Governance: Function, Narratives, And Performance

This is a recent interview about governance by Xinhua News China's official wire service.

https://english.news.cn/20260710/7bd752d7e57f40ecbdd32608c1ea6c00/c.html

My role as a commentator is to condense the complex into the comprehensible. But governance isn't something that can be reduced to a few soundbites.

To explain my comments, I wrote three essays.

The first is about the function of governance.

The second discusses how governments differentiate themselves through narratives.

The third compares the US, EU, and China in terms of their governance over the last 18 years.

Governance, Function, Narratives, Performance

Summary

Governments exist for one reason: to organize society so people can live together peacefully, productively and with confidence in the future. Everything else—ideology, political branding, narratives of legitimacy—is methodology. Governments did not emerge from political philosophy; they emerged from necessity. As populations grew beyond families and tribes, strangers required rules, institutions and systems that allowed cooperation rather than conflict. Civilization begins with organization.

Throughout five thousand years of history, governments have taken many forms—monarchies, republics, democracies, socialist states, constitutional systems. Some flourished. Others failed. History offers no evidence that any political model guarantees success. Instead, it demonstrates that successful governments consistently deliver four universal public goods: organization, safety, certainty and opportunity. These are not ideological objectives; they are practical ones. Today, every citizen wants an organized society. Every family wants safety. Every business needs certainty before investing. Every generation expects greater opportunity than the last. This is the only standard that ultimately matters.

Governments naturally develop narratives to explain their authority and justify their legitimacy—Divine Right, popular consent, historical inevitability, collective ownership, individual liberty. These stories strengthen cohesion, define identity and mobilize support. They are not false; they are political. The problem arises when narratives become confused with purpose. Democracy, socialism, communism, monarchy and theocracy all describe different sources of legitimacy. None changes the practical responsibilities of governing. Regardless of ideology, citizens expect roads to function, hospitals to operate, schools to educate, courts to resolve disputes and businesses to invest with confidence. Governments that fail to provide these public goods eventually lose legitimacy, regardless of their ideological claims.

An important distinction is that capitalism is an economic philosophy, not a system of government. Markets cannot define property rights, enforce contracts, provide national defence or resolve collective action problems. Even the freest markets depend upon governments to establish and maintain the conditions under which markets function. The invisible hand still requires a visible framework. Successful governments adapt, borrow from different traditions and pursue results rather than doctrinal consistency. History rewards pragmatism more consistently than ideological purity.

Measured against these standards, the past eighteen years offer an instructive comparison. China has demonstrated exceptional organizational capacity through long-term planning, infrastructure expansion and industrial policy, translating national priorities into sustained execution. The European Union has built one of history's largest integrated markets, yet institutional complexity and competing national interests have slowed decision-making. The United States possesses enormous institutional strengths but has seen political polarization undermine policy durability, with major initiatives reversed after elections and long-term planning subordinated to short-term cycles.

Modern security extends beyond military strength to include food, energy, public health, cybersecurity, economic resilience and critical infrastructure. The United States maintains military primacy but faces internal challenges. Europe depends on collective defence while addressing industrial and energy vulnerabilities. China emphasizes domestic stability and economic resilience. Each system defines security differently; each faces its own challenges.

Certainty is perhaps the most valuable public good governments can provide. People invest in the future only when they believe rules will remain stable. China's long-term planning provides strategic continuity. Europe offers strong legal certainty, though regulatory complexity slows innovation. The United States, once the benchmark for predictability, now sees policy instability as trade, taxation and regulation shift with each administration.

Opportunity remains the ultimate purpose. China has lifted over 800 million people from poverty, built a vast middle class and leads in STEM graduates and manufacturing, though demographic pressures and economic maturation present new challenges. The United States leads in frontier innovation but faces widening inequality and slowing mobility. Europe provides high living standards and social protections but struggles with slower growth and ageing populations.

No system is without strengths or weaknesses. Governments should be judged by outcomes, not by what they call themselves. Can they organize society? Can they protect their people in all modern dimensions? Can they create enough certainty for families and businesses to plan decades rather than election cycles? Can they expand opportunities for future generations? These questions apply everywhere.

The world is entering a multipolar era. Economic power is broadly distributed. Asia drives global growth. Middle powers pursue strategic autonomy. Institutions created after 1945 are being challenged by realities that did not exist when they were designed. This transition requires less ideological competition and more effective governance. Shared problems—climate change, pandemics, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, energy transition—cannot be solved by ideology alone.

