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.

AI時代における受験教育の壊滅的な結末

Daohe · Jan 30, 2026

前書き：AIが未来を照らす時、人類は後退している人工知能（AI）の波は、本来なら人類文明の「特異点」を告げるはずでした。知識を得るコストはゼロに近づき、ツールの効率は無限に拡大され、個人の創造性が最高の価値を持つ生産力として尊ばれる——そんな時代の到来のはずでした。ところが、深刻な皮肉が進行しています。機械がかつてないスピードで「進化」する一方で、私たち（特に多くの国々）の教育システムは、加速度的に「退化」しているように見えるのです。私たちは今もなお、工業時代の古びた枠組みを使い続けています。「標準化された試験の成績」だけを尺度とする選別システム——これで次世代を形成しようとしているのです。このシステムの目的は啓発ではありません。規律です。潜在能力の解放ではなく、「規格化された製品」の製造なのです。 AIの強い光が社会構造のあらゆる層を貫こうとしている今、私たちは頑なに受験教育という影で、未来を担うべき子供たちを覆い隠そうとしています。これは単なる遅れではありません。一種の裏切りなのです。文明の存続に関わる災厄の根幹が、今この瞬間、静かに築かれているのです。一、AI時代における受験教育の「乖離」：本来存在すべきではない制度的遅滞受験教育は、最初から間違っていたわけではありません。それは特定の時代の産物でした。その誕生は、二つの明確な目的に奉仕するためでした：工業時代のラインが求める「標準化された労働者」の需要官僚機構が求める「標準化された管理者」の大規模な選抜あの時代、効率がすべてを支配していました。受験教育の根本的なロジックは、まさにその効率を実現するためのものでした。個性を排除し、差異を抑圧し、生身の個人を代替可能で予測可能、かつ管理可能な「部品」へと磨き上げる——。それが追求したのは「卓越」ではなく「平均的な良さ」であり、「独創」ではなく「服従」でした。しかし、AI時代の根本的なロジックは、これとは真逆です。 AIの本質とは、「標準化」の究極的な実現と超越にあります。肉体的であれ知的であれ、反復的でプロセス化され、予測可能なすべての労働はAIが引き継ぐことになります。したがって、この時代が求めているのは、機械には代替不可能なすべてです。すなわち、「非標準的」な創造者であり、複雑なシステムを見抜く統合者であり、究極の問いを立てる思考者です。ここに、巨大で致命的な構造的乖離が生まれています。時代が求めているのは独自の魂を持つ個人であるのに、私たちの教育は、認知が統一された「操り人形」を大量生産し続けているのです。この「乖離」は、もはや単なる「制度の遅れ」ではありません。文明の発展方向に対する根本的な対立なのです。それは現代における最大の無駄であり、未来への最も重い足枷となっています。二、受験教育によって形作られた「新時代の木偶の坊」 AIという鏡に照らされたとき、受験教育に長く浸かり形作られてきた「高得点・低能力」な人々の本質的な問題が浮き彫りになります。彼らの能力が「足りるか」どうかではありません。その能力構造が「適切か」どうかが問われているのです。彼らには憂慮すべき共通の特徴が見られます。準備不足なのではありません。時代によって直接淘汰されようとしている——魂を抜かれた木偶のように、未来の奔流の中で身動きが取れなくなっているのです。 1. 思考の喪失：AIが答えられる問題を、人間がいまだに暗記している受験教育の核心は、思考の炎を灯すことではありません。記憶の倉庫を満たすことです。「標準回答」で「批判的思考」を置き換え、「解法パターン」で「第一原理」をすり替えました。しかし、悲しい現実があります。記憶の広さ、検索の速さ、分析の精度、計算の強度——これらすべてにおいて、どんなに優秀な人間の学生も、AIの前では完全に敗北しているのです。「博覧強記」と「高速計算」を核とする子供が心血を注いで磨いたスキルは、すべてAIが1分以内に上回ってしまう領域なのです。教育システムが「より機械に近い」振る舞いに報酬を与えるとき、それは「より人間らしい」資質を組織的に罰していることになります。好奇心、懐疑精神、複雑性の探究といった人類の宝物を。人類の最も貴重な深い思考能力は、こうして「問題演習」というノイズの中で少しずつ削り取られていくのです。 2. 表現の喪失：問いを立てられず、対話ができず、言葉を持たない受験教育が生み出すのは「回答する人」です。「問いを立てる人」ではありません。あらかじめ設定された枠組みの中で「正しい」答えを出すよう要求し、枠組みを超えて前提そのものを疑うことは奨励しません。しかし、AI時代において答えは安価です。過剰ですらあります。本当に希少なのは「良い問い」を立てる能力です。未来の社会で最も重要な能力は「いかに解決するか」ではなく「何を解決すべきかを定義すること」なのです。機械的な暗記ではなく、異なる個人や文化、さらにはAI自身との深い対話。基準に合わせることではなく、独自の知見を明確に表現すること——これらが求められています。木偶の坊に口は要りません。入力されたプログラムを実行するだけで十分だからです。受験教育は、本来生き生きとしているはずの世代を、沈黙し受動的で指令を待つだけの生物学的プログラムへと訓練してしまっています。 3. 方向性の喪失：残るのは服従と恐怖だけで、自己も渇望もない受験教育の「隠れたカリキュラム」は、目に見えるカリキュラムよりもはるかに強い影響力を持っています。 […]