The further the process of forming a new world order progresses, the more obvious it becomes that the world is dividing into successful and unsuccessful countries. Both share similar characteristics that help better assess the future of a given state formation. One key conclusion is that it is neither GDP nor the amount of weapons that distinguishes successful countries from unsuccessful ones. The ability to critically assess one’s own capabilities and history, strengths and weaknesses, to learn from mistakes, and to systematically build the future undoubtedly belongs to the tools that allow countries, even with difficult pasts, to achieve success.
A successful country is a needed country—needed by its own citizens internally and by its friends externally. It is taken into account not because it has a lot of weapons, but because it commands respect through its ability to harmoniously combine values and interests.
At the same time, success is a largely subjective—and therefore debatable—concept. To explore the topic more deeply, one can use the well-known mathematical method of proof by contradiction. Thus, let us try to formulate the common characteristics of unsuccessful countries, from which recipes for building successful ones can be derived.
The first is failing to bring anything to completion, disregarding approved decisions and plans. The reason is usually the absence of a proper political process based on transparent political parties, their programs, and election-approved strategies. As a result, the program of one government is immediately discarded by the next, even if they are ideologically close.
The second is a lack of respect for one’s own government and the formation in society of an attitude toward public officials as inherently corrupt and incompetent. This leads to endless reforms of the public administration system and the appointment of highly motivated but low-qualified individuals to key positions.
The third is low subjectivity—in other words, an exaggerated focus on “what others will say.” This stems from a misunderstanding of one’s own potential, the tools to activate it, and an inability to properly align national interests with those of other countries.
The fourth is outright disregard for intelligent individuals, who are overlooked in favor of obedient ones. The instinct for survival must be developed enough to rely on the opinions of well-prepared, capable people who often do not seek power but want to be heard. Instead, a comfortable but intellectually incapable environment guarantees failure.
The fifth is ignoring systemic solutions that require strategic analysis, coordinated action, a proper understanding of strengths and bottlenecks, and—above all—solutions that correspond to the historical, cultural, mental, and ethical characteristics of a nation. Such decisions do not necessarily reflect the majority view, but they must be subject to public discussion and conscious acceptance.
The sixth is neglecting the priority of education and culture in shaping social harmony, unity, and understanding. There is no successful country that does not invest significant resources in education and the upbringing of future generations, in fostering pride in its own history and culture, and in developing traditional arts while incorporating modern technological possibilities.
The seventh is excessive concentration of power in one set of hands and disregard for the principle of separation of powers. Yet it is precisely the proper design of the system of governance that ensures its resilience to potential disruptions caused by external or internal factors.
The eighth is the persistent creation of reasons for division, the absence of dialogue based on mutual respect and the search for compromise and harmony.
The ninth is the total oversimplification of even very complex issues that are difficult to simplify, and the triumph of populism over rational thinking.
It is worth agreeing with John F. Kennedy’s view that a country cannot be successful abroad if it is not successful at home.
