In many political systems, success is measured by what can be seen quickly. New buildings come up, headline projects are launched and growth figures are offered as proof of action. But visibility is not the same as value, and speed does not guarantee endurance. Chinese President Xi Jinping has repeatedly cautioned against the pursuit of quick gains, falsified achievements and image-driven projects, arguing that political accomplishment must rest on solid, practical work. His thoughts reflect a more profound approach to judging political performance.

This approach is systematically articulated in China's concept of a "correct understanding of governance performance" or "correct view of political achievements". Its core is to answer the fundamental questions of for whom achievements are made, what kind of achievements should be made, and how to make them, emphasizing that working for the people's wellbeing is the greatest political achievement and that officials must create tangible achievements that can stand the test of practice, the people, and history.

At the center of this approach is a shift from short-term visibility toward long-term results. Political achievement should not be defined only by what is launched within an official's term, but by what continues to function and deliver benefits after that term ends. Governance quality matters more than speed. Durability is more important than spectacle.

This recalibration is closely tied to a people-centered orientation. Political success is increasingly assessed by improvements that citizens experience in daily life. Stable employment, access to healthcare and education, public safety, social security, and effective risk prevention have become the real benchmarks of achievement. Economic growth remains essential, but it is no longer treated as an isolated objective. When growth gets detached from social wellbeing, it ultimately undermines the quality of development and public trust.

China's targeted poverty alleviation campaign is a good example.

Rather than focusing solely on aggregate growth, policies addressed specific household-level constraints, from education and healthcare access to local employment opportunities. The emphasis was not on symbolic targets, but on measurable improvements in living conditions that could be sustained over time.

This logic also explains the growing emphasis on balancing visible and invisible achievements. Large-scale construction, industrial upgrading and urban renewal are highly visible and politically attractive. But it is the less visible elements, such as regulatory capacity, environmental protection, public health preparedness and social trust that determine whether development can be sustained. Opposition to vanity projects reflects the recognition that development driven by appearance rather than necessity distorts incentives and misallocates resources.

Environmental governance offers another familiar illustration. Efforts to tackle air pollution in major cities such as Beijing initially imposed economic and administrative costs. Restrictions on factories, traffic controls and energy transitions slowed some activities in the short term. Over time, however, the improved air quality reduced health risks, raised living standards in the city and strengthened public confidence. What appeared restrictive at first contributed to improving the wellbeing of people and more resilient urban development.

Economic, social and ecological objectives are therefore increasingly treated as interdependent rather than sequential. Environmental degradation translates into health burdens and productivity losses. Social inequality weakens consumption, innovation and long-term stability. Reckless growth does not advance modernization, but undermines it. Development that internalizes social and ecological costs reduces systemic risk and builds a more stable foundation for prosperity.

Turning principles into practice also requires confronting formalism and bureaucratism. Excessive focus on procedures, documents and slogans can hollow out governance by replacing problem-solving with ritual compliance. Falsification and the pursuit of quick wins distort information flows, making it harder to identify risks and rectify mistakes. Once inaccurate reporting becomes the norm, policymaking loses its feedback mechanisms and becomes more prone to miscalculation.

The renewed emphasis on down-to-earth work seeks to reconnect policy intent with lived outcomes. Governance credibility depends less on how performance is presented than on how accurately it reflects the reality. Reliable information and honest evaluation are essential to sustaining long-term development.

Cadre evaluation systems play a central role in reinforcing this shift. Moving beyond single-minded growth metrics, assessment frameworks increasingly incorporate social welfare, environmental protection, risk management, public service delivery and policy continuity. This realigns incentives and reduces the space for achievement-driven excesses. At the same time, evaluation systems must guard against replacing one narrow set of indicators with another. Oversight and accountability remain critical.

A defining feature of this approach is its treatment of time. Short-termism has long been a structural weakness in development governance, particularly where political cycles compress policy horizons. By emphasizing continuity and restraint, China's current governance discourse introduces a longer temporal perspective. Political achievement is judged not only by immediate output, but by durability and resilience to shocks.

These challenges are not unique to China. Indonesia, like many developing countries, faces similar tensions between speed and sustainability, and between visibility and substance. Development success is often measured by what is newly built rather than by how well existing systems function. Several large infrastructure projects launched under one administration have stalled or lost momentum after leadership changes. At the same time, social programmes have been rebranded or revised before their long-term impacts could be fully assessed. Such discontinuities weaken institutional memory and erode public confidence.

Indonesia's experience highlights the importance of evaluation systems that reward long-term outcomes over short-term visibility. Infrastructure that is maintained, services that remain accessible and policies that endure across political cycles are better indicators of success than ceremonial launches or headline-driven initiatives. Continuity, rather than ceremony, defines real progress.

In this context, China's evolving concept of political achievement offers useful reference points. Its value lies not in providing a model to be copied mechanically, but in emphasizing responsibility, continuity and substantive outcomes.

Ultimately, the most enduring political achievements are often the least dramatic. They quietly reduce structural risks, strengthen institutional resilience and build public trust. Modernization is not defined by speed alone, but by balance, direction and responsibility. Aligning ambition with realism and growth with sustainability is what transforms development into durable progress and governance into lasting legitimacy. In governance, what endures speaks louder than what dazzles.

The author is the executive director of PARA Syndicate, a Jakarta-based independent think tank.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.