Introduction
Why do some nations rise to shape the world, while others—larger, older, richer—remain trapped in cycles of instability, populism, and dependency? How is it that Japan and Germany, shattered to dust, rebuilt themselves into economic and technological powers, while resource-abundant Venezuela, Iraq, and Libya struggle even to maintain stability or functioning institutions (Corrales and Penfold 2015; Dodge 2013)? Why does tiny Israel move global processes, while larger Middle Eastern states cannot convert potential into sovereignty (Senor and Singer 2009; Nasr 2006)? And how is China advancing confidently toward superpower status, while many Western democracies sink into internal polarization, emotional politics, and institutional paralysis (Allison 2017; Doshi 2021)?
The answers are not written in geography, ethnicity, religion, climate, or historical destiny: they are found in the ability of states to build institutions grounded in rational decision-making and long-horizon strategy, instead of surrendering governance to emotional populism, identity mobilization, and the impulses of the moment (Nye 2004; Fukuyama 2014). Nations governed by reason convert energy into power; nations governed by emotional politics burn it away—lost in fear, humiliation, resentment, or symbolic glorification. Reason multiplies; emotion consumes (Kahneman 2011; Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen 2000). This is not a new insight. Three centuries ago, Baruch Spinoza warned that human beings believe themselves free only because they see their actions, while remaining blind to the forces that determine them (Spinoza 1996 [1677]). A state ruled by passion is not free—it is captive either to the crowd or to the charismatic leader who claims to embody it (Weber 1978; Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018). In today’s world of algorithmic mobilization, psychological warfare, and permanent political agitation, Spinoza’s voice feels uncannily present.
Some nations plan fifty years ahead; others cannot see beyond the next election—or the next street storm. This conflict will shape the twenty-first-century order and decide who writes history and who is merely carried by it. Yet the discussion must be carried out carefully. Earlier geopolitical theorists, such as Karl Haushofer, spoke of “organizational power,” imagining Germany as a nation destined to guide “less capable” peoples. That racialized determinism, used to justify empire, proved both morally bankrupt and historically catastrophic. Today, we know that no nation is born rational or emotional. Institutional strength is not a genetic inheritance; it is constructed—through education, civic responsibility, governance reforms, and strategic discipline.
In this light, the European Union offers a modern alternative: a peaceful, transformative framework rooted in the Copenhagen criteria and reinforced by conditionality. It provides a path for societies to evolve from personalized, emotional rule toward rational, rules-based governance—independent courts, transparent institutions, accountable leadership, and policy grounded in evidence rather than impulse. The EU model shows that rational governance is a choice, a discipline, and a culture that can be learned. It replaces short-term confrontation with long-term development and sovereign agency. It is, perhaps, one of the few remaining civilizational projects capable of turning instability into stability and destiny into self-government.
The Rationality Advantage
Modern political scholarship strongly echoes Spinoza’s insight that real freedom—and real agency—emerge not from emotional impulse, but from rational understanding (Spinoza 1996 [1677]). States succeed when they build rational-legal authority, accountable bureaucracy, and predictable institutions capable of long-term planning and coordinated action—the structural foundations Max Weber identified as the essence of the modern state (Weber 1978). Where governance is personalistic—driven by charisma, fear, and identity mobilization—instability sooner or later follows.
Contemporary research deepens this classical argument. Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson show that inclusive, accountable institutions—not resource wealth or past glory—determine long-term prosperity and sovereignty (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012). Peter Evans describes the model of “embedded autonomy,” where effective states combine technocratic capacity with structured cooperation between bureaucracy and society (Evans 1995). Robert Putnam demonstrates that social trust and civic cooperation generate institutional innovation, while distrust and factionalism fracture state capacity (Putnam 1993; Fukuyama 1995). This aligns with political-psychological studies by Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen, showing that emotional politics—built on fear, humiliation, and ressentiment—produces polarization and paralysis rather than pragmatic problem-solving (Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen 2000). Daniel Kahneman further proves that emotionally driven decision-making leads to systematic errors that undermine strategic planning and ultimately sabotage national goals (Kahneman 2011).
