For decades, the global conversation about a democratic governance model carried a tone of certainty. Liberal democracy was framed not as one choice among many, but as the inevitable end point of political evolution.

ALSO READ: When distant threats justify intervention but immediate ones invite sanctions

Countries that did not follow that path were often dismissed as deviations. Africa was told its institutions needed reform to resemble Western models. China was expected to open its political space as its economy grew. Russia was expectedly to be slowly progressing toward democratic consolidation. Even North Korea was frequently portrayed as a system whose collapse was only a matter of time.

ALSO READ: Africa and the new world order: Actor or arena?

But over time, reality has begun to challenge many of these long-held assumptions.

In countries long seen as the arbiters of democratic norms, cracks have begun to show. The language of crisis, once reserved for fragile states, particularly in Africa, now echoes within some of the world’s oldest democracies.

The United States offers this example. The 2020 presidential election prompted recounts, court battles, and culminated in the January 6 Capitol attack, a plain demonstration of how contested democratic processes can become. Even routine queries about the scope of presidential powers sparked national debate over the balance between executive authority and Congress.

Political struggles over term limits have also drawn public attention, while debates over media regulation, such as discussions around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, reveal how governments wrestle with the tension between free expression and accountability. These debates are not equivalent to the strict censorship that exists in some countries, but they show that even mature democracies face governance dilemmas.

In other so-called democracies, similar pressures have emerged between executives and parliaments over budgets, foreign policy, or security decisions. These examples remind us that checks and balances are never automatic; they require constant attention.

None of this means that democratic systems have lost their value, but their practice cannot be dictated solely by a single model or imposed from one corner of the world. The recent global events expose something many outside the Western world have long suspected: political models held up as universal standards are themselves contested, imperfect, and vulnerable to the same pressures of power that affect governments everywhere.

Perhaps it is for this reason that some states have long pursued alternative approaches. Countries such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia among others, have become more assertive on the global stage. Rather than conform to Western democratic prescriptions, they have developed strategies to resist their spread while consolidating their own models and expanding their influence.

Meanwhile, some so called democracies appear hesitant or divided in responding to this influence, revealing that even long-established models can struggle in a rapidly shifting, multipolar world.

China’s path brings this debate into relief. Analysts long assumed that rapid economic growth would inevitably produce Western-style political liberalisation but this prediction has not materialised. China has maintained its style of governance while achieving remarkable economic expansion. By 2025, its GDP surpassed $20.5 trillion, securing its position as the world’s second-largest economy.

Of course, economic performance does not equal political freedom and legitimacy, but the scale of China’s transformation forces a reconsideration of the assumption that a political system and economic development must follow a single institutional path.

Rwanda’s experience adds a human and historical dimension to the discussion. After the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, the country faced shattered institutions, deep social wounds, and the immense challenge of rebuilding trust. In this context, stability and national unity became urgent priorities. Rwanda developed a governance model that pairs strong central coordination with accountability mechanisms, an approach that some teachers of democratic governance label as "authoritarian”, often overlooking the historical and security realities that shaped these choices.

Like others in the West, Rwanda has made difficult trade-offs in the name of national security and stability. In any case, governments have had to weigh immediate safety against civil liberties, demonstrating that no democracy or governance model is exempt from making such choices.

Rwanda and Western democracies now face the task of balancing freedom with security. The difference lies in how these trade-offs are managed and justified. The West has often claimed the authority to define which approaches are ‘acceptable,’ judging other countries without fully considering their histories, contexts, or challenges.

But now, even the most celebrated democracies face contested elections, emergency powers, executive overreach, and debates over term limits or media regulation, the certainty with which they once judged other systems fades, revealing that the line between 'democratic' and 'authoritarian' governance is far less absolute than previously assumed.

This is not to justify authoritarianism, but to challenge the assumption that deviations from Western liberal democracy are inherently failures.

The writer is a management consultant and strategist.