Building national resilience through governance
Thailand’s invasion of Cambodia has placed the concept of national resilience at the forefront of policy discourse. Linkedin
#Editorial
In an era defined by cascading crises—from pandemics and climate shocks to geopolitical conflicts, economic fragmentation, disruptions to supply chains, and technological revolution—national resilience has emerged as a governance priority.
At its core, resilience is about the capacity of a state and society to anticipate risks, adapt to uncertainty, recover effectively with renewal, and transform institutions so that future shocks are less damaging. This makes governance the decisive factor in building durable national resilience.
Globally, governance reforms have long emphasised effective, accountable, and transparent institutions, alongside responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels.
Yet recent crises have shown that traditional governance models are no longer sufficient. The complexity and speed of contemporary disruptions require hybrid, collaborative, and adaptive governance arrangements that can operate across sectors, levels, and societal boundaries.
A recent study by Geert Bouckaert and Diego Galego, published in Global Policy (2024), offers an interesting diagnosis. Over the past two decades, public administration has faced an “avalanche of crises” spanning financial, health, environmental, and governance domains.
Governments often responded using volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) management strategies. These approaches, however, proved inadequate when crises escalated into systemic breakdowns—what the authors call “system-quakes.”
To better understand such crises, they propose the TODO framework: turbulent environments, oscillating knowledge quality, domino-like interdependencies, and opposing solutions.
They argue for six institutional reforms: embracing a Neo-Weberian State to enable systemic resilience governance; shifting from sequential to simultaneous thinking; embracing whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches; anchoring reforms in the Sustainable Development Goals; strengthening institutional alignment; and promoting collaborative leadership.
Together, these reforms point towards governance systems that are resilient by design, not merely reactive in crisis.
Resilience, however, is not built by the state alone. Jonathan Fox, writing in the World Public Sector Report (2023), highlights the central role of state-society synergy. Governance innovations in public service delivery are more resilient when grounded in partnerships between policymakers, public servants, and organised citizens.
When such partnerships are backed by legal frameworks and strong social legitimacy, they help identify bottlenecks, respond to backlash, and hold decision-makers accountable.
Multilevel governance further strengthens resilience: even when reform champions exit national office, committed subnational actors can sustain progress and prevent reform reversals.
A complementary perspective comes from Abdillah and colleagues in Public Organization Review (2025), who frame resilience-based governance as a dynamic, multi-dimensional process.
They propose five dimensions for evaluating resilience agendas—physical, natural, economic, institutional, and social—and four stages of resilience: awareness and resistance, recovery and coping, adaptation, and transformation.
Furthermore, they stress the need for measurable and replicable evaluation matrices, linking vulnerability assessment, mitigation, and adaptive capacity within a coherent governance framework.
Resilience must also be mainstreamed politically over the long term, including in cities and regions that may appear less exposed to major disruptions.
For Cambodia, these global insights are relevant. Good governance has been a consistent pillar of reform—from the Triangle Strategy to the Rectangular Strategy, and now the Pentagonal Strategy.
The latter places strong emphasis on dynamic stakeholder engagement.
Yet implementation remains uneven. Structural constraints persist, including limited transformative leadership, a tendency toward conformist and risk-averse administration, and entrenched practices that undermine meritocracy. These weaknesses blunt the impact of otherwise well-designed reforms.
The ongoing Thai invasion—through the use of force to change the status quo and border lines—has further exposed serious national vulnerabilities.
Many Cambodians see it as a wake-up call—a moment demanding not incremental adjustment, but serious transformative leadership and genuine institutional surgery.
Against this backdrop, the concept of national resilience has moved to the forefront of policy discourse. The Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasised the need to transform national pain, suffering, and injustice caused by Thai invasion into a source of national strength and resilience.
Cambodia can learn from global experiences while grounding reforms in its own history, institutions, and culture.
Institutional capacity provides the structural foundation for crisis response, but it is often constrained by resource gaps and weak implementation.
Crisis leadership enables rapid decision-making and coordination, yet depends on robust institutional frameworks and political responsiveness.
Cross-sector collaboration can enhance resilience, but fragmented governance and competing interests frequently stand in the way.
Here, Cambodia’s cultural wisdom offers powerful guidance. Khmer sayings such as “A forest with many types of wood” and “To know a lot is to have many keys” celebrate diversity and knowledge as sources of strength.
Another proverb—“The fish depends on water; people depend on each other”—captures a deep cultural emphasis on mutual interdependence. These values align naturally with the idea of state–society synergy and whole-of-dociety governance.
Ultimately, building national resilience through governance is both a technical and moral project. It requires capable institutions, adaptive leadership, and inclusive partnerships—but also clarity about identity, roots, and shared responsibility.
For Cambodia, resilience will not come from silos mentality and conformity and comfort zone leadership style, but from a confident, collaborative, and reform-minded leaders working hand in hand with the people.