History illustrates this pattern vividly. The Meiji Restoration transformed Japan by shifting from emotional feudal loyalty to rational bureaucracy, industrial policy, and scientific education, turning a peripheral kingdom into a great power within one generation (Beasley 1972; Woo-Cumings 1999). After World War II, Germany abandoned ideological fanaticism and rebuilt through technocratic rationality, constitutionalism, and social partnership, becoming Europe’s economic engine (Fukuyama 2014). Singapore and South Korea escaped poverty by prioritizing meritocracy, anti-corruption institutions, and export-oriented strategy rather than populist nationalism (Woo-Cumings 1999; Auers 2015). Israel, surrounded by existential threats and lacking natural resources, converted human capital, strategic planning, and disciplined coordination into resilience and global influence (Senor and Singer 2009).
Taken together, these cases affirm a simple but decisive truth: rational systems convert resources into capability, while emotional systems exhaust them without result. In the modern world, power is not the possession of territory or wealth, but the ability to transform resources into strategic effect (Nye 2004). Rationality converts; emotion destroys.
The contrast can be summarized clearly:
| Rational Governance Produces: | Emotional Governance Produces: |
| Strong, accountable institutions | Institutional collapse |
| Long-term strategic planning | Short-term reaction |
| Cooperation and trust | Polarization and factionalism |
| Sovereignty and agency | Dependency and vulnerability |
| Innovation and efficiency | Waste, corruption, and regression |
| Global influence | Manipulation by others |
Nations that institutionalize rational decision-making rise; nations governed by emotional mobilization, symbolic identity, and ideological performance inevitably decline. Emotional politics may electrify crowds or temporarily unite societies, but it cannot sustain the complexity and discipline modern statehood requires (Levitsky and Roberts 2011; Meredith 2005; Young 2012). Rational governance is the real engine of national power.
When Emotion Rules: The Cost of Irrational Politics
States governed by emotional politics repeat cycles of collapse regardless of wealth, population, or geography. Emotional mobilization can mobilize crowds for a moment, ignite squares, or shake governments—but it cannot build durable institutions, coherent strategy, or long-term national development. It produces volatility, impulsive decisions, and internal fracture (Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen 2000; Kahneman 2011). Political psychology shows that systems driven by revenge, humiliation narratives, mythologized heroism, sectarian identity, or charismatic populism burn through resources with spectacular speed, leaving behind exhaustion and institutional ruin (Kahneman 2011; Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen 2000).
Venezuela is a tragic illustration. Once among Latin America’s richest countries—with the largest proven oil reserves on earth—it spiralled into collapse through populist emotionalism and personalistic rule. Hugo Chávez built power not on rational institutional design, but on resentment, symbolism, and mass identity mobilization. The outcome was hyperinflation, mass emigration, humanitarian crisis, and institutional breakdown—despite unprecedented oil income (Corrales and Penfold 2015).
The Venezuelan story confirms Acemoglu and Robinson’s argument that states fail when extractive elites use emotional mobilization to destroy institutions rather than build inclusive governance (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012).
Libya and Iraq stand as similar warnings. Both were wealthy in natural resources, yet leadership rooted in tribal loyalty, emotional spectacle, and fear hollowed out the state. Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein governed through personalistic power and theatrical ideology, eroding bureaucracy and leaving no resilient institutions capable of succession or crisis management (Dodge 2013). When external intervention arrived, it merely exposed the institutional vacuum (Skocpol 1979). Emotional nationalism and revenge politics filled the void, plunging both countries into fragmentation and endless violence (Nasr 2006).
Lebanon demonstrates the destructive logic of identity-centered politics. A system organized around sectarian competition rather than professional administration produced infrastructural collapse, economic implosion, and political paralysis (Makdisi 2021). Emotion—born from historical grievances, communal fear, and symbolic representation—became the governing principle. The crisis of 2019–2023 exposed the consequences: banking collapse, currency destruction, and a state unable to perform even basic functions. Identity politics generated passion, not governance (Lustick 2021).
