A governance model centered on complete citizens

The institutional evolution and historical trajectory of civil politics

Produced by Yicheng Commonweal

To those who truly love their country

I. Opening: Who does true governance belong to?

In today’s world, nearly every nation inscribes grand slogans such as “putting people first” or “rule of law” into its political declarations. These phrases are treated as if they automatically elevate a government to the moral high ground of civilization. Yet the reality is often the opposite. Such terms have become rhetorical veils that conceal authoritarianism or preserve privileged structures. Beneath them lies a political logic that serves not the people as a whole, but a small circle of power holders—state elites, wealthy elites, and cultural aristocrats.

Now, we must confront a question that has long been avoided: Whose interests should a nation truly be governed for?

The answer may not be complicated: the true masters of a nation must be every “complete citizen” who shares the rights and responsibilities of political, economic, social, and cultural governance.

This article will examine both theory and real-world cases to systematically challenge the absurdity of so-called “people-centered” and “rule-of-law” approaches, and to advance a governance model centered on complete citizens—an institutional framework that reflects the direction of future civilizational progress.

II. Pseudo “people-centered” and pseudo “rule-of-law”: the reality behind the institutional façade

1. “Putting people first”—but which people are we really talking about?

We cannot judge a nation’s civility merely by the slogan “people-centered”. In practice, the “people” it refers to are often not citizens in the general sense, but a select few within specific groups.

In the United States, “freedom” and “individual rights” are constantly emphasized, yet the real foundation of governance is the control of national destiny by wealthy elites. The state apparatus is deeply intertwined with capital interests, resulting in extreme wealth inequality and long-term monopolization of public resources. What once were citizens’ rights have now largely become consumer perks and the illusion of meaningful voting, completely detached from genuine self-governance.
In countries such as Russia and Iran, the stability of the regime relies on suppressing personal freedoms under the banner of “national security.” The slogan “people-centered” serves merely as a tool for maintaining control; in reality, governance is regime-centered.
In Middle Eastern monarchies and Southeast Asian family-based authoritarian systems, there is little talk of “people-centered” governance at all. The state operates directly on the basis of ruling power and oligarchic economic structures, with the “people” reduced to subjects of the throne or instruments for resource extraction.

The common thread in these systems is that the “people” in the logic of governance are never recognized as autonomous individuals with full political, economic, and social rights. Instead, they exist as objects of rule, merely softened with polite or positive language.

Slogans may abound, but the status of the people remains unclear. In reality, so-called “people-centered” governance is often just a rhetorical device through which those in power claim legitimacy from society—it is not a system genuinely based on citizens.

2. “Rule of law”—but what is actually being governed?

At first glance, “rule of law” appears to be the rational achievement of modern state governance. In reality, however, it is more often a mechanism for maintaining existing systems than a genuine model of governance. A nation may have a complete legal system and standardized procedures, but this does not necessarily mean it is well-governed. The reasons are as follows:

Law can itself be a tool of oppression.
Nazi Germany had a comprehensive legal code, and South Africa under apartheid also acted “according to the law.” Yet in both cases, the law was not designed for all citizens—it served specific races or regimes.
Law is not neutral. it is a reflection of the underlying values behind the system.
In capitalist nations, the law upholds private property as its highest value, while in authoritarian states, its foremost aim is to secure political order. In both cases, the rights of citizens are routinely sacrificed for the sake of “legitimacy.”
Rule of law cannot correct structural injustice.
Laws are merely rules, but it is the institutions behind them that determine whether fairness is possible. If the design of these rules excludes the possibility of citizen participation, shared governance, and common good, then even the most complete legal system becomes nothing more than a pretext for procedural injustice.

In other words, the rule of law can maintain order, but it cannot create justice. When citizens are excluded from participating as the true subjects of law, the system becomes a softened form of power — a bloodless authoritarianism.

