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

Why Has Religion Failed? Do Modern People No Longer Need Faith?

Why Has Religion Failed? Do Modern People No Longer Need Faith?

Yicheng · Jan 23, 2025

Religion has long served as a vital cornerstone in human history, providing fundamental support for spiritual beliefs, moral norms, and social order. However, with the rapid advancement of modern civilization, religion appears increasingly outdated and rigid, struggling to adapt to the demands of the new era. This lag not only leaves people feeling disoriented but […]

宗教为何失灵?现代人不再需要信仰吗?

宗教为何失灵?现代人不再需要信仰吗?

Yicheng · Jan 23, 2025

宗教在人类历史长河中曾是社会的重要基石,它为人类的精神信仰、道德规范以及社会秩序提供了根本支持。然而,随着现代文明的快速发展,宗教显得愈发落后、僵化,无法适应新的时代需求。这种滞后性不仅让人们感到无法适从,还导致宗教的逐步边缘化,甚至被抛弃。 本文将从教义、组织结构、社会功能以及精神需求四个层面深入探讨宗教的落后及其影响,并反思宗教未来发展的可能性。 一、教义的僵化:无法回应现代人的问题 宗教教义是其核心所在,但许多宗教教义因其诞生于数千年前的社会背景,难以应对现代社会的复杂问题。并非现代人不需要信仰,而是宗教实践的落后,导致了现代人们对宗教的排斥和无感。 1. 过时的教义 传统宗教的许多教义源于古代社会,当时的生产力、科学水平及社会结构决定了宗教对世界的解释具有局限性。例如,许多宗教经典中对宇宙起源、自然现象及生命意义的解读,在科学的验证下显得缺乏说服力。随着现代人对宇宙和生命的认知不断深化,这些教义因无法与科学共融而变得苍白无力,甚至引起反感。 2. 缺乏动态诠释的能力 宗教教义的僵化不仅表现在其内容的过时,也表现在其对教义的解释方式缺乏灵活性。许多宗教领袖与组织固守传统解释,拒绝结合当代文化、科技和哲学对教义进行重新诠释,致使宗教无法为现代人提供切实的精神指引。 3. 忽视人类的复杂性 现代社会的人类需求已不再局限于物质与简单的灵魂慰藉,而是需要对个人价值、自由选择、多元文化的深刻理解。然而,一些宗教教义仍然以二元对立的视角(如善恶、救赎与堕落)审视人类行为,无法涵盖人性的复杂面向。这种简单化的教义体系越来越难以吸引人们,尤其是那些受过良好教育、注重独立思考的年轻人。 二、组织结构的封闭与保守:宗教权威的失灵 除了教义本身的僵化,宗教组织的封闭与保守也是其落后性的核心表现之一。 1. 权力集中与腐败 宗教组织内部的权力过度集中,常常导致不透明的管理结构,甚至滋生腐败现象。例如,某些宗教领袖利用信徒的信任谋取私利,或者掩盖内部丑闻以维持权威。这种行为让人们对宗教的神圣性与正当性产生质疑,最终选择远离宗教。 2. 等级制度与排他性 许多宗教组织维持着严格的等级制度,强调服从与权威。这种结构使得宗教缺乏对信徒个体需求的关注,甚至压制了信徒的独立思考。同时,某些宗教组织对外表现出强烈的排他性,拒绝与其他信仰、文化或思想体系合作与对话。这种狭隘的态度在全球化、多元化的时代显得格格不入。 3. 形式主义的泛滥 宗教组织内部往往更注重仪式与教规的形式化,而忽视了信徒的真实精神需求。例如,繁琐的宗教仪式可能成为信徒的负担,而非灵魂的滋养。形式主义的泛滥让宗教逐渐失去其内在的吸引力,变得空洞无物。 三、社会功能的弱化:未能回应当代议题 宗教在历史上曾是人们寻找意义的支撑,但在现代社会中,其社会功能显得日益弱化,甚至在关键领域缺位。 1. 对全球性问题的漠视 面对诸如气候变化、贫富差距、移民危机、性别不平等等全球性问题,宗教本应发挥道德引领的作用。然而,许多宗教组织表现出保守、狭隘的态度,缺乏推动全球合作与社会责任的积极性。这种漠视削弱了宗教的社会影响力,甚至让宗教成为分化的源头。 2. 忽视心理健康与精神需求 许多传统宗教在应对现代社会的问题时显得力不从心。这些宗教体系大多是建立在几百年前的社会背景下,而现代社会的心理问题,如焦虑、压力、孤独等,远远超出了宗教历史上所应对的范畴。 虽然宗教教义中有许多关于爱与宽容的理念,但它们往往缺乏具体的实践指导,特别是如何在现代社会中面对日常生活的挑战。很多时候,信徒听到的只是在道德层面的劝诫,而缺少针对具体情境的心理疏导和成长支持。宗教组织往往停留在空洞的布道与劝诫中,无法满足人们的深层次精神需求。 3. 与进步价值的冲突 宗教的落后还体现在其对现代价值观的抗拒上。例如,某些宗教持续反对性别平等、 LGBTQ+ 权益等社会进步议题,甚至站在科学与人权的对立面。这种对现代价值的敌视进一步削弱了宗教的吸引力,特别是对于年轻一代而言,宗教成为落后的代名词。 四、精神探索的分化:宗教的疏离与替代 当宗教无法适应时代,人们对意义与幸福的追寻并未停止,而是转向了其他领域: 1. 科学与哲学的兴起 科学和哲学在提供宇宙、生命以及人类行为的解释上,展现出了极大的魅力。许多人逐渐相信,通过科学探索与哲学思辨,可以超越传统宗教对世界的解释,找到更加可靠的答案。 2. 心理学与灵修的普及 心理学、灵修等现代实践为人们提供了更为个性化、实际有效的精神成长途径。无论是冥想、正念还是积极心理学,这些方法更贴近现代人的需求,逐渐成为宗教的替代品。 3. 人本主义与多元价值观的崛起 人本主义提倡以人为中心,而非以神为中心,强调每个人都可以通过自己的努力实现幸福与价值。这种观念与多元文化的包容性,使得人们能够接受多样的精神实践,而不再拘泥于单一的宗教体系。 五、反思宗教的未来:进步的可能性 宗教的落后并非不可逆转。若宗教能够反思自身的问题,并与现代社会接轨,仍然有可能重新焕发光彩: 1. 动态解读教义 宗教需要在尊重传统的同时,对教义进行符合时代需求的重新解释,让这些经典思想保持其生命力,同时与现代人更加紧密地对接。现代化的宗教解释能够引导信徒深入探索自我,学会处理情感冲突、孤独、压力等内心问题,帮助他们实现个人的精神成长。 宗教不仅是个人信仰的表现,更是社会凝聚力、文化认同和精神支持的重要来源。通过社会学的视角,宗教可以为信徒提供更多的社会服务和情感支持,而不仅仅是道德上的教化。 […]