Many African states experienced a similar fate after independence. Emotional liberation mythology replaced rational institutional construction. Charismatic mobilization and revolutionary symbolism took the place of bureaucratic authority and rule of law, producing weak institutions prone to coups and chronic instability (Young 2012; Meredith 2005). The state became a prize to be captured, not a system for generating public goods (Fukuyama 1995; Evans 1995).
Latin America offers further evidence. Argentina, again and again, falls into the cycle of emotional populism—identity mobilization overwhelming rational fiscal policy, producing recurrent crises, hyperinflation, and institutional breakdown (Levitsky and Roberts 2011).
Cuba stands as one of the most striking cases of emotional governance, where political authority is sustained less by rational decision-making and evidence-based policy, and more by charismatic speeches, revolutionary mythology, and emotionally charged narratives of anti-imperialism, justice, and equality. These symbolic instruments often substitute for rational planning and public policy grounded in real socioeconomic needs.
Across all these histories, one conclusion echoes clearly: emotional politics exhausts. Rational systems convert resources into capability; emotional systems consume them and leave only crisis behind. Emotional legitimacy cannot substitute for administrative rationality; states built on symbolic politics eventually collapse under their own passions (Young 2012; Meredith 2005).
The transformation from rational to emotional governance often occurs when states face shocks that overwhelm institutional capacity and fracture political consensus. Coming back to the Lebanon case described above, we have a country that, despite structural fragility, once maintained a functioning constitutional balance. Yet, the massive influx of Palestinian refugees after the Arab–Israeli wars beginning in 1948, combined with Israeli military intervention in southern Lebanon, and the subsequent militarization of Palestinian factions operating from Lebanese territory — alongside the rise of sectarian militias, destabilized the country’s fragile equilibrium and ultimately triggered the 1975–1990 Civil War (Harris 2012). The collapse of institutional authority opened space for identity-based mobilization, external interventions, and militia rule — replacing rational coordination with emotional competition and survival politics.
Venezuela mirrors this dynamic through a different sequence: institutional decay occurring when political leaders dismantled constraints on executive power, politicized the oil economy, and mobilized emotional populist narratives. When economic shocks and sanctions hit an already weakened institutional structure, the country descended into economic and humanitarian permanent crisis (Corrales and Penfold 2015; Hausmann and Rodríguez 2014).
Together, these cases show that emotional governance is not merely a cultural predisposition, but a systemic consequence of structural shocks — whether demographic, economic, or geopolitical (caused by external interventions) — that fracture institutions and replace rational policymaking with mobilization, grievance, and reaction. States with weak institutional resilience may face similar trajectories if unable to neutralize such pressures before they overwhelm the system.
The Geopolitical Stress Test: 2022–2025
The past three years have become a dramatic stress test for the global system, exposing the widening divide between rational and emotional governance. The world has entered a phase where the capacity for strategic, long-horizon thinking is the decisive factor separating national ascent from decline. Since 2022, states guided by discipline, planning, and institutional coherence have strengthened their positions, while those driven by fear, humiliation narratives, anger, and ideological spectacle have suffered deep losses in power and stability (Nye 2004; Fukuyama 2014). Weber’s insight remains strikingly relevant: modern power rests on rational-legal authority, not on charismatic emotional domination (Weber 1978). The contemporary map confirms his warning.
Russia’s War in Ukraine
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is an archetype of emotional geopolitics—fuelled by imperial nostalgia, grievance, and personalistic ambition rather than rational strategic calculus (Sakwa 2023). The Kremlin misjudged its own capabilities and underestimated both Ukraine’s resilience and Western unity (Giles 2022). The result has been strategic catastrophe: depleted armed forces, sanctions-driven economic contraction, demographic loss, shattered international influence, and a dramatically strengthened NATO rather than a weakened one (Kuzio 2023). A war intended to resurrect great-power status instead exposed institutional decay—an outcome fully consistent with Acemoglu and Robinson’s argument that extractive emotional systems ultimately destroy rather than build capacity (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012).