Although the rule of law is a basic element of modern governance, it remains a procedural mechanism rather than a governing paradigm. It preserves order but does not shape vision.

Nazi Germany had a complete legal system, yet it used law to kill with legitimacy.
During apartheid, South Africa enforced racial discrimination through law.
In many countries today, “national security laws” are used to restrict free expression and punish dissent — all justified as lawful governance.

These historical facts have revealed that:

When legislation is controlled by non-civic mechanisms, the very perfection of law turns into a satire on justice.
True law arises only from the collective will of citizens who share the right to shape their own governance.

In short, the rule of law is not an end in itself but a means. Without the core value of complete citizenship, it risks turning into a form of legalized oppression.

III. The real solution: a governance model centered on complete citizens

What does it mean to build a nation around its citizens? It is not a slogan but a systemic logic. it is a comprehensive reconstruction of social governance. There are five primary features:

Recognition and protection of the “complete citizen”:
A complete citizen possesses political decision-making power (such as legislative participation and the right to referendum), economic sovereignty (including labor dividends and public capital shares), social security (through welfare systems), and cultural freedom (a space for thought and expression free from oppression).
Broad civic participation in governance:
The operation of state power should be built on citizen assemblies, social consultation mechanisms, and local self-governance — not on administrative bureaucracies or oligarchic elites.
Public resources open to all citizens:
Education, healthcare, land, natinoal data, and finance should no longer be monopolized by the state or controlled by capital. They must be governed and shared through citizen trust systems.
Institutional transparency and civic participation:
All processes of institutional design should be open and transparent. Citizens should have the right to propose, veto, and amend policies through democratic mechanisms.
Civilizational ethics and values above capital or security logic:
The ultimate goal of governance should shift toward collective well-being and the sustainable growth of civilization, rather than mere economic expansion or authoritarian stability.

1. What is a complete citizen?

A complete citizen does not simply mean someone who holds official identification. It refers to an individual who is endowed with full rights to participate in, decide upon, and share the outcomes of state governance, including at least:

aspects	Contents of Citizenship Rights
Political rights	Right to vote and recall, right to propose public initiatives, participatory legislative rights, right to approve or veto via referendum
Economic rights	Right to participate in national wealth distribution, share in public data dividends, receive dividends from state-owned capital, negotiate labor-related dividends
Social rights	Access to basic welfare, fair access to education and healthcare, right to participate in social consultation mechanisms
Cultural rights	Freedom of speech, freedom of intellectual and spiritual space, right to participate in the design of educational curricula

A complete citizen is not an abstract symbol, but a tangible force within the governance of the state.

Only when these rights are institutionalized, enforceable, and transparent do citizens truly become the masters of their nation.

2. Five institutional principles of citizen-centered governance

Shared governance structure: Major state decisions, resource allocation, and budget use should be grounded in citizen assemblies, public forums, and local self-governance systems.
Shared benefits system: Social wealth, including public capital, natural resources, and data assets, should be managed through a “citizen dividend fund,” distributing dividends to all citizens.
Consensus mechanisms: Deliberative democracy should serve as the institutional core, avoiding one-size-fits-all mandates while accommodating diversity, differences, and balancing interests.
Shared responsibilities: Citizens not only enjoy rights but also bear institutional responsibilities, such as supervising state power, participating in budget decisions, and protecting the environment.
Shared goals: The objectives of governance should no longer be mere economic growth or regime stability, but rather civilizational well-being, social engagement, and institutional trust.

VI. The evolution of governance: from subjects to citizens, from control to co-governance

Modes of governance do not emerge overnight. They are the outcome of continuous historical evolution.

