A country's growth largely depends on the political system and the environment it creates for development. This environment fosters progress and advances the nation, ultimately enriching people's lives. One of the major contributors to this growth is the advancement of science and technology. Through such advancements, new technologies are developed, which boost the local economy as people consume these technologies and spend money, causing money to circulate within the economy. Furthermore, these technologies can also be exported to other countries, contributing to international trade and economic growth. The question of responsibility for a nation's advancement—whether it lies with the political system, the people, or both—is deeply significant.

While political systems set the framework for development, the active participation of citizens is crucial for leveraging opportunities and driving growth. Countries like India, South Korea, Israel, China, Singapore, and Ghana, which gained independence in the mid-20th century, stand out for their progress in science and the economy. Whether the governance is democratic, like India, or authoritarian, like China, each system has its pros and cons. Despite these differences, it is the decision-making by both the government and the people that has made the difference. Their success underscores the dynamic interplay between governance and civic responsibility.

The main reason behind the successful development of certain countries lies in their focus on human capital investment and policy-driven education and skill development. By prioritizing these areas, nations were able to empower their large populations, enabling them to contribute to the economy in more meaningful ways. This allowed them to leverage their human resources for industrialization, technological advancement, and economic growth. In contrast, countries like Afghanistan and Yemen, despite having a period of political stability from 1916 to 1989, failed to capitalize on these advantages.

Afghanistan's inability to build a robust industrial base, largely due to ethnic tensions, resistance to modernization, and an over-reliance on foreign aid, prevented self-sustained economic growth. Khaled Hosseini, in his novels The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns, paints a vivid picture of how ethnic divides—particularly between the Pashtuns and Hazaras—exacerbated the country’s fragmentation.

While Hosseini does not blame the Afghan people as a whole, he highlights how cultural divisions, class issues, and historical rivalries led to cycles of violence and instability, which hindered Afghanistan’s development. While in Yemen, problems between the Zaydi Shia and southern tribes (largely Sunni). These internal tensions, combined with geopolitical conflicts, were significant factors in the failure to build sustainable growth. An example from the African continent illustrates how a country’s economic growth can be hampered by external and internal factors.

In 14 African countries, the Franc CFA (FCFA) is still in use, a currency originally tied to France, which has limited their economic autonomy. Despite having access to substantial natural resources, these nations have faced challenges in using the currency to effectively develop their economies, as it often keeps them dependent on external financial policies and limits their self-sustained growth.

However, several advanced African countries—such as South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and Morocco—have been able to build institutions and focus on human capital development. These countries have invested in education, skill development, and infrastructure, which allowed them to create more dynamic economies. Although these nations have made significant strides, their economic advancement has not always been proportional to their potential, due to challenges such as inequality, corruption, and political instability. Still, these nations are poised for growth with further investments in human capital, infrastructure, and institutional reforms and could achieve greater success in the future. The debate centers around how rich and developed nations can help developing nations achieve progress.

On one side, proponents argue that external support can bring about positive change. On the other side, critics question whether such external assistance can truly improve the lives of people in developing countries. A strong example is South Korea, which was devastated after the Korean War. With the help of its ally, the U.S., South Korea received support in key areas such as financial aid, military assistance, trade and investment, technology transfer, education, and humanitarian aid. However, this assistance comes at a cost, including the risk of losing autonomy and vulnerability to shifts in U.S. policy. In contrast, countries like Haiti—despite being a neighbor to the U.S.—have failed to see significant improvements, despite receiving substantial investments and aid from the U.S.

So how historians or people in geopolitics see it is that the remedy of the county's success depends not only on governmental policies and external factors but also on the active and positive contributions of its citizens. By participating in their country’s social, political, and economic processes, individuals help to shape the future and create a prosperous, stable, and cohesive society. Everyone’s role is vital, whether it’s through economic participation, activism, education, or cultural contributions. Each action, no matter how small, can collectively move the country towards greater success.