The European Union: Rational Democratic Resilience
The European Union stands in sharp contrast—a demonstration of rational institutional strength. Often criticized as slow or overly procedural, the EU’s technocratic architecture proved remarkably resilient through multiple converging crises: the Eurozone collapse, COVID-19, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Riddervold and Newsome 2023). Europe coordinated sweeping sanctions, executed the fastest energy realignment in modern history, mobilized strategic support for Ukraine, and enabled NATO enlargement to Finland and Sweden. Where emotional nationalist politics demanded fragmentation, rational rules-based decision-making produced cohesion. The crisis confirmed that institutional rationality may seem slow in normal times, but becomes a strategic superpower in shock periods—precisely the dynamic identified by Evans and Putnam regarding institutional design and civic cooperation (Evans 1995; Putnam 1993).
United States: Rational Institutions under Emotional Siege
The United States became a global superpower through rational institutions, scientific innovation, and the capacity to mobilize national resources through long-term planning and bipartisan consensus (Allison 2017; Nye 2004). Yet, growing polarization has transformed public life into emotional confrontation where identity overwhelms policy. The January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol symbolized the vulnerability of rational constitutional order to emotional populist mobilization (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018). Elections have begun to resemble cultural wars rather than policy debates, and governance often sinks into paralysis—echoing Kahneman’s warning that emotional reasoning systematically undermines judgment (Kahneman 2011). The current administration has seemingly deepened the crisis of rationality in decision making. If the United States cannot restore rational planning, it risks losing the strategic advantages that once made it exceptional.
China: Long-Horizon Rationality
China illustrates the power of disciplined long-term planning, taking roots from the 25-century-old rules-based Confucian teachings. Today, its state invests heavily in industrial strategy, technological development, and global infrastructure through the Belt & Road Initiative, operating on time horizons measured in decades (Halper 2010; Doshi 2021). While authoritarian, its system prioritizes national capacity, coordination, and measurable outcomes rather than symbolic ideology. China is winning the time-horizon competition, while many democracies struggle with emotional short-termism (Fukuyama 2014). This in no way justifies authoritarian rule, and we should remember that history shows its rationality has limits: demographic decline, repression, and rigid information control can ultimately erode a state’s capacity (Skocpol 1979).
The Middle East: The Weight of Emotion
Medieval Arab caliphates, and their ideological successor the Ottoman Empire, are often misinterpreted through a purely religious or emotional lens. In practice, however, their political architecture and international relations were grounded in rational statecraft: advanced administrative and legal systems, tolerance-based governance of diverse populations, and pragmatic geopolitical strategies. Their durability and imperial success were based not on emotional mobilization, but on carefully calculated diplomacy, taxation systems, trade networks, and military organization. Indeed, today’s Middle East shows the destructive potential of emotional politics with painful clarity. The Israeli-Hamas war following the October 7, 2023, attacks escalated through trauma, fear, and symbolic revenge, overwhelming rational security calculation (Lustick 2021). Iran’s regional strategy likewise prioritizes ideological confrontation and sectarian mobilization over development or prosperity (Nasr 2006). Across the region, humiliation, historical grievance, and symbolic identity repeatedly overpower compromise and institution-building—confirming Young’s and Meredith’s broader findings that emotional post-revolutionary systems tend toward fragmentation, not capacity (Young 2012; Meredith 2005).
Across all these cases, the pattern is unmistakable: rational systems gain strength in crisis; emotional systems collapse under complexity. Rationality converts resources into capability and builds power; emotion consumes and destroys them without result.
