Rethinking global power dynamics requires us to acknowledge a timeless truth that no nation’s dominance lasts forever. History has consistently shown that global leadership is cyclical, and the current order, with the United States at the helm, will inevitably shift. This recognition calls for a closer look at America’s foreign policy and its insistence on exporting liberal democracy as a universal standard.
Critics argue that imposing a single model of governance without regard for cultural, social, and ethical differences often proves counterproductive. In societies where corruption, greed, and weak civic responsibility prevail, democracy can quickly become a hollow framework. Instead of fostering stability and prosperity, it risks entrenching a system that enables the political elite to enrich themselves while excluding the broader population from meaningful benefits.
The same pattern of dominance and dependency is also visible in economic engagements. A striking contrast exists between the Western and Chinese approaches to international business. The Western model, led by the United States and Europe, is often built on exclusivity and long-term partnerships. While this can provide distributors with unique rights, the arrangement typically creates dependence on Western technology and branding. This form of economic subservience may hinder a developing nation’s industrial and technological growth, locking it into a cycle of reliance rather than progress.
China, on the other hand, adopts a very different approach. Its dealings are largely transactional and arms-length, rarely offering exclusivity to any single partner. By engaging multiple distributors and even allowing widespread rebranding of the same products, China fosters intense competition and prioritizes commerce over political or ideological alignment. This pragmatic approach appeals to many nations that prefer straightforward business without strings attached.
The real question is which model best supports national independence and long-term development. The Western method often offers technology but ties the recipient to enduring reliance, while China’s transactional style, though not accompanied by deep alliances or technology transfer, places the burden of innovation squarely on the shoulders of its partners. Ironically, this lack of crutches can create an environment where nations are compelled to develop their own technological capacities.
Viewed this way, China’s approach may ultimately present a hidden advantage. Self-reliance has always been the bedrock of true growth, for technological mastery cannot simply be gifted. It must be pursued, acquired, and refined through independent effort. Nations that embrace this challenge, rather than depending on the benevolence of external powers, may find themselves better positioned to achieve sustainable progress and lasting sovereignty.
Happy 65th Independence celebration to all Nigerians, long live Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Bola Babarinde, South Africa.
