Why performance legitimacy matters: China's governance blueprint for the Global South

Editor's note: Biljana Vankovska is a political scientist, international relations expert and media commentator. She also serves as executive director of Skopje-based think tank Synegia Orbi: The Institute for Global Analysis. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

In an era marked by polycentric shifts and compounding crises – from climate disruption and demographic pressures to widening inequality and technological transformation – many concerned intellectuals pose a fundamental question: What is democracy if it fails to improve everyday lives? For decades, the dominant governance narrative has equated political legitimacy primarily with electoral procedures and institutional checks. In the post-socialist Balkans, we were repeatedly told to be patient – that democracy required a "transition." Yet multiparty elections often deepened societal fragmentation without delivering tangible improvements in living standards. The TINA (there is no alternative) doctrine prevailed. Today, ordinary citizens remain alienated from political elites who have consistently fallen short on social promises. Many are still waiting for a better future that never arrives.

The central question is no longer how governments are chosen but how effectively they improve citizens' material conditions and long-term well-being. This tension between procedural legitimacy and performance-based legitimacy can no longer be ignored.

China's governance model offers a different metric. Through continuous policy feedback, grassroots consultation and sustained delivery of public goods, legitimacy is measured not by periodic electoral cycles but by sustained social outcomes. This is the essence of "whole-process people's democracy" – a framework that emphasizes implementation, responsiveness and participatory governance over formalistic procedures. As political science has long distinguished between formal and substantive democracy, China's praxis bridges the two by treating legitimacy as an ongoing relationship between state and society, evaluated through tangible results.

Scholars such as Professor Zhang Weiwei have highlighted China's "selection plus election" model, which combines meritocratic appointment with democratic consultation. The success of this approach is measurable not through media but through public trust and satisfaction with governance from local to central levels. The eradication of extreme poverty stands as its most compelling illustration: a multi-decade achievement rooted in strategic planning, targeted policy implementation and institutional continuity rather than short-term political visibility. In peace studies, this aligns with Johan Galtung's concept of "positive peace," meaning human emancipation from need and fear, enabling genuine development and civic participation. It is a governance philosophy that prioritizes long-term objectives over electoral theatrics.

As China advances through successive development strategies, public policy has gradually shifted from rapid growth alone toward broader goals: common prosperity, ecological sustainability and balanced regional development. In 2026, amid accelerating geopolitical fragmentation, supply chain restructuring and intensified competition over green and digital transitions, long-term institutional capacity has emerged as a critical dimension of governance effectiveness worldwide. China's five-year planning cycles demonstrate how strategic continuity can navigate uncertainty without sacrificing social cohesion.

This people-centered approach is also reflected in evolving domestic governance metrics. The performance evaluation of local officials increasingly incorporates indicators beyond GDP growth, including environmental protection, social welfare provision and rural revitalization. This broader framework has accelerated investment in social protection systems, green energy and technological upgrading. It illustrates a model in which human development and ecological sustainability are integrated into the very criteria of governance success – another dimension of positive peace, reflecting harmony between society and nature.

The relevance of China's governance experience extends well beyond its borders, particularly for countries in the Global South and transitional economies seeking diversified development pathways. In some Western countries, external policy prescriptions have often prioritized geopolitical alignment or conditionality-driven frameworks over domestic well-being. China's cooperation model, by contrast, operates without political strings attached, offering infrastructure-driven partnerships that enhance regional connectivity, industrial modernization and economic resilience. For smaller and transitional states, reclaiming policy autonomy means recognizing that governance must be people-centered, not donor-driven. Rebuilding domestic planning capacity – a strength of the former Yugoslavia, despite its historical imperfections – is a vital lesson for the present.

Ultimately, the debate is not about ranking political systems but rethinking governance itself. The central challenge of the 21st century is whether states possess the institutional capacity to address long-term collective problems while maintaining social cohesion and improving citizens' quality of life. In this context, the question is not only who governs but how governance effectiveness should be assessed. These are not abstract academic exercises; they have direct, daily consequences for every household, especially for younger generations.

Today, the capacity to think and act beyond immediate political horizons has become a universal imperative. Long-term planning, social investment and sustainable development are no longer merely national policy choices – they are emerging as essential components of effective governance in an age defined by uncertainty. Within this broader debate, China's experience offers a valuable reference point for rethinking how legitimacy itself is defined in the 21st century.