The Rationality Dividend: The Theory of Collective Rational Agency
The divide between rational and emotional governance reveals an essential law of political development: states rise when they institutionalize reason, and decline when they surrender power to emotion. Rational political systems build durable capacity; emotional systems burn through resources without producing sustainable outcomes (Nye 2004; Fukuyama 2014). Rationality enables societies to coordinate collective action, plan beyond the horizon, and respond coherently to crisis. Emotional governance replaces capability with symbolic performance, producing fragility, corruption, polarization, and dependency (Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen 2000; Kahneman 2011). Rational systems convert human talent, financial assets, and geopolitical opportunity into strategic capability; emotional systems consume them in flames of passion and spectacle. As Joseph Nye observes, modern power is defined not by the possession of resources, but by the ability to transform resources into effective outcomes and influence (Nye 2004). Francis Fukuyama reaches the same conclusion: national development depends on state capacity, social trust, and institutional coherence—not wealth alone or revolutionary passion (Fukuyama 1995, 2014).
Max Weber’s insight remains decisive: rational-legal authority creates predictability, legitimacy, and efficiency, while charismatic emotional rule breeds instability and collapse (Weber 1978). Peter Evans reinforces this, showing that successful states balance technocratic professionalism with structured cooperation between state and society—what he calls “embedded autonomy” (Evans 1995). Robert Putnam and Theda Skocpol likewise demonstrate that civic trust and historically grounded institutional design enable collective problem-solving and resilience, whereas emotional division fractures societies into paralysis (Putnam 1993; Skocpol 1979).
These findings are summarized in the table below:
| Rational Governance Produces: | Emotional Governance Produces: |
| Strong, accountable institutions | Institutional collapse |
| Long-term strategic planning | Short-term, reactive decision-making |
| Social trust and cooperation | Polarization, factionalism and distrust |
| Sovereignty and geopolitical autonomy | Dependency, manipulation |
| Innovation and efficiency | Corruption, stagnation |
| Global influence | Loss of agency |
History is unambiguous: rational political cultures are engines of sovereignty; emotional political cultures are self-destructive. States that rise invest in discipline, meritocracy, and long-horizon strategy. States that fall celebrate grievance, symbolic identity, charismatic leaders, and emotional spectacle (Levitsky and Roberts 2011; Young 2012; Meredith 2005). Nations rise not simply through ideologies, resources or geography, but through collective (rational) agency (Ridge 2005)—the capacity of society to act coherently through time. This capability emerges when rationality is institutionalized across multiple interconnectedlevels of political and societal organization:
- Individuals educated to think critically rather than emotionally.
Education in scientific reasoning, analytical thinking, and civic responsibility produces citizens capable of informed deliberation rather than reactive emotional politics (Kahneman 2011; Putnam 1993). Emotional cultures encourage reflexive identity politics rather than rational evaluation. - Institutions governed by rule of law and technocratic competence.
Predictability, procedural fairness, and meritocratic administration enable effective execution of policy and strategic planning (Weber 1978; Evans 1995). Emotional regimes replace rules with improvization, loyalty tests, and spectacle. - Elites selected by merit rather than charisma or loyalty.
Rational states elevate leaders capable of planning and managing complexity; emotional states elevate demagogues who mobilize anger, fear, and symbolism (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012; Allison 2017). - Society bound by trust rather than grievance.
High-trust societies sustain cooperation, innovation, and constructive political engagement (Fukuyama 1995). Emotional mobilization erodes trust and transforms politics into an existential zero-sum identity war. - Foreign policy guided by strategy rather than symbolic emotionalism.
Rational states invest in alliances, diplomacy, and long-term stability; emotional states choose escalation, theatrical gestures, and ideological confrontation—behaviors associated with collapse (Nasr 2006; Giles 2022).
