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.

価値の行き着く先：世俗の基準を超え、より高次の幸せへ

Master Wonder · Mar 6, 2025

物質至上のこの時代、私たちはしばしば「あなたの価値とは何ですか？」という問いに直面させられます。それは富の多さでしょうか、それとも肩書きの高さでしょうか。人々は往々にして、お金、社会的地位、名誉を人の価値を測る基準とし、まるでそれらを手にして初めて、その生命は認められる価値があるとみなします。しかし、真の価値観は、外的な肯定から来るのではなく、内面の修練と超越から生まれるのです。世俗的な物差し：脆弱な価値体系現代社会において、金銭と権力は成功を測る主要な尺度となりました。豪邸や高級車、輝かしい肩書きを持つ人は「成功者」とみなされます。一方で、黙々と奉仕し、華やかさを追い求めない人々は、しばしば無視され、軽んじられることさえあります。しかし、このような外的な測定方法は脆弱です。富は一夜にして失われる可能性があり、地位もまた時間によって取って代わられるものだからです。富は物質的な楽しみをもたらすことはできますが、精神的な空虚を埋めることはできません。名声は一時的な敬意を勝ち取ることはできても、心に真の安寧を与えることはできません。かつてあれほど栄華を極めた財界の大物やエンターテイメントのスーパースターたちが、最終的に空虚さゆえに道を見失い、自滅へと向かった例は枚挙にいとまがありません。これは、世俗的な基準だけで築かれた価値体系が、砂の上に建てた高層の塔のように、風雨に耐え難いものであることを示しています。世俗を超越する：人生の真の力の源真の価値は、外界の承認からではなく、内面の充実から生まれます。人の一生は、単に富と名誉を追求するためだけにあるのではなく、精神的な側面で成長し、深みを増していくべきものです。釈迦牟尼は王宮で栄華を極めましたが、それらが人生の苦しみを解決できないことに気づきました。彼は最終的に王位を放棄し、修行して道を悟り、生命の真の意味を探求することを選びました。彼の価値は、富や権力の上に築かれたのではなく、彼が追求した智慧と慈悲にあり、それが無数の人々を苦しみから解放しました。道家は「道は自然に法（のっと）る」ことを強調し、真の力は外物への執着ではなく、内面の調和から生まれると考えます。老子はかつて「持してこれを盈（み）たすは、その已（や）むに如かず」と述べました。これは、外的な満足を過度に追求することは、かえって内心の不安をもたらすという意味です。人生の至高の境地に達した人々は、往々にして最も裕福な人ではなく、最も自身や世界と和解できた人です。イエスは富も世俗的な権力も何一つ持っていませんでした。彼の生涯は苦難に満ちてさえいましたが、彼の価値は国王や富豪たちを遥かに超越しています。彼が説いた愛、許し、奉仕は、幾千年にもわたり人類の心を導く灯台となりました。神の恩寵もまた、物質的な豊かさによって測られるのではなく、それによって心の平安と信仰という拠り所が得られるかどうかにあります。これらの偉大な精神的指導者たちは、私たちに一つの真実を明らかにしています。真の価値は、内面の修練から生まれるものであり、外的な所有から生まれるものではない、ということです。価値の真の行き着く先：他者の幸せのために努力することもし個人の価値が富や肩書きによって決まらないのだとしたら、その真の行き着く先はどこにあるのでしょうか。答えはシンプルです。私たちがこの世界や他者に対して、どれだけ多くの幸せをもたらすことができるかにあります。「一乗」の趣旨は、まさにこの信念に基づいています。個人の利益を超え、衆生の幸福を思い、万世の福祉のために努力する。このような価値観は、個人の成長に関心を寄せるだけでなく、社会全体の調和と長期的な幸福をも見据えています。真の成功とは、個人の富の蓄積ではなく、より多くの人々が幸せを得られるようにすることです。お金は使い果たせますが、名声は消え去るかもしれません。しかし、善行が残した影響は永遠のものです。私たちが貧しい子供が教育を受けられるよう手助けすれば、その子の未来はそれによって変わります。私たちが孤独な老人を気遣えば、その晩年はそれによって温もりを得ます。私たちが公益事業を推進すれば、社会全体がそれによって善へと一歩前進します。これらこそが、物質的な側面を超えた真の価値なのです。