Stage	Mode of governance	Relation of subjects	Characteristics
Feudal	Monarch supremacy	Subjects	Law is the will of the monarch.
Theocracy – Divine monarchy	Church or divine authority	Faithful	Governance based on religious principles
Constitutional monarchy	Power shared with nobility and bourgeoisie	Taxpayers	Rights are hierarchical
Democratic republic	Citizen co-governance	Entire citizenry	Establishment of representative institutions
Data governance (modern turning point)	Information and platform controlled by tech oligarchs	“Data subjects”	Virtual enslavement
Citizen co-governance (future trend)	Collaborative decision-making by all	Complete citizens	Technological empowerment and equitable governance

Conclusion: Governance built around complete citizens is not an abstract ideal. It provides a concrete way to counter information tyranny, centralized power, and capital domination.

V. Global governance models: who is advancing toward citizen-led co-governance?

Country/Region	Characteristics of governance model	Citizen status	Advantages	Risks
Switzerland	Multi-level direct democracy	high	Strong local autonomy, high institutional trust, low corruption	Slow decision-making, slow reform
Norway / Finland	Social democracy	high	Fair welfare system, multiple platforms for participation	High taxes, aging population burden, challenges in integrating immigrants
The United States	Capitalist representative democracy / capital-driven democracy	Medium-Low	Diverse culture, robust legal system, freedom of speech, independent judiciary	Wealth inequality, oligarchic control and monopolies, social polarization
Singapore	Elite governance + rule of law, technocratic bureaucracy	Medium	High administrative efficiency, low corruption, high performance, low crime	Weak democratic participation, limited citizen involvement, high control
Iran / Russia	Authoritarian state, religion- or security-based governance	Very low	Apparent social stability, strong cultural mobilization	Suppression of freedoms, inability to reform, institutional rigidity

The conclusion is simple: efficient governance does not equal a civilized society. Citizen status is the key factor in judging the quality of a governance model. The first benchmark of good governance is citizens’ institutional position, not economic output or political stability.

VI. The historical and civilizational necessity of citizen-centered governance

History moves from subjects to citizens, from domination to co-governance.
Whether it was the French Revolution, the American War of Independence, or the democratic transitions in post-colonial states, the underlying essence has always been the pursuit of citizen agency.
With the rapid advancement of technology, governance need to return to human-centered collaboration.
With AI, blockchain, and data governance, old-style centralized control is too expensive and hard to trust. A country can only be strong, open, efficient, and fair if citizens are actively involved in decision-making networks.

The society of the future will be one of co-governance, not mere regulation.
Global challenges—like climate change, pandemics, and resource scarcity—force countries to adopt universal participation mechanisms. Citizens should become the designers, implementers, and evaluators of institutions. Otherwise, the system loses its legitimacy.

VII. Systemic risks and future governance challenges

A citizen-centered governance model is not a “perfect state” and must confront several real-world challenges:

Populist polarization: Unrestricted citizen participation may lead to emotional politics and rising xenophobia.
Data monopoly: If AI, large models, and algorithmic platforms are not publicly owned, a new digital ruling class could emerge.
Governance fatigue: Without incentives and institutional feedback, citizen participation can fall into superficial democracy.
Fragmented governance: Diverse participation without top-level consensus may result in uncoordinated policies and localism.

The solution is to create a governance system that brings together deliberation, public data, civic education, and citizen responsibilities, enabling a virtuous cycle of co-governance.

Conclusion: The ultimate purpose of a state is not to rule, but to ensure the happiness of its people living together. The height of civilization is determined by the depth of its citizens’ participation.

Whether a country is truly “civilized” does not depend on how much wealth it produces or how strong its military is. It depends on whether every citizen is recognized as a genuine master of the state, whether institutional arrangements guarantee their rights to participate in governance, pursue happiness, and contribute to civilization—and whether these rights are actually exercised.

In other words, a civilized state acknowledges, institutionalizes, and empowers each citizen’s rights to governance, well-being, and participation in democracy.

The so-called citizen-centered governance model is not just a systemic innovation. It is a great return to the true purpose of the state—a community built by the people, for the people, and run together by the people.