When these foundations align, nations develop sovereign capability and strategic resilience. When they deteriorate, emotional mobilization fills the vacuum. Emotion may mobilize crowds, but it cannot maintain institutions, bring stability, well-being or plan the future (Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen 2000). Movements driven by passion ignite rapidly but burn out quickly—leaving crisis, fragmentation, and dependency. It seems that rationality is a structural advantage in world politics, while emotional governance is a structural liability. The concept of collective agency has already been extensively examined in the work of Yolles, Fink and Frieden (2010), who define collective agency as the capacity of a group or social system to act purposefully through shared meaning, values and coordinated structures. In their framework, agency emerges when members develop cohesion, identity, and organizational purpose, enabling the collective to behave as an integrated actor rather than as a set of separate individuals. Their model focuses on the internal dynamics that enable collective action, such as culture, identity, normative coherence and organizational learning. Building on this foundation, we introduce the Theory of Collective Rational Agency, which extends their approach by adding a critical dimension — rationality as the determinant of the quality and sustainability of collective action. While collective agency explains how groups can act together, collective rational agency seeks to explain why certain collectives succeed or fail depending on whether their action is guided by rational decision-making rather than emotional mobilization, ideological impulses or charismatic manipulation.
In this sense, rationality becomes the dividend that transforms collective agency from mere coordinated behavior into strategic and future-oriented governance capacity. Rational collectives rely on fact-based decision-making, deliberation, institutional checks and long-term planning, producing resilient and stable outcomes — whereas emotional or irrational collectives may mobilise power quickly, but often collapse into conflict, populism or authoritarian capture. Thus, the Theory of Collective Rational Agency reframes the study of collective action from a descriptive sociological level to a normative and predictive analytical framework, directly applicable to contemporary political dynamics, and to distinguishing between democratic and emotional systems of governance.
The Future of Global Competition and the Imperative of Rational Statehood
It would be misleading to claim that the struggle between authoritarian and democratic systems has disappeared; on the contrary, it is intensifying with unprecedented clarity. But beneath this visible confrontation lies a deeper structural divide that cuts across political forms: the divide between rational and emotional political systems. The world is no longer shaped only by ideology, regime type, or geopolitical alignment. It is shaped by the ability—or inability—of states to think long-term, discipline decision-making, and convert resources into strategy. Rational states—whether democratic or authoritarian—set long-term goals, allocate resources with discipline, and learn through their institutions. Emotional states burn through historical opportunity in a single season, exchanging capacity for spectacle, symbolic gesture, and bursts of passion (Fukuyama 2014; Nye 2004). In an age driven by technological acceleration, global interdependence, and mounting existential risk, the ability to act rationally over time has become the true currency of power. The future world order will not be determined by who possesses the most land, population, or natural resources, but by who can convert assets into long-horizon strategiccapability—a process possible only inside rational, institutionally coherent political systems (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012). The crises of recent years demonstrate this clearly: states that institutionalize reason and discipline show resilience, innovation, and sovereign autonomy, while those ruled by emotional mobilization fall into fragmentation and dependency. Rationality is becoming the competitive advantage of the modern era.
Interestingly rational democracies seek to transform their partners into capable, sovereign (EU, US, G7), rational actors. They invest in institution-building, economic modernization, and shared standards, in order to empower partners to strengthen stability and create networks of cooperation rather than dependence. Rational democratic states do not fear the strength of others; they rely on it.
Authoritarian emotional systems, on the other hand, do not seek capable partners, but compliant satellites. Their foreign policy is built on domination rather than development, extracting weakness rather than cultivating capacity. They fear strong neighbors, and prefer fractured, dependent clients who can be controlled through fear, propaganda, and identity mobilization rather than through institutions and shared interests.
For smaller states striving to protect sovereignty and agency, the strategic choice is existential. Aligning with emotional authoritarian powers leads inevitably to clientelism, dependence, and the erosion of sovereignty. Aligning with rational democratic systems offers at least the possibility of institutional development, real autonomy, and strategic evolution. In the emerging world order, the question is therefore not only who rules, but how they rule. Rational states—whether democratic or authoritarian—will continue to dominate emotional ones. Yet, only rational democracies possess the incentive and the moral architecture to help their partners rise rather than shrink. For nations willing to secure independence and shape their own future, the choice of partners determines their destiny.
