Nation's governance model strikes a chord

Across much of the Global South, a quiet but important debate is unfolding about leadership and how to run a country. This isn't the familiar ideological clash between capitalism and socialism, or democracy versus authoritarianism. Instead, it's a more grounded conversation that is more about real-world problems than abstract ideas.

At the heart of this debate is the growing interest in China's approach to governance, often described as "socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics". Basically, it's a system that emphasizes people-centered governance, political stability and real development, among others.

What's significant is not that countries are seeking to replicate China wholesale, or embrace Beijing's ideology. Instead, many governments are choosing the parts that they believe will work.

From Southeast Asia to Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East, leaders are drawn to features such as strong leadership, long-term planning and a government that shapes economic outcomes. The attraction is not only socialism itself, but also order, steady policy and the freedom to focus on development without the constant electoral pressure.

China's model is deeply shaped by its own history. The Communist Party of China is the force that rescued China from a past marked by humiliation, colonialism, chaos and poverty. The leadership isn't just a temporary gig, but a long-term duty rooted in historical memory.

In Western democracies, legitimacy largely flows from electoral competition and from institutional checks and balances. In China, legitimacy is claimed through outcomes. The government points to decades of rapid economic growth, massive reductions in poverty, impressive infrastructure development, social stability and China's rising global influence. Over the past 40 years, China has combined strong leadership with rapid industrialization, lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, and become a central player in global trade and diplomacy.

For leaders in the Global South — many of whom govern countries shaped by colonialism, divided societies and fragile institutions — China's experience challenges the assumption that Western-style democracy must come before development.

China's path suggests an alternative sequence — build the economy, strengthen the central government, and bring stability first. For governments facing tough realities, this narrative has real pull.

China's domestic governance also shapes its foreign policy. At the heart of Beijing's foreign engagement is emphasis on sovereignty and noninterference in other countries' internal affairs. Unlike Western donors and institutions, which often tie political or governance conditions to aid and loans, China frames its engagement around mutual benefits and pragmatic cooperation.

This approach is reinforced through tangible offers such as infrastructure financing, trade deals, development loans and even party-to-party exchanges. There's no pressure for political reforms. For recipient governments, this means access to capital and resources without external scrutiny or moral lectures. It creates space to pursue national development plans without foreign interference.

Consequently, China's influence across the Global South has grown progressively. When countries align with China on "internal affairs" at international forums, it's rarely about sharing ideology. It usually reflects shared concerns over sovereignty, political stability and resistance to external pressure.

Evidently, no country is copying China in full. Countries are borrowing governance tools, not ideology. China's model functions less as a doctrine than as a menu option.

But here is the catch. China's success depends on things that are tough to replicate, including a merit-based bureaucracy, cohesion and sustained investment in state capacity. Without these foundations, attempts to copy China's state capacity-based approach may backfire. In weaker institutional environments, centralization often turns into personalized rule; limiting political competition can entrench ruling elites without improving governance; and state-led economies can fuel corruption rather than development. The real danger isn't just moving away from democracy, but losing the checks and balances that make leadership effective.

China's system relies heavily on internal mechanisms — party discipline, performance reviews and crackdowns on corruption. These work best in a highly organized state. Copied elsewhere without comparable capacity, they often fail to restrain leaders or guarantee competence.

Globally, China's growing appeal marks a shift. The once dominant belief that all nations would eventually become a Western-style "liberal democracy" is fading.

Now the world is heading toward a mix of governance models, each claiming its own legitimacy. Western-style democracy itself is increasingly debated and refined, not so much regarding elections as about results like stability, growth and social welfare.

For the Global South, this shift brings both opportunity and risk. There's more room to choose partners and resist one-size-fits-all governance models.

But with fewer strings attached from the outside, domestic leaders have to take more responsibility for building systems of accountability that fit their own societies. Accountability must now be enforced by local institutions, civil society and political culture — not foreign donors.

African ruling parties are attracted to the Chinese model because it promises stability, smooth transitions and steady development without the chaos and uncertainty of constant elections.

In essence, China's leadership model is not a replacement for Western democracy or a universal blueprint.

Its quiet appeal lies in the suggestion that there are multiple paths to development, stability and legitimacy. It challenges linear assumptions about how political systems "should" evolve.

The author is founder of the Africa Center for Diplomatic Affairs in Kenya.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.