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.

社会公民の段階における文明の「三銃士」：自由、民主主義、幸せ

Yicheng · Mar 29, 2025

——文明の飛躍と価値の再構築人類文明の発展は、やがて「社会公民の段階」へと足を踏み入れます。それは、公民（市民）が普遍的に覚醒し、制度体系が比較的安定し、個人の権利が広く顧みられるようになる、現代的な段階です。「臣民」から「国家の公民」へ、そして「社会公民」へと至る中で、文明の核心はもはや、帝国の疆域、権力の集中、あるいは技術の華やかさにあるのではありません。それは、価値システムの再創造と、人々の生活の質が普遍的に向上することにあるのです。社会公民の段階において、文明の真の指標となるのは、都市に高層ビルが林立することでも、軍隊が強大な動員力を持つことでもありません。それは、自由、民主主義、そして幸せが、統一されているかどうか、という点です。この三つは、あたかも文明のプロセスにおける「三銃士」のようです。自由は個人の尊厳を明らかにし、民主主義は公共の理性を体現し、幸せは生活の目標を示します。これらは共に、現代文明の価値構造を形成し、また、未来社会が持続的に発展していくための方向性を提供するのです。一、自由：臣民から公民への、精神的な覚醒自由は、社会公民の段階における、最も基礎的な文明的権利です。それは、個人がもはや権力の付属物ではなく、社会構造における「道具として扱われる人間」でもなく、思想、表現、移転、信仰といった基本的な権利を持つ、独立した主体であることを意味します。歴史上、自由という思想は、しばしば抑圧との闘いの中で芽吹いてきました。奴隷社会における個人の名もなき抵抗から、中世ヨーロッパにおける教会権力の抑圧への反抗、そして啓蒙主義運動における「自然権」という観念の誕生に至るまで、自由は常に、文明が最初に呼び求める光でした。ルソー、ロック、カントといった思想家たちは、期せずして同じことを強調しました。すなわち、自由なくして、道徳的な判断も、責任を担う主体も存在しえず、ましてや安定した社会契約を構築することなど不可能である、と。社会公民の段階において、自由はもはや貴族の特権ではなく、全国民にとっての最低ラインとならなければなりません。そして、この自由は制度化されたものでなければなりません。「無政府状態」のような混沌とした自由ではなく、憲法によって保護され、法治の枠組みの下で運用される、持続可能な自由です。それは、国家による個人への侵害を防ぐと同時に、資本や技術といった新しい力が人間性を歪めることからも、人々を守らなければならないのです。二、民主主義：市民社会の制度的な礎石もし自由が公民（市民）意識の覚醒であるとすれば、民主主義は、その意識を制度として形にするための道筋です。それは単なる選挙投票だけでなく、権力の抑制と均衡、公共への参加、法による保障、そして情報の透明性が一体となったものなのです。民主主義が重要である理由は、それが権力を人民に由来させ、最終的に人民に奉仕させるからです。社会公民の段階において、民主主義とは、形式的な合法性ではなく、プロセスと結果における合理性を意味します。真の民主主義社会は、多様な声の表明を奨励し、政策が公的な議論の中で修正され、挑戦され、更新されていくことを許容しなければなりません。しかしながら、民主主義の実践は容易なことではありません。形式的な民主主義が氾濫する今日、ポピュリズム、情報操作、富裕層の資本、そして技術プラットフォームが結託した「デジタル寡頭制」が、民主主義制度の根幹を侵食しつつあります。投票権が公民（市民）参加の基礎であることは確かですが、成熟した公民意識、批判的思考能力、そして有効な公的議論の場が欠如していれば、この民主的メカニズムは、空虚な形式へと成り下がる可能性があります。今日、人々はソーシャルメディア上で自らの意見を表明しますが、インターネットは同時に、情報過多、意見の二極化、そして虚偽情報の拡散といった問題ももたらしました。従来の民主参加の経路は、この変革の中で深刻な打撃を受けましたが、それはまた、民主主義制度の強化と昇華が、差し迫った課題であることを証明してもいます。ここ数年、民主主義制度が受けた衝撃は、これに留まりません。世界的な規模での政治的動乱や、民衆の民主主義制度への信頼の危機は、日増しに深刻化しています。貧富の格差が拡大し続ける中で、民主主義制度は社会の公平性や正義を有効に保障できていないように見え、一部の集団の利益が無視されたり、奪われたりしています。その結果、彼らの民主主義制度への帰属意識は低下し、全体主義やポピュリズムへと傾倒していくのです。これは、民主主義制度の無能さを意味するわけではありません。