Serving the people vs serving the state: what is the right path of modern governance

Avatar photo
Daohe · Jun 10, 2025
Why do nations exist? Not for slogans, not for borders, and not for GDP numbers. The true purpose of a nation is to protect basic human rights, uphold the dignity of its people, and improve their quality of life. If a country appears powerful but its people are suffering—if there is national pride but public […]

Why do nations exist?
Not for slogans, not for borders, and not for GDP numbers.

The true purpose of a nation is to protect basic human rights, uphold the dignity of its people, and improve their quality of life.

If a country appears powerful but its people are suffering—if there is national pride but public anxiety—then that country is just an empty shell. It may look strong on the outside, but inside it is full of deep problems.

That is why it is essential to understand the difference between “serving the state” and “serving the people.” A modern government must see serving its people as the only true source of legitimacy. Only then can a nation remain stable, fair, and truly prosperous.

I. The conflict between serving the state and serving the people

“Serving the state” usually means focusing on national goals like economic growth, military power, global influence, and national security.

“Serving the people” means protecting individual rights—fair income, stable jobs, affordable housing and healthcare, free speech, fair justice, public welfare, dignity, and political participation.

These two goals should go hand in hand. But in practice, especially in how governments use power, there are often structural conflicts:

  • Resource conflict: Governments spend more on big projects or military and choose to cut public welfare spending.
  • Unequal participation in decision making: National strategies are decided by a small elite; ordinary citizens have little say.
  • Different values: Power wants control and unity, while people need freedom and choices.
  • Unfair benefits: “National interest” often serves the rich and powerful, while citizens are left behind.

These deep conflicts are the biggest problem with “state-centered” policies—and the real threat to the people.

II. What are the risks of “state-centered” policies?

Some governments, in order to protect national image or appear strong in foreign affairs, choose to sacrifice the rights and wellbeing of their citizens. Over time, this leads to seven major risks, with consequences that are hard to ignore:

1. Collapse of social trust

Citizens lose trust in the government, the legal system, and institutions. As a result, policies lose effectiveness.

2. Widening wealth gap

Powerful capital groups take advantage of national strategies to control resources. Wealth becomes concentrated among the few, while the poor get poorer.

3. Crisis of political legitimacy

Public confidence in the government fades. People no longer believe in the system, and the state’s legitimacy begins to erode.

4. Rising social anxiety

High costs of housing, jobs, education, healthcare, and retirement create widespread stress and insecurity.

5. Rigid policymaking

Decision-making is dominated by a small elite. Without public input or checks and balances, policies become outdated and tensions build up.

6. Backlash from media control

When free speech is suppressed, public frustration grows beneath the surface, creating a false sense of peace while unrest brews underneath.

7. Decline in long-term national strength

A society without freedom and fairness loses its creativity, innovation, and energy. In the long run, the nation’s global competitiveness will suffer.

III. Core principles of a people-centered government

A truly modern government must be guided by four key principles that serve the people:

1. People’s wellbeing comes first

Government spending must first support basic needs—healthcare, education, housing, jobs, and retirement.

2. Protection of rights

The constitution must guarantee citizens’ rights to know, to speak, to participate, and to hold power accountable.

3. Transparency in public finances

Budgets, spending, and government decisions must be fully transparent. Taxpayers have the right to monitor how public funds are used.

4. Limits on state power

State power must be bound by law, used only for the public good—not for personal gain, private interest, or political inheritance.

IV. A balanced structure for national governance

To build a fair and effective system, We need three-pillar governance model with dual-level counterbalance.

Power Holder Core Role Supervision Mechanism
State government National security, fiscal control, legislation, diplomacy Supervised by citizens, media, and parliament
Civil society Industry regulation, community affairs, NGOs Bound by law, holds the right to join public decision-making
Individual citizens Voting, oversight, right to information Directly supervises state power, takes part in governance

V. Reforming the civil service: new standards for a modern era

A truly modern civil servant must meet the following criteria:

1. Public-first mindset: serve the interests of taxpayers, not just follow orders from above.

2. Performance-based evaluation: measured by public well-being, citizen satisfaction, and policy implementation results.

3. Lifetime accountability: retirement does not exempt one from responsibility for past actions.

4. Public reporting system: regularly report achievements and problems to citizens, and accept public questioning.

5. Separation from business interests: strict bans on collusion with capital groups; assets must be declared and transparent.