In a turbulent world, governance that embraces diversity, knowledge, and collective action is not just desirable—it is essential for national survival and renewal.
-Khmer Times-
—————–
At its core, resilience is about the capacity of a state and society to anticipate risks, adapt to uncertainty, recover effectively with renewal, and transform institutions so that future shocks are less damaging. This makes governance the decisive factor in building durable national resilience.
Globally, governance reforms have long emphasised effective, accountable, and transparent institutions, alongside responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels.
Yet recent crises have shown that traditional governance models are no longer sufficient. The complexity and speed of contemporary disruptions require hybrid, collaborative, and adaptive governance arrangements that can operate across sectors, levels, and societal boundaries.
A recent study by Geert Bouckaert and Diego Galego, published in Global Policy (2024), offers an interesting diagnosis. Over the past two decades, public administration has faced an “avalanche of crises” spanning financial, health, environmental, and governance domains.
Governments often responded using volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) management strategies. These approaches, however, proved inadequate when crises escalated into systemic breakdowns—what the authors call “system-quakes.”
To better understand such crises, they propose the TODO framework: turbulent environments, oscillating knowledge quality, domino-like interdependencies, and opposing solutions.
They argue for six institutional reforms: embracing a Neo-Weberian State to enable systemic resilience governance; shifting from sequential to simultaneous thinking; embracing whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches; anchoring reforms in the Sustainable Development Goals; strengthening institutional alignment; and promoting collaborative leadership.
Together, these reforms point towards governance systems that are resilient by design, not merely reactive in crisis.
Resilience, however, is not built by the state alone. Jonathan Fox, writing in the World Public Sector Report (2023), highlights the central role of state-society synergy. Governance innovations in public service delivery are more resilient when grounded in partnerships between policymakers, public servants, and organised citizens.
When such partnerships are backed by legal frameworks and strong social legitimacy, they help identify bottlenecks, respond to backlash, and hold decision-makers accountable.
Multilevel governance further strengthens resilience: even when reform champions exit national office, committed subnational actors can sustain progress and prevent reform reversals.
A complementary perspective comes from Abdillah and colleagues in Public Organization Review (2025), who frame resilience-based governance as a dynamic, multi-dimensional process.
They propose five dimensions for evaluating resilience agendas—physical, natural, economic, institutional, and social—and four stages of resilience: awareness and resistance, recovery and coping, adaptation, and transformation.
Furthermore, they stress the need for measurable and replicable evaluation matrices, linking vulnerability assessment, mitigation, and adaptive capacity within a coherent governance framework.
Resilience must also be mainstreamed politically over the long term, including in cities and regions that may appear less exposed to major disruptions.
For Cambodia, these global insights are relevant. Good governance has been a consistent pillar of reform—from the Triangle Strategy to the Rectangular Strategy, and now the Pentagonal Strategy.
The latter places strong emphasis on dynamic stakeholder engagement.
Yet implementation remains uneven. Structural constraints persist, including limited transformative leadership, a tendency toward conformist and risk-averse administration, and entrenched practices that undermine meritocracy. These weaknesses blunt the impact of otherwise well-designed reforms.
The ongoing Thai invasion—through the use of force to change the status quo and border lines—has further exposed serious national vulnerabilities.
Many Cambodians see it as a wake-up call—a moment demanding not incremental adjustment, but serious transformative leadership and genuine institutional surgery.
Against this backdrop, the concept of national resilience has moved to the forefront of policy discourse. The Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasised the need to transform national pain, suffering, and injustice caused by Thai invasion into a source of national strength and resilience.
Cambodia can learn from global experiences while grounding reforms in its own history, institutions, and culture.
Institutional capacity provides the structural foundation for crisis response, but it is often constrained by resource gaps and weak implementation.
Crisis leadership enables rapid decision-making and coordination, yet depends on robust institutional frameworks and political responsiveness.
Cross-sector collaboration can enhance resilience, but fragmented governance and competing interests frequently stand in the way.
Here, Cambodia’s cultural wisdom offers powerful guidance. Khmer sayings such as “A forest with many types of wood” and “To know a lot is to have many keys” celebrate diversity and knowledge as sources of strength.
Another proverb—“The fish depends on water; people depend on each other”—captures a deep cultural emphasis on mutual interdependence. These values align naturally with the idea of state–society synergy and whole-of-dociety governance.
Ultimately, building national resilience through governance is both a technical and moral project. It requires capable institutions, adaptive leadership, and inclusive partnerships—but also clarity about identity, roots, and shared responsibility.
For Cambodia, resilience will not come from silos mentality and conformity and comfort zone leadership style, but from a confident, collaborative, and reform-minded leaders working hand in hand with the people.
In a turbulent world, governance that embraces diversity, knowledge, and collective action is not just desirable—it is essential for national survival and renewal.
-Khmer Times-
—————–
