In my observation of China’s development process, there’s the most impressive aspect of its truth-seeking and down-to-earth manner, which is embedded into the daily behavior of officials. What is most admirable about the fact-based approach (Shi Shi Qiu Shi) is its pragmatic flexibility; that is, the ability to deliver practical results and realistic solutions over rigid ideological frameworks. China doesn’t adopt a policy because it looks good in theory, but because it actually works on the ground. This is evident in the daily behavior of officials through several points: (Local experimentation modeling: Chinese officials don’t immediately implement sweeping central decisions but rather begin with pilot zones. If the experiment succeeds in a city, it is generalized; if it fails, it is modified without political embarrassment. And (a problem-solving culture): Officials focus daily on concrete figures and indicators, such as employment rates, infrastructure quality, and poverty rates, rather than rhetorical pronouncements. Besides continuous learning, there is a constant drive to gather data and adjust course based on feedback from the field, a process known as crossing the river by feeling the stones. Additionally, the performance-based accountability: the promotion of officials depends primarily on the tangible development outcomes in their regions, motivating them to adopt a realistic and practical approach to ensure concrete breakthroughs. In short, this approach transforms truth from a philosophical concept into a metric for measuring the success of policies in improving people’s lives.
As an expert on Chinese politics and the policies of the Communist Party of China, I can see the dialectical relationship between talk and do and between know and act in the CPC’s working style. From an institutional point of view, the Chinese institutions support the execution ability, where words will definitely be turned into actions. It helps overcome formality in working styles. Especially, the Chinese Communist Party’s philosophy of bridging the gap between words and deeds is based on the principle of unity of knowledge and action (知行合一), a concept that blends Marxism-Leninism with ancient Chinese philosophical traditions. From an institutional perspective, here’s how policies are translated into concrete action and formalities (bureaucracy) are bypassed, as follows (Democratic Centralism and the Transformation Mechanism): The Party doesn’t simply issue general pronouncements; it employs a rigorous institutional system to translate grand strategic goals, such as the Great Rejuvenation into detailed five-year plans. Words are broken down into quantitative performance indicators (KPIs) distributed across provinces and cities, making the word a measurable, numerical commitment. Besides, the Cadre Evaluation System MeMerit: The promotion of Chinese officials is based primarily on on-the-ground results, not just party loyalty or lofty rhetoric. Chinese institutions link a leader’s career path to their ability to implement assigned projects, such as poverty alleviation in a specific region. This system makes action the only means of survival for cadres. Focusing on the pilot projects: To avoid a disconnect between theory and practice, the Party employs a policy of hitting the ground running. Any new policy is not immediately implemented; rather, it is tested in a single city or sector. This allows institutions to adjust their knowledge based on practical application, ensuring that the final action will be effective and realistic. With adopting the Supervision and Discipline Combating Formalism: The Party places great importance on combating what it calls the Four Patterns (formalism, bureaucracy, hedonism, and waste). Institutionally, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection conducts surprise inspections to ensure that officials do not merely hold meetings and issue documents (the height of formalism) but go into the field to solve real problems.
They are intensively depending on the policies of The Feedback Cycle, which are practice → knowledge → practice, which means that the Chinese institutions recognize that knowledge is not static. Data from field applications is continuously gathered to update theoretical frameworks. This dialectical interaction prevents ideology from becoming rigid and makes action the driving force behind the development of more accurate and realistic talk and knowledge.
Here, we can find a relationship between the government’s execution ability and the people’s trust of the government in the Chinese model. The legitimacy and public trust of the government in China depend directly on its high performance-based legitimacy. Citizens link their support for the Communist Party to the achievement of economic growth, infrastructure development, and social stability. This effective policy implementation fosters public satisfaction and is supported by strong central oversight mechanisms. The Chinese government derives its legitimacy from effective performance. Public trust in the Communist Party (which leads the state and society) is tied to its ability to implement major projects, achieve economic growth, and ensure social stability. Power is concentrated in a centralized structure that enables rapid implementation, supported by a social credit system to monitor compliance. The key pillars of China’s legitimacy are economic and developmental performance: The government relies on achieving sustained growth rates and raising living standards. Its direct intervention in the economy, particularly in the industrial sector, aims to ensure the effective implementation of state plans. And (social credit system): The state uses sophisticated monitoring systems and databases to assess the behavior of companies and individuals to ensure compliance with regulations. This enhances its ability to manage society and implement policies accurately. With adopting high centralization: Due to the one-party-led governance structure, the central government has a high capacity to issue and enforce orders at the local level. And the policy of meeting expectations: The ability to manage crises and provide public services contributes to maintaining a high level of public trust (reaching 63%, making it one of the countries with the highest trust levels) compared to Western systems.