Governments are instruments created to solve practical problems. History may remember them for the ideals they proclaimed; but their tenures were based on the efficacy of their rule. The governments that endure are those that organize effectively, protect their people, create confidence in the future and expand opportunity across generations. That has been the purpose of government for five thousand years. It remains the only standard that ultimately matters. Everything else is methodology.

Essay I

Government Beyond Ideology

Every government exists for one reason: to organize society. Everything else is methodology. Governments did not emerge from political philosophy; they emerged from necessity. As populations grew beyond families and tribes, people required rules, institutions and systems that allowed strangers to cooperate. Civilization begins with organization. Without it there is no commerce, no security, no prosperity and no enduring peace.

For more than five thousand years governments have taken many forms. Kingdoms became empires. Republics replaced monarchies. Democracies emerged alongside socialist states. Constitutional systems evolved from absolute rule. Some flourished. Others failed. History offers a simple lesson: no political system has a monopoly on good government. Ideology explains how governments justify themselves; but good governments is about reality, not rhetoric.

The purpose of government has remained remarkably constant throughout history: to provide organization, safety, certainty and opportunity. These are not ideological objectives—they are practical ones. They are also universal. Every citizen wants to live in an organized society. Every family wants to feel safe. Every business needs certainty before making long-term investments. Today, every generation expects greater opportunity than the one before it. Governments should be judged by how well they deliver these four public goods.

Organization comes first because everything else depends upon it. Markets require laws. Property requires legal protection. Contracts require enforcement. Infrastructure requires planning. Education requires investment. Healthcare requires coordination. Even societies that describe themselves as free markets depend upon governments to establish the rules that make markets possible. Without organization there is no freedom—only disorder, where power belongs to whoever possesses the greatest wealth, influence or force. Organization transforms a collection of individuals into a functioning society.

The second responsibility is safety. Historically, governments protected citizens from invasion, crime and civil disorder. That definition is no longer sufficient. Modern security includes food, energy, healthcare, cybersecurity, environmental resilience, financial stability and the protection of critical infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that disease can threaten nations as effectively as war. Cyber attacks can disable financial systems without firing a shot. Supply chain disruptions can undermine national resilience as effectively as military blockades. Security can no longer be measured simply by the size of an army or the sophistication of military technology. A government that cannot protect its people will eventually lose their confidence.

The third responsibility is certainty. It is perhaps the least discussed responsibility of government, yet it is one of the most important. People make decisions based on their expectations of tomorrow. Families purchase homes because they believe property rights will be protected. Businesses build factories because they expect contracts will be honoured. Investors commit capital because they believe regulations will remain reasonably predictable. Students spend years acquiring skills because they expect opportunities will exist when they graduate. Economic development depends as much upon confidence as it does upon capital. Governments create that confidence through stable institutions, predictable laws and transparent administration. Absolute certainty is impossible, but reasonable certainty makes long-term progress possible.

The fourth responsibility is opportunity. Organization, safety and certainty are not objectives in themselves; they create the conditions under which people can improve their lives. Education develops human capital. Infrastructure connects markets. Healthcare protects productivity. Innovation creates new industries. Competition rewards initiative. Opportunity is how one generation leaves the next better off than itself. Without opportunity, stability becomes stagnation. Without organization, safety and certainty, opportunity cannot exist. The four responsibilities reinforce one another; weakness in one eventually undermines the others.

This is why ideological debates often miss the central issue. Governments should not be judged by what they call themselves—they should be judged by what they accomplish. Can they organize society? Can they protect their people? Can they provide enough certainty for families and businesses to plan decades rather than election cycles? Can they expand opportunity so that each generation enjoys greater possibilities than the last? These questions apply regardless of culture, geography or political system because they reflect universal human needs.

The same principles extend beyond national borders. Countries are members of an international community just as citizens are members of a nation. The responsibilities remain remarkably similar. International organization requires institutions that facilitate cooperation while respecting sovereignty: trade rules, financial institutions, development banks and diplomatic forums. These exist because no nation can solve every challenge alone. As economic and political power becomes more broadly distributed, international institutions must evolve to reflect contemporary realities rather than historical power balances.

International safety should also be understood more broadly than military alliances. Security includes freedom of navigation, resilient supply chains, public health cooperation, cybersecurity, disaster response and conflict prevention. No country, regardless of its size or military strength, can isolate itself from global instability. Collective security has become a practical necessity rather than an idealistic aspiration.

International certainty depends upon consistent behaviour. Trade agreements should be respected. Investment requires confidence. Diplomatic commitments should survive changes in political leadership. Predictability lowers risk. Lower risk encourages investment. Investment expands prosperity. When agreements become temporary political instruments rather than durable commitments, uncertainty like a virus infects the international system. Businesses delay investment. Markets become more volatile. Strategic competition replaces cooperation.

