China's trajectory demonstrates that successful governance depends less on conformity to a predefined model than on the capacity to respond to changing realities and pursue steady improvement.

BEIJING, June 6 (Xinhua) -- U.S. political scientist Francis Fukuyama, best known for his "the end of history" theory explaining the post-Cold War world, once again admitted his original prediction could be wrong in a recent interview with German media.

Once firmly confident in the Western-style democracy, Fukuyama now questions the durability of U.S. primacy and concedes that China's sustained stability and ascent may ultimately upend his foundational theory.

This intellectual evolution matters not because it vindicates any single country, but because it exposes a deeper reality: national development never moves along a single, predetermined track.

First, there is no single path to modernization. Every country operates from a distinct historical starting point, with its own level of development and national priorities. The measure of success is not how closely a nation copies a foreign model, but whether its system delivers growth, raises living standards, and meets the needs of its people.

Ultimately, the value of a development path lies not in its ideological label but in its tangible results. A model succeeds when it expands opportunity, raises living standards, and empowers a nation to confront its own challenges. As the World Bank-backed Growth Commission has once plainly observed, there is no single recipe for growth.

A second lesson is that development must be tailored to national realities. Policies and institutions cannot simply be transplanted across borders; what succeeds in one country may flounder in another, because societies diverge in their histories, priorities, and capacities.

The real test is not whether a country adopts a specific model, but whether it crafts an approach that works for its unique circumstances. Learning from global best practices matters, but lasting success depends on adapting those ideas to local realities rather than treating any blueprint as a universal cure-all.

A third lesson is that no development model is static; success today offers no guarantee of success tomorrow. As Harvard economist Dani Rodrik argued in a 2024 essay for the IMF, many established policy frameworks are struggling to confront an era of emerging crises.

The broader point is that the conditions of development are constantly changing. New technologies, shifting demographics and a more uncertain global environment are creating challenges that previous generations never encountered. No country can rest on its laurels; the long-term resilience of any system depends on its capacity to adapt, respond to new realities and continuously self-correct.

China's own trajectory illustrates this point. Its development path has been a future-oriented blueprint. From the inception of "reform and opening up" to its contemporary push toward an innovation-driven, greener, and higher-value economy, China's policies have evolved to navigate shifting domestic and international landscapes.

This inherent flexibility may well explain why repeated predictions of "China's collapse" have consistently fallen short. Like any nation, China faces deep structural challenges. Yet, its trajectory demonstrates that successful governance depends less on conformity to a predefined model than on the capacity to respond to changing realities and pursue steady improvement.