In this era of institutional disputes, uncontrolled technology, and crossroads of civilization, we must take this decisive step: return power to the people, restore authority to the citizenry, and build a state that truly belongs to every complete citizen.

We must move beyond the hypocrisy of “people-centered” rhetoric and the partial logic of “rule of law,” and return to the simplest, yet the most powerful principle of governance: each person, as a complete citizen, co-governs, co-owns, and co-creates the civilization of their state.

空性是什么？从空智与达摩祖师的对话说起

Master Wonder · Feb 12, 2025

在《达摩传》中，有这样一则意味深长的片段。一日，僧人空智来到少林寺，恭敬地向达摩祖师顶礼，并请教佛法的空性。他拱手问道： “大师是达摩祖师吧？贫僧空智，对佛法的理解尚浅，愿请大师指点。心、佛以及众生，三者皆空。现象的执性亦是空，无圣无凡，无施无受，无善无恶，一切皆空。这般见解，可对？” 达摩静静地看着他，忽然伸手，在他头上重重敲了一下。空智被打得生疼，立刻皱眉道：“大师，你为什么打人？” 达摩微微一笑，淡然说道：“你既然说一切皆空，那何来痛苦？” 空智愣住，陷入沉思。片刻后，他喃喃道：“既然一切皆空，为何我仍然感到疼痛？若连痛苦都不能超越，这‘空’又有何意义？” 达摩缓缓说道：“看那看不到的东西，听那听不到的声音，知那不知的事物，才是真理。” 空智顿时领悟，合十叩拜。何为“空”？空智之所以困惑，是因为他落入了“理空”的执着。所谓“理空”，是从概念上理解空性，而未能亲证。当他说“一切皆空”时，他所理解的“空”仍停留在语言之中，停留在“否定有”的层面。因此，当痛觉袭来，他的心识立刻生起“痛”的分别，反映出他的“空”并未真正落实。 “空”不是虚无，而是“无自性”。佛法中的“空”并不等于虚无，而是指诸法无自性。世界上的一切事物，包括心、佛、众生，并非独立存在，而是相互依存、因缘和合之生灭显现。因此，所谓的“痛”也并非绝对存在，而是缘起而生。若执着“痛”为实有，则堕入实有论；若执着“痛”为虚无，则落入顽空论。达摩的痛击，正是要破除空智的顽空见，令他直面自身的执着。真正的“空”并非否定“痛”的存在，而是超越“痛”所带来的分别。若能见到“痛”无自性，则“痛”即不碍“空”，“空”亦不碍“痛”。 “空”是一种超越对立二元的智慧达摩所言：“看那看不到的东西，听那听不到的声音，知那不知的事物。”这一番话正是指向空性之实相。 “空”即自在，随缘不执空智之“空”是消极的，他以为空性是否定一切的多元性。只要在概念上否定“我是我”，“痛不是痛”，就是契入空性。然而，真正的空是超越、是圆融，是“无碍”的智慧。它不否定世间法，而是于世间法中自在无碍。就如同我是父亲，可我还可以是男人，老板、牧师、教师等等，这一切的身份和社会关系并不会束缚我。譬如水，无形无相，因器成形，随缘而变。这正是“空”之妙用——它不是破坏存在，而是让存在不受束缚。当空智执着于“无圣无凡、无善无恶”，他仍未超越对立。