より高次の意義を生きるもし私たちが人生のすべてを金銭と名声に託すなら、最終的に得られるのは、束の間の満足と、それに続く空虚さだけかもしれません。しかし、もし私たちが他者を助け、幸福を創造することの上に価値を築くなら、私たちの人生は意義に満ちたものになるでしょう。修練によって深められた心こそが、生涯を通じて私たちを支える力の源です。富は失われるかもしれませんが、肩書きは忘れ去られるかもしれません。しかし、内面の成長や善行の積み重ねは、時空を超えて無数の人々に影響を与えることができます。私たちは、自分自身の価値の行き着く先を再考し、もはや世俗の基準に縛られることなく、より高次の境地へと踏み出すべきです。すなわち、他者の幸せのために努力し、長期的な福祉のために力を尽くすことです。そうしてこそ、私たちの人生は意義を持つだけでなく、世界をより明るくする一部となるでしょう。真の価値の実践：思考から行動へ価値の真の源を理解することは第一歩にすぎません。さらに重要なのは、それをいかに生活の中で実践するかです。もし理念上にとどまり、行動に移さなければ、私たちの価値観は真に世界を変えることはできません。では、どうすれば自らの人生をより高次の意義へと導き、あらゆる命の幸せのために力を尽くすことができるのでしょうか。一、自己を超越し、利他的な思考を確立する多くの人々は自己中心的に考え、いかに多くの富、多くの成果、多くの個人の幸福を得るかを考えがちです。しかし、真に智慧のある人は、「私は他者に何をもたらすことができるか？」と逆に考えます。釈迦牟尼はかつて「我相（がそう）、人相（にんそう）、衆生相（しゅじょうそう）、寿者相（じゅしゃそう）無し」と説きました。これは、「自己」に執着する念を手放してこそ、真の解脱が得られるという意味です。同様に、私たちが注意を「自分がどう得るか」から「他者にどう与えるか」へと転換するとき、私たちの内面的な価値は大きく高まります。二、小さなことから始め、善のエネルギーを蓄積する多くの人々は「公益活動」や「他者支援」を、お金やリソースがなければできない「大事」だと考えがちです。しかし、実際はそうではありません。真の善行は、身近な小さなことから始まるのです。『聖書』の中で、イエスは貧しいやもめが神殿に投じた二つの小さな銅貨を、富豪が寄付した多くの富よりも称賛しました。なぜなら、彼女の善行は「余りもの」からではなく、心の底からの真の奉仕であったからです。善行の大小は重要ではなく、大切なのはその真心です。三、長期的な視野を養い、万世の幸福を思考する現代社会は短期的なリターンを重視しすぎており、人々は投資がすぐに効果を現し、努力がすぐに報われることを望みます。しかし、真に偉大な事業は、長期的な蓄積を必要とします。東洋の中国には「前人（ぜんじん）樹を植え、後人（こうじん）涼を楽しむ」という古い言葉があります。真の智慧とは、自分自身はその結果を見ることができないかもしれないが、後世の人々に幸福をもたらすことを行うことです。道家は自然に従い、長期的な視点で世界を見ることを説きます。『道徳経』の中で、老子は「上善は水の若（ごと）し。水は善く万物を利して争わず」と述べています。最上の善とは水のようなもので、万物に潤いを与えながらも争わず、その恩恵は万世に及びます。「一乗」が提唱する理念も、まさに目先の損得ではなく、後世の福祉のためのものです。人が人類文明のレベルに立って自己の存在意義を思考し、単に「今を生きる」だけでなく、未来のために幸せを創造するとき、その人の価値はもはや個人に限定されず、歴史の長い流れの一部となります。四、内面の支えを見つけ、実践する信念を固めるこの世俗を超越し、利他的な道へ真に歩み出すことは容易ではありません。世俗の基準は至る所にあり、身近な人々から「なぜお金儲けに集中しないのか？」「なぜそんな『無駄』なことに時間を使うのか？」と疑問を呈されるかもしれません。このような環境下で、どうすれば内面の確固たる信念を保ち、世俗に左右されずにいられるのでしょうか。答えは、内なる支えを見つけることにあります。結び：生命を光となし、世界を照らすこの世界の苦しみ、争い、貪欲さは、往々にして人々が「自己」の満足に執着しすぎ、真の幸せの源を見失っているために生じます。私たちが個人の限界を超越し、より多くの人々の幸せのために努力するとき、生命の価値は変わってきます。富は消え去り、肩書きは忘れ去られるでしょう。しかし、善行の力は千年先にも影響を与え得ます。願わくは、私たち一人ひとりが、世界の光となり、他者の道を照らし、後世の幸せを温める存在とならんことを。