Why Intention Matters More Than the System: Rethinking Politics, Prosperity, and What We Can Learn from One Another

Public debates about politics often revolve around forms: democracy versus autocracy, top-down versus bottom-up, East versus West. These debates tend to assume that if we choose the “right” system, good outcomes will naturally follow. Yet history and present reality suggest something more complex. Across political systems, similar tools can produce very different outcomes depending on an often overlooked factor: intention.

This article does not argue that one political system is superior to another. Instead, it invites reflection on a different question: What happens when systems, whatever their form, are guided by an intention to create shared prosperity, versus an intention to benefit a few at the expense of many?

Beyond labels

In Western discourse, China is often framed through the lens of its political structure: authoritarian, top-down, non-democratic. Yet if we compare China with other autocratic systems, such as North Korea or Cuba, the differences in development outcomes are striking.

Over the past four decades, China has dramatically reduced extreme poverty, expanded infrastructure at unprecedented speed, and improved living standards for hundreds of millions of people. This broad focus on material wellbeing has produced relatively high levels of public approval. This does not make China “right” and other systems “wrong.” It simply shows that the same political format can lead to radically different outcomes depending on the guiding vision. In China’s case, this vision is one of long-term prosperity and stability rather than stagnation or isolation.

Democracy is not immune to the concentration of power

Democracy, often treated as the moral counterpoint to authoritarianism, also deserves more nuanced examination. Even in the best-functioning democracies, electoral systems inevitably produce winners and losers: a majority that feels represented and a minority that feels excluded. 
More troubling is the growing body of research showing that many so-called democracies are heavily influenced by elite interests, corporate lobbying, and information manipulation. Studies in political economy suggest that policy outcomes in several Western democracies align more closely with the preferences of economic elites than with those of average citizens.
In such cases, democratic form exists, but the overall intention is compromised.

Astroturfing: simulated participation and political influence 

One example of how intention matters more than tools is astroturfing, the practice of creating fake grassroots movements to simulate public support for particular agendas.
Instances of astroturfing in Western democracies include efforts by the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt on climate science, despite acknowledging climate risks in internal studies. Globally, the tobacco industry has established various ‘citizens’ groups’ to oppose public health measures and advocate for smoking as an individual freedom.

Astroturfing uses the tools of democratic participation—petitions, public comments, advocacy campaigns—but with an intention that undermines democratic decision-making. The result is not collective self-governance, but manufactured consent. The lesson here is not that democracy fails, but that systems and tools alone do not protect societies from harm when intentions are extractive.

How systems reinforce underlying intentions

Whether top-down or bottom-up, political systems tend to amplify the intentions embedded within them. When the goal is collective wellbeing—safe housing, clean water, functional infrastructure, social stability—systems evolve to support those outcomes. When the goal is wealth concentration, power preservation, or ideological dominance, systems adapt accordingly, regardless of whether they are democratic or authoritarian. This is why debates framed as “democracy versus authoritarianism” often miss the point. Across cultures and contexts, human needs remain remarkably consistent: safety, dignity, belonging, access to education, and the possibility of a decent life. What differs is not what people need, but how societies choose to organize themselves to meet those needs.

Learning instead of ranking

Rather than asking which system is “better,” we might ask more generative questions:

• What has worked in different contexts, and why?
• What failed, and what can we learn from it within our own context?
• How do historical, cultural, and economic conditions shape outcomes?

Moving away from a “one-size-fits-all” model allows societies to adapt governance approaches to local realities instead of forcing ideological templates that may not fit. It also helps shift discourse away from moral binaries, like right versus wrong, toward context-sensitive problem-solving.

From politics to business: why intention still matters

This emphasis on intention also underpins my proposal to redefine business as “an entity that solves social issues and creates social value in a financially sustainable way.” This definition deliberately avoids moral absolutism. What counts as a “social issue” or “social value” varies across contexts, cultures, and moments in history. What matters is the orientation: Is economic activity designed to reduce harm and improve wellbeing, or to extract value regardless of consequences?

The definition also acknowledges a practical reality: for now, money still matters. People must pay rent, buy food, and sustain livelihoods. The difference lies in whether finance becomes the goal or the enabler. When money is treated as a means rather than an end, economic systems can support prosperity without demanding perpetual crisis to remain profitable.

The Invisible Backpack and the roots of intention

Intentions do not emerge in a vacuum. They are shaped by what I call the Invisible Backpack—the accumulated experiences, traumas, cultural narratives, and social conditioning that we carry with us. Research in psychology shows that unexamined experiences strongly influence moral judgment, leadership behaviour, and policy preferences. Leaders and citizens who are unaware of their Invisible Backpacks may unconsciously reproduce fear-based, exclusionary, or dominance-oriented systems. Reflecting on the Invisible Backpack is therefore a political and economic necessity. Inclusive and diverse societies require not only structural reforms, but self-awareness about how different (growing up) environments create(d) different intentions.

What unites us

Across political systems, cultures, religions, and identities, people seek remarkably similar things: safety, meaning, connection, and the possibility of a dignified life. Even if systems differ, our needs are the same, so intentions matter much more than we give them credit for. If sustainability transitions are to succeed, they must be grounded in a shared commitment to reducing harm and expanding wellbeing however that may look in each context, not only in better tools or smarter systems. Rather than asking which system is right, we might ask a simpler, more human question: What kind of future are we trying to create, and for whom?