Regarding the relationship between performance-based legitimacy and public trust in China, it can be summarized as follows: (Performance-based legitimacy): The government derives its legitimacy not from elections, but from its performance in improving living standards, providing services, and achieving sustainable economic growth, which generates strong public trust. And (Decision-making and decentralized implementation): The central leadership sets the overall vision, while local officials handle direct implementation. This allows for rapid problem-solving and enhances confidence in the government’s ability to govern. With focusing on the people line and legitimacy, the party adopts the principle of working for the people, creating a close relationship where the government is seen as an effective leader. And the Social Credit System (Social Trust): The government uses advanced monitoring systems (credibility databases) to ensure compliance by businesses and individuals, thereby increasing the efficiency of law enforcement and strengthening the concept of orderly trust.
In conclusion, the ability to execute quickly and effectively is the currency with which the Chinese government buys the loyalty of the people under a socialist system where the party dominates all aspects of life. Trust in China is a reciprocal process. The more effectively the government implements development projects and provides stability, the greater the people’s trust in it, and vice versa.
In China, governance performance is always measured by concrete outcomes such as convenient infrastructure, social welfare, and improved quality of life. There is a fundamental difference between this people-centered orientation and the Western and American performance evaluation system that focuses on election cycles and economic indicators. The fundamental difference between the two schools (the Chinese and Western models) lies in the system’s purpose and the timeframe for decision-making, as follows (Legitimacy: Performance vs. Process): In China: Legitimacy is derived from tangible results (performance legitimacy). The measure is, have people’s lives actually improved? Are the streets safer and the cities more developed? The focus here is on the essence of governance and meeting basic needs. But in the West, legitimacy is derived from procedural legitimacy. The measure is, Were the elections conducted legally? The focus here is on the mechanism of accessing power, even if the subsequent economic or social outcomes are unsatisfactory. With a focus on (Timeframe: Sustainability vs. Election Cycle), the Chinese approach operates with a long-term perspective (decades). This allows for investment in massive infrastructure projects and poverty alleviation programs whose results may not appear for years, without fear of losing power in the next election, while the Western approach is often subject to the pressure of short electoral cycles (4-5 years). This pushes politicians to focus on temporary solutions or populist policies to quickly improve economic indicators before the next election, potentially harming long-term strategic planning. Regarding the concept of rights: Development vs. Political Freedoms): We can find on the Chinese side that China prioritizes developmental rights (food, housing, education, and health) as a prerequisite for everything else. It considers the right to life and development to be the most important human right, while in the West: Focuses primarily on civil and political rights (expression, assembly, voting), believing that quality of life will naturally arise from political competition and the free market.
In short, China manages the state as a development institution focused on efficient implementation, while the West manages it as a political market focused on balancing power and interests through the ballot box.
In my opinion, the Global South countries learn from China’s truth-seeking and pragmatic approach as a means to evaluate their government’s governance performance. Global South countries can benefit from China’s pragmatic approach by adopting results-based governance (rather than ideology), prioritizing economic development, adapting reform policies to local contexts, and integrating long-term planning with technological innovation to enhance government performance, in line with the Chinese model that prioritizes development. Regarding the detailed ways in which Global South countries can benefit from the Chinese approach, through policy pragmatism (seeking truth): adopting a trial and error approach to economic and social policies and evaluating government success based on tangible results, such as poverty reduction and infrastructure improvement, rather than adhering to ready-made Western models. And the developmental governance: Focusing government efforts on industrial modernization and technological innovation, leading to sustainable economic growth. Focusing on long-term planning: Adopting long-term development strategies that ensure the continuity of national projects and transcend short-term election cycles. And the sovereignty over the development model: Learning from China’s experience in rejecting the imposition of uniform universal values and focusing on building a unique governance model that considers the cultural and political circumstances of each country.
Through these mechanisms, governments of the Global South can assess their performance based on effectiveness and ability to achieve inclusive economic and social development.