Instead of a Conclusion: The Strategic Imperative
If states wish to build sovereign capability and avoid decline, they must deliberately construct collective rational agency. Nothing about national success is automatic or inherited; it is built—stone by stone—through institutions, discipline, and long-horizon choices. In this respect, the reform process associated with EU integration, applied to both candidate countries and close partners, serves precisely this purpose. It cultivates a political culture and institutional infrastructure capable of sustaining rational, rules-based governance rather than emotional, personalized power.
The EU’s conditionality framework is engineered to shape technocratic administration, judicial independence, transparency, accountability, and evidence-based governance. It strengthens the foundations of rational statehood and reduces vulnerability to emotional populism or authoritarian reversal (Weber 1978; Evans 1995). But such transformation is never merely technical—it demands political courage, cultural commitment, and a willingness to choose discipline over spectacle, strategy over outrage, and long-term sovereignty over short-term applause.
Nations that seek resilience and the capacity to shape their future rather than be shaped by it must defend the rule of law and professional public administration, ensuring predictability and competent governance rather than loyalty networks and personal rule (Weber 1978; Evans 1995). They must invest in scientific education, analytical reasoning, and civic literacy, building cognitive resilience against manipulation, and enabling informed democratic participation (Kahneman 2011; Putnam 1993). They must cultivate national purpose rather than emotional nationalism; strengthening cohesion through shared projects rather than mythologized grievance. Successful states reward competence and integrity over charisma and obedience, recognizing that leadership selection either strengthens or destroys national capacity (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012). They build social trust, enabling cooperation, innovation, and institutional resilience (Fukuyama 1995), and they protect public discourse from emotional manipulation and disinformation, defending the informational space required for rational deliberation (Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen 2000).
For countries pursuing EU accession or association, this is not abstract theory, but a practical roadmap: implementing European Commission-guided rule-of-law standards, judicial independence, public administrative reform, anti-corruption mechanisms, de-oligarchization, etc., is the surest path out of emotional, personality-driven politics and toward rational, evidence-based governance. Therefore, states that choose rationality rise; states that choose emotional mobilization fall. The future international order will belong to those who grasp the most urgent strategic truth of our time: nations must choose whether they will govern through reason or be governed by passion. That choice will determine not only their internal destinies, but the very balance of power that defines our world.
References
Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2012. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York: Crown.
https://ia801506.us.archive.org/27/items/WhyNationsFailTheOriginsODaronAcemoglu/Why-Nations-Fail_-The-Origins-o-Daron-Acemoglu.pdf
Allison, Graham. 2017. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
https://www.hmhco.com/shop/books/Destined-for-War/9780544935273
Auers, Daunis. 2015. Comparative Politics and Government of the Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the 21st Century. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://prussia.online/Data/Book/co/comparative-politics-and-government-of-the-baltic-states/Auers%20D.%20Comparative%20Politics%20and%20Government%20of%20the%20Baltic%20States%20(2015),%20OCR.pdf
Beasley, W. G. 1972. The Meiji Restoration. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/dokumen.pub_the-meiji-restoration-9780804708159-9780804779906.pdf
Corrales, Javier, and Michael Penfold. 2015. Dragon in the Tropics: The Legacy of Hugo Chávez. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
https://www.brookings.edu/books/dragon-in-the-tropics-second-edition/
Dodge, Toby. 2013. Iraq: From War to a New Authoritarianism. London: Routledge / International Institute for Strategic Studies.
https://www.iiss.org/books/iraq-from-war-to-a-new-authoritarianism
Doshi, Rush. 2021. The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://books.google.ge/books/about/The_Long_Game.html?id=NS1rzQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y
Evans, Peter. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691018470/embedded-autonomy
Fukuyama, Francis. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press.