The final international responsibility is opportunity. Trade expands markets. Investment creates employment. Technology raises productivity. Infrastructure connects economies. Education develops future generations. Development is not a zero-sum competition. History demonstrates that periods of expanding global prosperity have generally coincided with periods of expanding international cooperation.

The world is now entering a new phase. The post-Cold War assumption that one political and economic model represented the inevitable destination of history is giving way to a more complex reality. Economic power is becoming more broadly distributed. Asia has become the principal engine of global growth. Emerging economies seek greater representation in international institutions. Middle powers increasingly pursue strategic autonomy rather than exclusive alignment with competing blocs. Multipolarity is no longer a prediction—it is the emerging reality.

The question is no longer whether governments have different political systems—they always have. The question is whether those systems can deliver the four responsibilities that define good government. Can they organize society? Can they provide safety in all its modern dimensions? Can they create enough certainty for people to invest in the future with confidence? Can they expand opportunity while acting as responsible members of the international community? These are the questions that matter. Not ideology. Not political labels. Not competing claims of moral superiority.

Governments are not ends in themselves; they are instruments created to solve practical problems. History sometimes remembers governments for the theories they embraced, but it always remembers the societies they built. The governments that endure are those that organize effectively, protect their people, create confidence in the future and expand opportunity across generations. That has been the purpose of government for five thousand years. It remains the only standard that ultimately matters. Everything else is methodology.

Essay II

The Narratives Governments Use

Every civilization tells itself a story. Every government does the same. These stories explain where authority comes from, why governments deserve obedience and what makes one political system superior to another. Throughout history these narratives have taken many forms. The Divine Right of Kings claimed authority came from God. Monarchies argued that stability required hereditary rule. Republics claimed legitimacy flowed from the consent of citizens. Liberal democracies placed their faith in elections and individual liberty. Socialist systems emphasized collective ownership and social equality. Communist parties argued they represented the historical interests of the working class. Each presented itself as the correct answer to governing society. Each claimed moral superiority. Each argued that history validated its approach.

Yet history tells a different story. Governments did not emerge from political philosophy; they emerged from necessity. Long before philosophers debated the ideal state, human beings faced a practical problem. As populations grew beyond families and tribes, strangers needed rules that allowed them to cooperate rather than compete through violence. Agriculture required irrigation systems. Trade required contracts. Cities required sanitation. Communities required justice. Armies required organization. Taxation required administration. Civilization begins with organization. Everything else follows. Political philosophy arrived later. Ideology did not create governments; governments created ideologies to explain themselves. That distinction matters.

For more than five thousand years governments have changed their appearance many times. Kingdoms became empires. Empires fragmented into nation states. Republics replaced monarchies. Democracies emerged beside socialist systems. Constitutional monarchies evolved from absolute rule. Some lasted centuries. Others disappeared within decades. Some created extraordinary prosperity. Others collapsed into chaos. No political system possesses a monopoly on either success or failure. The historical record simply does not support that conclusion. Instead, history suggests something much more practical: every successful government performs the same essential functions. It organizes society. It provides safety. It creates certainty. It expands opportunity. Everything else is methodology.

This is where rhetoric and reality begin to diverge. Political rhetoric emphasizes differences, while reality emphasizes common purposes. Governments naturally seek legitimacy. They therefore develop narratives explaining why their authority is justified and why competing systems are inferior. These narratives strengthen social cohesion, define national identity and mobilize public support. That does not make them false; it makes them political. The problem arises when political narratives become confused with economic and social realities.

Democracy is often presented as an end in itself. Socialism is frequently described as the destination of history. Communism once claimed scientific inevitability. Monarchy rested upon hereditary legitimacy. Theocracy locates authority in divine will. Each describes a different source of political legitimacy. None changes the practical responsibilities of governing. Regardless of ideology, citizens still expect roads to function, hospitals to operate, schools to educate, police to provide security, courts to resolve disputes, businesses to invest with confidence, and families to believe tomorrow will be better than today. These expectations are universal. They transcend culture, geography and political philosophy.

This is why governments that fail to provide these public goods eventually lose legitimacy regardless of ideology. History is filled with examples. Kings have been overthrown. Democracies have collapsed. Communist parties have dissolved. Military governments have fallen. Religious states have fragmented. The common factor is rarely ideology itself. It is failure to govern effectively.