民主主義制度それ自体は、完璧なシステムではなく、時代の要請に応じて、絶えず自己を調整し、完成させていく必要があるのです。問題が露呈すること自体が、むしろ制度が進歩するための契機となり、社会に、公平と正義をより良く実現するために、いかにして民主的メカニズムを最適化すべきかを、思考するよう促します。社会公民の段階における民主主義は、もはや単純な投票メカニズムに依存するだけでは不十分です。それは、より深層的な、公民（市民）の理性を育成すること、制度の強靭さを構築すること、そして社会公民が組織する団体を支援することに、依拠する必要があります。既存の民主主義制度を更新するためには、国家は教育分野において長期的な投資を行い、公民（市民）の独立した思考力と判断能力を形成し、社会全体の理性的なレベルを引き上げる必要があります。その上で、人工知能（AI）やソーシャルメディアを現代の民主主義の道具として活用し、データ分析を通じて政策決定を最適化し、民意に対する政府の応答速度を高めると同時に、より広範な公民（市民）参加の経路を提供することができます。さらに重要なのは、国家が社会組織の発展を継続的に後押しし、健全な社会公民の参加メカニズムを構築し、公民（市民）に真に有効な参加の経路を提供することです。これにより、彼らは合法的かつ理性的な方法で要求を表明し、社会の進歩を推し進め、公共の事柄において積極的な役割を果たすことができるようになります。これらの要素が一体となって、民主主義という有機体を構成します。そうして初めて、民主主義が、表面的な選挙に留まることなく、社会の各層に深く根付き、一人ひとりの公民（市民）の参加と、公共の事柄への理性的な関心として、その真価を発揮することができるのです。三、幸せ：文明が最終的に行き着く場所自由と民主主義は、幸せを実現するための可能性を提供しますが、幸せそれ自体は、文明の帰結です。それは制度のレベルを超え、生活の質、心理的な満足、社会関係に対する、人間の総体的な経験として現れます。過去の社会は、多くの場合、物質的な豊かさを幸せの尺度としてきました。しかし、社会公民の段階を迎えようとする今、幸せはより包括的な定義へと移行しています。質の良い公的な医療や教育を受けられているか？安全で、寛容で、公正な環境で生活しているか？意義のある事柄を追求するための時間と自由があるか？恐怖や欠乏から免れているか？これらの問いこそが、幸せの深層的な構造を、真に明らかにするのです。この段階において、社会の幸せは、もはやGDPの成長率といった数字で測ることはできません。それは、人々の自尊心、達成感、社会的責任感、そして満足感の向上として現れます。これを実現するためには、福祉制度、社会の公平性、環境保護、メンタルヘルスといった、多次元的な視点から、「人間の尊厳」を中心とした現代社会を構築する必要があります。幸せは、強制されるものでも、単に物質的な刺激や宣伝によって作り出されるものでもありません。それは、個人の主観的な感覚と、社会の客観的な条件が共に作用して生まれるものであり、自由と民主主義がもたらす、自然な果実なのです。四、三者の相互依存と、その緊張関係自由、民主主義、幸せという三者は、孤立して存在するのではなく、動的に相互作用し、互いに依存し合う統一体です。現実の社会において、この三者はしばしば緊張関係にあります。ある国家は、経済効率を追求する中で民主主義を犠牲にし、ある政体は、民主主義を標榜しながら自由を制限します。また、ある先進国では、高い福祉の下で、かえって「幸福の幻覚」や心理的な問題が生じています。この緊張関係は、私たちに、文明とは静的な理想ではなく、矛盾の中で絶えず調整を続けていく、動的なプロセスであることを思い知らせてくれます。社会公民の段階における核心的な挑戦とは、まさに、この「三銃士」が互いを守り、同時に互いを抑制し合うようなメカニズムを、いかにして構築するか、という点にあります。それによって初めて、高度に調和し、相互に促進し合う文明の構造が形成されるのです。今日の世界には、未だに多くの国家が専制と動乱の中で苦しんでいます。また、豊かでありながら不安を抱え、強大でありながら愛のない国家もあります。これは、人類がまだ、真に「社会公民の段階」への文明的飛躍を成し遂げていないことを示しています。このような変局の中で、すべての国家、すべての社会、そして一人ひとりが、自問すべきです。私たちの自由は、本物か？私たちの民主主義は、信頼できるか？私たちの幸せは、持続可能か？この三者が互いに調和し、制度が安定し、そしてすべての人がその恩恵を享受できるようになった時、私たちは初めて、文明の新しい時代——個人を尊重し、公共を調和させ、全体の幸福を追求する「人間中心の時代」——へと、真に入ることができるのです。