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Trust/Francis-Fukuyama/9780684825250
Fukuyama, Francis. 2014. Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Giles, Keir. 2022. Russia’s War on Everybody, and What It Means for You. London: Bloomsbury.
https://dokumen.pub/russias-war-on-everybody-and-what-it-means-for-you-9781350255081-9781350255111-9781350255104.html
Halper, Stefan. 2010. The Beijing Consensus: How China’s Authoritarian Model Will Dominate the Twenty-First Century. New York: Basic Books.
https://www.kropfpolisci.com/china.us.realism.halper.pdf
Harris, William. 2012. Lebanon: A History, 600–2011. New York: Oxford University Press. https://www.scribd.com/document/607699918/Lebanon-a-History-600-2011-PDFDrive
Hausmann, Ricardo, and Francisco Rodríguez, eds. 2014. Venezuela before Chávez: Anatomy of an Economic Collapse. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. https://frrodriguez.web.wesleyan.edu/docs/Books/Venezuela_Anatomy_of_a_Collapse.pdf
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
https://ia800603.us.archive.org/10/items/DanielKahnemanThinkingFastAndSlow/Daniel%20Kahneman-Thinking%2C%20Fast%20and%20Slow%20%20.pdf
Kuzio, Taras. 2023. Genocide and Fascism in Putin’s Russia: Ukraine and the Future of Europe. London: Routledge.
https://www.ibidem.eu/out/media/vlb_9783838217918_2.pdf
Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown. https://psi424.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/Levitsky%20%26%20Ziblatt%2C%20How%20Democracies%20Die_%20What%20History%20Reveals%20about%20Our%20Future%20%282019%20–%20Penguin%20Books%29.pdf
Levitsky, Steven, and Kenneth Roberts, eds. 2011. The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
https://books.google.mw/books?id=eKOwSqYH5rcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Lustick, Ian. 2021. Paradigm Lost: From Two-State Solution to One-State Reality. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/16338.html
Makdisi, Samir. 2022. The Lebanese Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences. Beirut: AUB Issam Fares Institute.
https://erf.org.eg/app/uploads/2022/08/1661157830_526_726054_1562.pdf
Marcus, George E., W. Russell Neuman, and Michael MacKuen. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
https://books.google.ge/books?id=XkyjBNvlMKQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Meredith, Martin. 2005. The State of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence. London: Free Press.
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-State-of-Africa/Martin-Meredith/9780743232227
Nasr, Vali. 2006. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future. New York: Norton.
https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393329685
Nye, Joseph S. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/joseph-s-nye-jr-soft-power.pdf
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
https://books.google.ge/books?id=gKZP8_Tp27UC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Riddervold, Marianne, and Guri Rosén Newsome. 2023. The European Union and Crisis Response. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-51791-5
Sakwa, Richard. 2023. The Lost Peace: How the West Failed to Prevent a Second Cold War. New Haven: Yale University Press.
https://books.google.ge/books?id=_v7bEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Senor, Dan, and Saul Singer. 2009. Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle. New York: Twelve.
https://ia600509.us.archive.org/7/items/TheLeanStartupErickRies/start-up_nation_the_stor.pdf
Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://lib.ysu.am/disciplines_bk/973a6bd25c00fa14f70b5e441df98e29.pdf
Spinoza, Baruch. 1996 [orig. 1677]. Ethics. Translated by Edwin Curley. New York: Penguin Classics.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/317237/ethics-by-baruch-spinoza/
Weber, Max. 1922/1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. PDF edition. https://dn790001.ca.archive.org/0/items/MaxWeberEconomyAndSociety/MaxWeberEconomyAndSociety.pdf
Woo-Cumings, Meredith, ed. 1999. The Developmental State. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
https://books.google.ge/books?id=7eoqPXmpRkUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yolles, Maurice; Fink, Gerhard; and Frieden, B. Roy. A Theory of the Collective Agency. Working Paper, Centre for the Creation of Coherent Change & Knowledge (C4K), Liverpool John Moores University, February 2014. file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/2010ATheoryoftheCollectiveAgency-YollesFinkandFriendenrevised.pdf
Young, Crawford. 2012. The Post-Colonial State in Africa: Fifty Years of Independence, 1960–2010. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/africatoday.60.1.125