真正的“空”并不是去否定善恶，而是了知善恶皆缘起无自性，在缘起中自如行持。正如六祖惠能所言：“前念不生即心，后念不灭即佛。”念起即随，念灭不留，即是随缘不执，空而不空。达摩的一击，是慈悲的棒喝达摩这一击，是顿悟之机，是破除概念之障。空智若仅停留在理论上探讨空性，便始终无法超越。唯有当他真正直面自心，感受“痛”之生灭，才能了知“空”不碍“痛”，“痛”亦即是“空”。这正是禅门直指人心的风格——不落言诠，直入本源。若执着“空”而拒绝现象，便落入偏见；若执着“有”而迷失本性，亦是妄念。唯有“空”与“有”双融，才能真正契入佛法的智慧。正如《心经》所言：“色即是空，空即是色。” 再谈达摩这一击，是禅门棒喝，是不假言辞的直接点悟。空智因痛而惊，显然，他的“空”仍停留在概念之中，未能真正超越世俗分别。这一击，让他不得不重新思考：“何谓空？为何痛？如果一切皆空，为何我仍在执着？” 空并非虚无，而是无自性佛法所言的“空”，并不是对一切的否定，也不是单纯的“无”。若将空理解为“什么都不存在”，便堕入“断灭空”，此非正见。真正的空，是“无自性”——世间一切事物皆因缘和合而生，无独立不变的本体。譬如水，若无风，它静如明镜；若风起，它便波涛汹涌。水的“相”在变，但水的“本质”却从未消失。世间万象皆如是——它们是暂时的显现，而非绝对的存在。空智的错误，在于他仅仅停留在否定层面，以为“一切皆空”就是不承认圣凡、善恶、施受。然而，真正的空，不是去“否定”这些现象，而是超越对它们的执着。达摩这一击，便是要让空智看到，他所说的“空”并未真正融入自心。在这里说明一下，空智、达摩与佛陀，无二无别，切不可认为空智修行低，而达摩就高，不要让相法迷惑自己的自性圆融无碍。空的两重境界：理空与证空 1. 理空——概念上的理解这是初学者常见的阶段，以思辨的方式去理解空性。例如，空智所言的“无圣无凡，无施无受，无善无恶”，正是典型的“理空”——从理论上否定对立，认为万法皆空。然而，光靠概念无法破除执着。达摩之所以一击，是因为空智仍在“理”上，而未能亲身体验“空”。如果空智真的证悟空性，他即使感知到痛，也不会生起对痛的执着，更不会质问达摩“你为何打我？” 2. 证空——超越概念的直接体验证空，并不是通过逻辑推演得出的结论，而是通过直观的觉悟——直接体认到“痛亦是空，空不碍痛”。换句话说，不是去否定痛的存在，而是从中看到痛的无自性、不可得。证悟空性的境界，犹如镜子——它照见一切，但不执著于所映之像。圣人、凡夫，善恶、施受，皆如水中月、镜中花，有因缘便现，因缘灭则不留痕迹。比如，想象你在一场暴风雨中行走，雨水拍打在你脸上，寒冷刺骨，然而你并不因此生气或痛苦。你知道，这场风雨只是暂时的，终会过去。你不再执着于那股冷风和雨水，而是安然接受它们的存在，感知它们的瞬息万变。世间的是非、苦乐，不过是幻影，终将过去。若执着于这些，就如同在水上写字，终究徒劳无功。达摩所言：看、听、知的真正含义达摩最后说道：“看那看不到的东西，听那听不到的声音，知那不知的事物，才是真理。”这句话，正是对“空”最深刻的阐释。在《维摩诘经》中，文殊菩萨问众菩萨：“如何入不二法门？”众菩萨各自回答，皆未彻底。最后，维摩诘默然不语。文殊叹道：“是乃真入不二法门。” 不落言说，才是究竟。不以分别心求空，而是自然安住于空，这才是“看、听、知”的真实境界。如何践行空性？佛法讲空，不是让人逃避现实，而是让人超越现实的束缚，活得更自在、圆融。真正的空性，是让人在生活中随缘而行，却不被境遇所困。《般若波罗蜜多心经》就是这样的书籍，让心灵觉悟，自性自觉。 1. 生活中的“空” 空，并不意味着消极无为，而是随缘不执。面对困境时，若能看到“一切无自性，终归变化”，便能不沉溺于烦恼之中。当有人批评你、欺骗你、误解你时，不执著于这些现象，你就不会生嗔恨心，亦不会因其而痛苦。 2. […]