SA's Role in the G20: A Symbolic Leadership or Real Influence?

Dr. Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

In November 2025, Johannesburg hosted the first G20 summit on African soil, hailed domestically as an “African moment.” South Africa’s presidency was presented as an opportunity to advance African priorities, assert moral authority, and demonstrate leadership within the Global South.

Yet, beneath the celebratory rhetoric lies a more nuanced reality: while ceremonially prominent, South Africa’s structural influence within the G20 remains limited, constrained by the forum’s historical composition, economic weight, and procedural mechanics.

Understanding South Africa’s G20 role requires context. The G20 emerged not as a permanent or universal body but as a crisis-response forum. Following the 1997–1998 Asian financial crisis, the G7, the world’s most advanced economies, expanded dialogue to include systemically important emerging economies.

This was expanded to include Russia, making it the G8 until Russia was expelled. South Africa was invited, and never a foundational member; its inclusion was and remains symbolic rather than structural or substantial.

As scholars like John Kirton and Franco Bruni note, the post-2008 G20 heads-of-state format expanded visibility but retained a hierarchy rooted in G7 authority. Hosting the 2025 summit thus reflects inclusion, not origination, underscoring the tension between perceived and actual influence.

South Africa’s position is largely symbolic. Analysts from the Institute for Global Dialogue and SAIIA highlight Pretoria’s emphasis on Global South advocacy, debt sustainability, illicit financial flows, and institutional reform, but question the country’s capacity to enforce binding outcomes. Economists from the University of Pretoria remind us that the G20 operates as an “elite, self-selected club,” where South Africa’s presence signals representation rather than foundational power.

Johannesburg illustrated this tension. As host, South Africa projected authority and curated agenda items, yet the participation or absence of key powers limited its capacity to shape outcomes. The summit was both aspirational and performative: a showcase of moral and diplomatic ambition constrained by structural realities.

The Johannesburg summit revealed nuanced forms of diplomatic signalling, which can be conceptualised as “inside” and “outside” snubbing. Outside snubbing refers to deliberate non-engagement: the United States and Argentina downscaled or bypassed the summit, signalling that host priorities were not automatically endorsed. Inside snubbing occurs when participating states selectively limit engagement, as China and Russia did by attending low-profile sessions while withholding full support.

In Russia’s case, while Putin’s non-attendance was expected and explained, the absence of Sergey Lavrov rendered Moscow’s sentiments about the G20 even more emphatic. China and Russia’s scaled-down presence in my assessment amounted, in effect, to an insider’s snub, a quiet BRICS rebuke to the summit.

These dynamics highlight that influence in multilateral forums is exercised as much through absence and selective participation as through active engagement. Symbolic hosting cannot substitute for substantive leverage when major powers exercise strategic disengagement or procedural minimalism.

Since assuming the presidency, South Africa has projected itself as a moral arbiter and advocate for the Global South, emphasising principle over power. Yet domestic socio-economic realities, high inequality, unemployment, and service delivery deficits, reveal a gap between ambition and capacity. Reports from Chatham House and other policy institutes note limited breakthroughs during negotiations, with key participants absent or selectively engaged.

South Africa’s G20 conduct reflects a broader pattern in its foreign policy: pan-African and Global South rhetoric often advances national prestige rather than achieving enforceable multilateral outcomes. While the summit elevated debt relief, illicit financial flows, and sustainable development to global attention, symbolic leadership alone cannot overcome the structural asymmetry inherent in G20 governance.

President Ramaphosa framed Johannesburg as an “African moment,” projecting continental representation and unity. Yet operational realities reveal persistent national exceptionalism.

Historically, South Africa has leveraged pan-African initiatives, from NEPAD to interventions in the DRC and Lesotho, to consolidate influence selectively, often privileging allies while marginalising dissenters. The omission of Rwanda, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Burundi from Johannesburg underscores the limits of this purported continental leadership.