read more

Related Content

4 Why’s Diversity is Key for Better Global Democracies
Avatar photo
Kishou · Dec 24, 2024
After witnessing the horrors of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century and the deep critiques of capitalist systems in the 21st, post-2024 democratic governments will inevitably take on a new form. They will no longer replicate the military or social autocracies of the past, nor will they serve as mere instruments of economic and financial […]
Key values of social citizenship: freedom, democracy, happiness
Key values of social citizenship: freedom, democracy, happiness
Avatar photo
Yicheng · Mar 29, 2025
Civilizational shift and value reconstruction Human civilization is stepping into the “social citizenship era”—a time when people are more aware, systems are stable, and individual rights truly matter. From obedient subjects to national citizens, and now to social citizens, civilization is no longer measured by empires, power, or flashy technology—it is defined by new values […]
How to build a highly efficient and perfectly oppressive society
How to build a highly efficient and perfectly oppressive society
Avatar photo
Yicheng · May 10, 2025
A system where everyone can be deceived, exploited, and oppressed—yet powerless to resist Throughout the course of human civilization, the idea of building a “perfect abyss” has never been a mere fantasy. Its prototypes are scattered across history and present-day society—different in appearance, but strikingly similar in essence. If one were to deliberately design such […]
Political sovereignty and the foundation of an autonomous civil society
Political sovereignty and the foundation of an autonomous civil society
Avatar photo
Daohe · Jun 3, 2025
Without citizen sovereignty, there can be no true citizen state. 1. What is a state? What is a citizen? A state is not merely a set of borders, institutions, regimes, or ruling authorities. In its modern form, a state is a political community voluntarily formed by a group of social citizens, organized around shared interests, […]
View All Content