VI. A mature model of tripartite governance

In a fully modern state, governance should evolve to the following form:

  • Reduced government scope: government is limited to macro coordination, national defense, foreign affairs, justice, and legislation.
  • Full autonomy of social organizations: sectors like healthcare, education, academia, and community affairs are managed by self-governing bodies.
  • Comprehensive citizen oversight: establish citizen assemblies, policy referendum days, and annual government satisfaction voting.
  • Public budgeting under citizen control: national budgets must be approved by a citizen assembly each year.
  • Transparent public projects: major national projects require open proposals, public opinion surveys, and third-party evaluations.

VII. Conclusion: serving the people is the foundation of the state

A country may appear strong, but if its people suffer, that strength is hollow and unstable.

A country may seem powerful, but without public trust, it cannot last.

The only rightful path to national governance is to build a people-centered modern system—rooted in citizen rights, focused on quality of life, guided by people-first budgeting, protected by limited and transparent power, and secured through open and participatory institutions.

Only then can a nation achieve lasting peace, public trust, and sustainable development.

Share this article:
LEARN MORE

Continue Reading

社会公民经济如何重构“就业、失业与基本收入制度”

社会公民经济如何重构“就业、失业与基本收入制度”

Kishou · Feb 5, 2026

前言:就业不是“谋生”,而是公民存在于社会中的基本许可 在资本经济的意识形态中,“就业”被粗暴地简化为一个工具性定义:“有岗位→ 才有收入→ 有收入才能生存”。这种逻辑将人的生存权与资本的雇用需求牢固捆绑,使得“没有岗位”被系统性地默认等同于“你对社会没价值”。 “失业”被道德化地污名为个人能力不足、市场竞争淘汰、自我失败的证明,进而导致个体在精神上的自我羞辱。 “基本收入”(UBI)则被制度性地污名化为“养懒人”、破坏效率、违背神圣的市场规律的异端福利。 然而,在社会公民经济的框架下,这一整套基于恐惧和效率至上的认知必须被彻底颠覆: 就业不是市场偶然赏赐的机会,而是公民参与社会生产、服务与分享文明成果的基本权利。 失业不是个人能力问题,而是技术迭代、产业变迁所产生的结构性风险。 基本收入不是施舍,而是公民作为“社会共同体成员”所应享有的、对社会共同资产的最低分红权。 这是“以资本为中心的高效市场社会”与“以人为本的公民文明社会”之间,在伦理和制度上的根本分水岭。 一、资本经济下的就业本质:不是“让人活”,而是“用人榨值” 在资本主导的经济结构中,就业的底层驱动逻辑是冰冷而单一的:不是为了解决人的生存和尊严,而是为了最大化地降低生产成本和提高资本回报率。 劳动力被视为可替换的、有价格的投入要素,而非拥有主观能动性的社会成员。 于是,系统自然形成了一种冷酷且不断优化的剥削结构: 有用的人(高性价比)→ 留在系统里,接受无限内卷和绩效考核。 暂时没用的人(低性价比/需转型)→ 被系统丢弃,成为待价而沽的风险个体。 再也没用的人(技术性淘汰)→ 被文明遗弃,成为社会救助的负担。 所谓“灵活就业”、“弹性用工”、“自由职业”,在很多时候不过是资本对“无稳定保障、无社保覆盖、无组织工会”的劳动力进行剥削的文明包装。资本并不关心劳动者能否长期稳定地生活、发展和养老,它只关心你当下这一刻的“边际成本与边际收益是否足够高”。 二、社会公民经济对“就业”的重新定义:不是岗位,而是“社会参与权” 在社会公民经济中,我们必须将“就业”的定义从狭隘的“为资本提供岗位服务”升级为:“公民参与社会生产、公共服务、治理、照护与知识创造的制度性通道。” 这意味着,有价值的劳动不再只等同于“能产生直接财务利润”的劳动,它包括但不限于: 公共服务型就业(Public Service Jobs): 政府、公益组织提供的,面向全民的基础服务。 社会照护型就业(Social Care): 针对老人、儿童、残障人士的照料和情感支持。 社区建设与文化型就业(Community & Cultural): 社区治理、文化传承、艺术创作、非盈利性教育。 生态修复型就业(Ecological Restoration): 环境保护、污染治理、可持续发展项目。 价值认定原则: 只要你的劳动具备以下特征: 对社会有真实且不可替代的价值(Real Social Value)。 对公共安全与韧性有真实贡献(Public Resilience Contribution)。 对共同体的存续有真实支撑(Communal Support)。 它就应当被视为正当就业,并获得稳定的、具备尊严的收入与制度保障。否则,一个社会必然会陷入“真实有价值的事(如照护、基础科研)没人做,纯资本回报高但价值低的事(如金融投机、广告内卷)挤破头”的结构性荒谬。 三、失业的文明定性:不是“失败者”,而是“结构性风险承受者” 在资本经济的道德叙事中,失业是一种个体失败的耻辱,被制度性地隐喻为不努力、能力差、不适应市场。这种羞辱性定性极大地增加了社会的不稳定性和个体的精神负担。 但在社会公民经济中,失业的真实本质必须被非道德化、客观化地定性为:技术迭代、产业转移、全球资本波动、政策调整等系统力量所导致的“结构性牺牲”(Structural Sacrifice)。 核心逻辑是: […]