South Africa’s GDP accounts for roughly 0.6% of global output, constraining its capacity to convert normative claims into binding outcomes. Consequently, the summit presents a duality: a platform for African discourse simultaneously instrumentalised to enhance national prestige. Rwanda’s absence reflects intra-continental power dynamics and South Africa’s selective engagement.

Historical tensions, such as Rwanda’s involvement with the M23 in the DRC and having frogmarched SANDF out of Goma, influenced thin-skinned Pretoria’s decision to exclude Kigali. This demonstrates how Johannesburg’s “African moment” was curated to privilege allies aligned with South African interests, underscoring the performative and instrumental nature of pan-African narratives in the service of national prestige.

This performative exceptionalism illustrates the gap between rhetorical aspiration and structural power. In the end, while the G20 2025 was framed as the African Moment, it became anything but. It was not even South Africa’s moment; it was, in truth, Ramaphosa’s international swansong showcase, crafted, curated, and performed as his personal triumph.

A summit’s success is often measured by the type of formal outcome it produces. A Leaders’ Declaration requires unanimous consent and signals substantive agreement; a Chair’s Report merely summarises discussions without binding authority. G20 consensus is incremental; Sherpa negotiations, ministerial tracks, and working groups can preclude unanimity.

Johannesburg faced these structural limits. The USA, absent or present, has raised its objections, and its non-attendance in no way forfeits its right to do so. South Africa’s Health Minister, Aaron Motsoaledi, acknowledged objections within the Health Working Group Sub-Committee, concurring that there was no consensus, foreshadowing potential fractures.

Argentina, under President Javier Milei, delegated representation while formally dissenting on Middle East issues. These examples illustrate that absence or partial participation can effectively shape outcomes, highlighting the host’s constrained agency despite ceremonial prominence. South Africa’s political elite knows the correct description of its hosted summit is a Chairperson’s statement or report, but who dares disagree with South Africa in the high noon of known exceptionalism.

The summit’s durability depends on the recognition of subsequent G20 hosts, particularly the United States. Former President Donald Trump’s anticipated chairmanship exemplifies the structural fragility of Johannesburg’s achievements.

The G20’s consensus-driven, informal architecture allows successors to reprioritise agendas and reinterpret prior outcomes. Symbolic authority is contingent on the consent of materially dominant states, revealing the vulnerability of performative gains.

Despite high-profile visibility, South Africa’s G20 presidency does not translate into structural leverage. Pledges and investments remain contingent; economic claims tied to the summit are constrained by the fiscal realities of participating states.

Prestige cannot substitute for systemic power in a forum shaped by historically dominant economies. Johannesburg’s “African moment” risks being reframed or diminished by subsequent hosts, highlighting the limits of ceremonial leadership in elite multilateral systems.

South Africa’s G20 presidency demonstrates the gap between aspiration and structural capacity. Hosting the summit elevated visibility, projected normative authority, and highlighted African issues, but it did not confer enduring influence.

Economic asymmetry, procedural dependency, and selective continental engagement underscore the limits of performative power. Johannesburg 2025 illustrates a recurring tension in South African foreign policy: the simultaneous pursuit of aspirational leadership and the constraints of structural reality.

The summit’s symbolic success should be acknowledged, yet its lessons are sobering. Visibility and prestige, while valuable, cannot replace material leverage, consensus-building capacity, or systemic influence.

Influence in the G20 derives as much from strategic engagement, structural weight, and procedural authority as from hosting ceremonies. Johannesburg was a milestone of aspiration, but without structural power, it remains a fragile and performative achievement.

In the end, Johannesburg 2025 exemplifies a core lesson in international relations: symbolic leadership, no matter how rhetorically compelling, is only as durable as the structural consent of materially dominant actors.

South Africa’s G20 presidency illuminates the interplay of ambition, exceptionalism, and constraint, offering both a testament to aspiration and a cautionary tale of overreach in a world governed by entrenched hierarchies.

* Dr Clyde N.S. Ramalaine is a Political Analyst, Theologian, and Commentator on Politics, Governance, Social & Economic Justice, Theology, and International Affairs

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.