One important distinction deserves separate consideration. Capitalism is often treated as a system of government. It is not. Capitalism is primarily an economic philosophy. Like other belief systems, it rests upon foundational assumptions about human behaviour. Its central premise is that decentralized markets, guided by competition and Adam Smith's "invisible hand," allocate resources more efficiently than centralized authority. For many advocates this functions almost as an article of faith. Markets become self-correcting. Competition becomes inherently beneficial. Individual incentives become the primary engine of collective prosperity. Like all belief systems, capitalism has produced remarkable successes. It has also produced excesses, monopolies, financial crises and widening inequality when left without effective governance.

The lesson is not that markets fail. It is that markets themselves require organization. Markets cannot define property rights. They cannot enforce contracts. They cannot provide national defence. They cannot administer justice. They cannot build every piece of public infrastructure. They cannot resolve every collective action problem. Even the freest markets depend upon governments to establish and maintain the conditions under which markets function. The invisible hand still requires a visible framework.

This illustrates a broader point. Economic philosophies explain how prosperity should be created. Political ideologies explain why governments possess authority. Neither replaces the practical responsibilities of governing. The danger begins when governments become more committed to defending ideological purity than solving practical problems. Reality rarely conforms perfectly to theory. Successful governments adapt. They borrow ideas from different traditions. They adjust institutions to changing circumstances. They pursue results rather than doctrinal consistency. China's reforms after 1978 illustrate this principle. So do the Nordic welfare states. So does the evolution of constitutional monarchies. So does the mixed economy that emerged across much of the developed world after the Second World War. History rewards pragmatism more consistently than ideological purity.

Perhaps this explains why governments that appear very different often behave similarly once they assume responsibility. Conservative governments intervene during financial crises. Socialist governments encourage private investment. Democratic governments restrict freedoms during emergencies. Authoritarian governments liberalize markets when growth slows. Ideology shapes preferences. Responsibility shapes behaviour. The closer governments move toward the practical realities of governing, the more similar they often become.

The world is entering another period of profound change. The post-Cold War debate over which ideology should dominate international affairs is giving way to a different conversation. Citizens increasingly ask practical rather than philosophical questions. Can governments manage technological disruption? Can they maintain economic growth? Can they provide affordable housing? Can they protect public health? Can they ensure national security? Can they create opportunities for future generations? These questions are remarkably similar whether they are asked in Beijing, Brussels, Washington, Delhi, Jakarta or Brasília, because human needs do not fundamentally change.

The language of politics however does change. The aspirations of ideologies evolve. The institutions of government adapt. The narratives become more sophisticated. Yet, the responsibilities remain constant. Governments exist to organize society, to provide safety, to create certainty and to expand opportunity. Everything else is a discussion about methodology. The stories governments tell matter. They shape national identity. They inspire citizens. They influence policy. They help explain why societies choose one path rather than another. But they should never be confused with the purpose of government itself. History ultimately judges governments less by the ideals they proclaim than by the lives they improve. That has been true for five thousand years. It remains true today.

Essay III

Governments Should Be Judged by Results, Not Ideology

Every government exists for one reason: to organize society so people can live together peacefully, productively and with confidence in the future. Everything else is methodology. Throughout history governments have taken many forms. Monarchies, republics, democracies, socialist states and constitutional systems have all succeeded at times and failed at others. History offers no evidence that any one political model guarantees good government. It demonstrates something much simpler: successful governments consistently provide four things: organization, safety, certainty and opportunity.

These are universal objectives. Every citizen wants to live in an organized society. Every family wants to be safe. Every business needs certainty before investing. Every generation wants greater opportunities than the last. This is the standard by which governments should be judged. Not ideology. Not political branding. Not the frequency of elections. Not the volume of political rhetoric. Governments are not religions requiring faith. They are institutions designed to solve problems.

Measured against this standard, the past eighteen years provide an instructive comparison between the United States, China and the European Union. Each represents a different philosophy of governance. Each has produced impressive achievements. Each also reveals the limitations of its own system. The question is not which system is morally superior. The question is which has consistently delivered organization, safety, certainty and opportunity.

Organization is the foundation. Without organization there are no functioning markets, no enforceable contracts, no protected property rights and no long-term economic development. China has demonstrated exceptional organizational capacity. National priorities are translated into long-term planning through successive Five-Year Plans. Infrastructure has expanded at an unprecedented pace. High-speed rail now exceeds 48,000 kilometres. China has built the world's largest modern logistics network, the world's largest manufacturing base and one of the world's most advanced digital payment systems. Industrial policy has accelerated leadership in electric vehicles, batteries, renewable energy and advanced manufacturing. Whether one agrees with every policy is beside the point. The system has demonstrated an ability to establish priorities, mobilize resources and execute policy over long periods.