The Cost of Extending Pension Contribution Periods

The Cost of Extending Pension Contribution Periods

Kishou · Feb 1, 2026

Introduction: A Global Surrender of Time Amid a profound global demographic reversal, virtually all modern nations are performing the same quiet yet decisive institutional surgery: delaying retirement ages, extending contribution periods, and recalibrating benefit expectations. Technocrats package this transformation as “the necessary response to the aging crisis,” while fiscal departments frame it as “rational adjustments […]

read more

Related Content

Voting vs. decision-making: Understanding their roles in civilization
Voting vs. decision-making: Understanding their roles in civilization
Avatar photo
Kishou · Jun 11, 2025
This article explores the fundamental difference between voting and decision-making. Voting reflects the distribution of power and interests, while decision-making requires a small group of people with strategic competence. When these two are blurred, decisions risk becoming shortsighted and driven by emotion, leading to power imbalances that ultimately weaken social governance.
Education in Free Societies vs. Authoritarian Regimes
Education in Free Societies vs. Authoritarian Regimes
Avatar photo
Daohe · May 17, 2025
Every step forward in civilization has been guided by the light of education. Education does more than shape individuals—it molds entire eras. It is the foundation that determines whether a society remains stable or transforms, whether power is balanced or abused. In free and democratic societies, education is seen as the key to awakening public […]
A Glorious Beginning: When Reason and Compassion Return to the World
A Glorious Beginning: When Reason and Compassion Return to the World
Avatar photo
Yicheng · May 10, 2025
A nation’s real strength doesn’t come from its economy or military power, but from having cultural ideals people can believe in. When people can tell right from wrong, stand up to power and temptation, and come together for justice and self-respect, that society has a future. Civilization doesn’t arise by chance. It takes effort and […]
Cowardice and brutality in Chinese education: a warning and threat to global civilization
Cowardice and brutality in Chinese education: a warning and threat to global civilization
Avatar photo
Master Wonder · Jun 9, 2025
I. Why are cowardly and brutal styles of education so common in Eastern societies, especially in China? To understand these two distorted educational patterns, we must go beyond blaming individual parents or schools. Instead, it is necessary to examine the deeper cultural and historical roots—particularly the long-standing authoritarian structure of Chinese civilization. For centuries, Chinese […]
View All Content