance system. Keeping the old guard in place—where a few countries retain disproportionate power due to historical precedent—only exacerbates the disconnect between global institutions and the realities they are supposed to govern.

The UNSC, IMF, World Bank, and others must evolve to reflect today’s complex global dynamics, not the world of 80 years ago. A reimagined global governance system, one that is more inclusive, agile, and responsive, will be key to ensuring sustainable and equitable development for all. It’s time to build a future that better reflects the world we live in today, rather than the one forged in the aftermath of a war almost a century ago.