The European Union represents almost the opposite model. Its institutions are designed to build consensus among twenty-seven sovereign states. That has produced one of history's most successful peace projects and one of the world's largest integrated markets. It has also made rapid decision-making increasingly difficult. Migration, energy policy, industrial competitiveness and defence have often been slowed by institutional complexity and competing national interests, for example over Ukraine and Gaza.

The United States possesses enormous institutional strengths, but over the past eighteen years political polarization has increasingly undermined organizational effectiveness. Policy has become less durable. Executive orders replace legislation. Major initiatives are reversed after elections. Long-term planning is often subordinated to two-year and four-year political cycles. The ability to make decisions increasingly differs from the ability to sustain them.

Safety is the second responsibility. Military strength remains important, but modern security extends much further: food, energy, public health, cybersecurity, economic resilience and critical infrastructure. The United States continues to field the world's most capable military and maintains an unmatched alliance network. Yet internally it faces persistent challenges from violent crime, opioid addiction, political violence, cyber threats and deteriorating infrastructure. Externally it has remained engaged in multiple military conflicts, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, etc…, while strategic competition with both Russia and China has intensified.

Europe has enjoyed remarkable internal peace but remains heavily dependent upon NATO for collective defence. The Ukraine conflict exposed weaknesses in industrial capacity, energy dependence and military readiness that European governments are now attempting to address through unprecedented defence spending.

China has emphasized domestic stability while avoiding major overseas military interventions. It has invested heavily in public security, disaster response, transportation resilience, healthcare capacity and energy diversification. Beijing’s military modernization is defensive, intended to protect sovereignty and territorial integrity rather than project power globally.

Each system defines security differently: the United States emphasizes military primacy, Europe emphasizes collective defence, and China emphasizes domestic stability and economic resilience.

Certainty may now be the most valuable public good governments can provide. People invest in the future only when they believe the rules will remain reasonably stable. Businesses build factories expecting contracts to be honoured. Families buy homes believing property rights will endure. Students spend years acquiring skills expecting future opportunities.

China's long-term planning has provided remarkable strategic continuity. Priorities such as advanced manufacturing, technological self-reliance, infrastructure modernization and green development have remained broadly consistent despite changing economic conditions.

Europe continues to provide strong legal certainty, although regulatory complexity sometimes slows innovation and increases business costs.

The United States once represented the global benchmark for policy predictability. Today businesses face increasing uncertainty as trade policy, taxation, industrial incentives, environmental regulation and international commitments often change with each administration. Political competition has increasingly produced policy instability.

Opportunity remains the ultimate purpose of government. Organization, safety and certainty exist to create better lives. China's record over the past generation is historically significant. More than 800 million people have escaped extreme poverty over the course of reform and opening up. A middle-income population larger than the entire population of the United States has emerged. China now graduates more STEM students annually than any other country, leads global manufacturing in numerous sectors and has become the world's largest market for electric vehicles and renewable energy. Growth has moderated as the economy matures. Demographic pressures and the restructuring of the property sector present genuine challenges. They are the challenges of managing success rather than overcoming underdevelopment.

The United States remains the world's innovation leader in frontier technologies. Its universities, financial markets and entrepreneurial culture continue to produce extraordinary breakthroughs. Yet opportunity has become increasingly uneven. Income inequality has widened. Housing affordability has deteriorated. Social mobility has slowed compared with earlier generations.

Europe provides high living standards, universal healthcare and extensive social protections. These remain considerable strengths. At the same time, slower growth, ageing populations and declining industrial competitiveness have limited the expansion of new opportunities.

No system is without strengths. No system is without weaknesses. The lesson is not that one model should replace another. The lesson is that governments should be judged by outcomes rather than ideology. Can they organize society effectively? Can they provide safety in all its modern dimensions? Can they create enough certainty for families and businesses to plan decades rather than election cycles? Can they expand opportunity for future generations? These questions matter far more than whether governments describe themselves as democratic, socialist, capitalist or liberal.

The international system is entering a multipolar era. Power is becoming more broadly distributed. Economic growth is increasingly driven by Asia. Middle powers are pursuing strategic autonomy. Institutions created after the Second World War are being challenged by realities that did not exist when they were designed. This transition requires less ideological competition and more effective governance. The objective should not be about exporting political systems. It should be improving governmental performance.

The world's problems are increasingly shared: climate change, pandemics, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, supply chain resilience, energy transition and financial stability. None can be solved by ideology alone. They require governments capable of organizing society, protecting their citizens, providing certainty and expanding opportunity while acting responsibly as members of the international community. That has always been the purpose of government. It remains the only standard that ultimately matters. History remembers the ideals governments proclaim, but their rule is predicated on the expectations of their people.