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

文盲教育,正在把我们的未来拖入歧途引向文明的反面

Daohe · Nov 4, 2024

知识的外衣与思想的空壳:教育正在失去进步性代价 引言 教育的初衷,是引导个体成长、提升社会文明,然而,当教育失去了进步思想,它就不再是人类发展的引领之光,反而成了思想的桎梏。这样的教育不仅无法让学生获得真正的知识和智慧,甚至可能培养出盲从、固执,甚至有害于社会进步的“文盲”——看似受过教育,却缺乏批判性思维和独立精神。而当这种教育被滥用、失去道德底线时,它甚至会将人推向流氓行为,鼓励暴力、剥削等不道德的态度。本文将探讨:没有进步思想的教育为何是文盲教育,更是流氓教育。 一、何为“进步思想”:教育中的核心灵魂 进步思想是指教育应引导学生超越现有知识框架,具备批判性、创新性和社会责任感。它不仅培养对知识的理解,更赋予学生独立思考、质疑现状的能力,培养学生的文明视角,使其拥有洞察力和社会使命感。没有进步思想的教育,只能停留在知识的堆积层面,让学生机械地接受信息,最终成了没有“思想自由”的“知识奴隶”。进步思想是教育的核心灵魂,失去这一灵魂的教育,丧失了教育应有的尊严与道德底线。 二、没有进步思想的教育为何是“文盲教育” 1.      知识的“灌输”模式导致思想盲从 没有进步思想的教育倾向于“填鸭式”灌输,把知识变成一种机械的记忆,压抑学生的探索欲和好奇心。在这样的教育中,学生习惯于接受“标准答案”,而不是去质疑、理解和应用。这种教育模式会抹杀学生的批判性思维,使他们在现实生活中缺乏独立判断的能力,最终成为知识丰富却思想僵化的“文盲”。 2.   个性和创造力的泯灭 没有进步思想的教育往往强调统一的标准和规范,忽视了个体的差异和独特性。学生在这种环境下被迫放弃个性,顺应统一的规矩,缺乏个性发展的机会。创造力和个性被压制,最终形成对规则的依赖和对创新的恐惧,这样培养出的人无法应对快速变化的社会挑战,思想停滞不前,成为“被驯化的文盲”。 2.      社会责任感的缺失 真正的教育应当帮助学生理解自己在社会中的位置,理解推动社会进步对个体的影响,从而培养其对他人和社会的责任感。但缺乏进步思想的教育往往偏重“自我实现”或个人利益的追求,忽略了对集体和社会的责任感。这样的教育培养出的人对社会缺乏理解,对他人冷漠,从而形成了“精神文盲”——他们对社会公正和道德缺乏理解和认同。 三、没有进步思想的教育为何成为“流氓教育” 1.      盲从权威、压抑个性 没有进步思想的教育常常培养盲从的思想。学生被训练成不质疑、不反思的“顺从者”,习惯于服从权威,甚至不加判断地服从不合理的制度和命令。当这种教育模式培养的学生走上社会,他们往往对社会问题视而不见,甚至成为有害行为的执行者。这种盲从的教育实质上鼓励了权力的滥用,容易导致不道德的社会行为。 2.      暴力文化的滋生 没有进步思想的教育容易产生极端和暴力的倾向,因为它缺乏对多样性和差异性的包容。这样的教育不会引导学生理解和尊重不同的意见,而是倾向于“非黑即白”的判断模式。这种教育培养出的人极易走向极端化,在遇到不同意见时倾向于用极端手段解决问题,滋生暴力和对立,从而导致“流氓行为”的泛滥。 3.   功利主义和剥削心态 在没有进步思想的教育体系中,教育目标被单一化,个人利益、物质成就往往被过分强调。这种教育结果是功利主义和剥削心态的形成——学生只追求个人的成功,而不关心社会的公正和集体的福祉。在他们看来,牺牲他人利益甚至使用不正当手段来实现自我利益是合理的,这种心态与流氓行为有着相似的本质。 四、典型的“流氓教育”表现 1.    考试至上的应试教育 应试教育是“流氓教育”的典型表现之一。这种教育以成绩为导向,忽略学生的兴趣、性格和社会责任。学生被训练成考试机器,为了成绩可以不择手段,甚至在作弊或不正当竞争上表现出“流氓”般的行为。应试教育不仅扼杀了学生的创造力,也塑造了一种功利主义的风气,使教育沦为牟利的手段。 2.    权力和等级观念的灌输 有些教育体系固守等级观念,灌输服从、等级分明的思想,学生从小便学会依附权力、屈从于不合理的规则,形成奴性心理。这样的教育培养出的学生进入社会后,很可能缺乏平等意识,倾向于压制他人,甚至对弱者采取不公正的态度。这种现象实质上是一种“流氓行为”的表现,体现了教育在道德上的失位。 3.    缺乏人文关怀的职业教育 职业教育本应培养技术和技能,但如果在此过程中忽视人文精神和道德教育,学生很可能会将技能视为牟利工具,而不关心是否正当或道德。这种缺乏人文关怀的教育,最终导致社会中缺乏责任感和伦理观念的人,甚至在职业中滥用技术、损害社会利益。 五、重塑教育的进步思想:避免“文盲”与“流氓” 1.    培育批判性和创新思维 教育要摆脱“文盲”和“流氓”的负面影响,就必须培养学生的批判性和创新思维。教师应引导学生质疑、探讨不同的观点,让学生学会自己思考,而不是依赖权威。这样,学生才能在未来独立面对复杂的社会问题,避免盲从或极端化。 2.    […]

read more

Related Content

Education in Free Societies vs. Authoritarian Regimes
Education in Free Societies vs. Authoritarian Regimes
Avatar photo
Daohe · May 17, 2025
Every step forward in civilization has been guided by the light of education. Education does more than shape individuals—it molds entire eras. It is the foundation that determines whether a society remains stable or transforms, whether power is balanced or abused. In free and democratic societies, education is seen as the key to awakening public […]
Voting vs. decision-making: Understanding their roles in civilization
Voting vs. decision-making: Understanding their roles in civilization
Avatar photo
Kishou · Jun 11, 2025
This article explores the fundamental difference between voting and decision-making. Voting reflects the distribution of power and interests, while decision-making requires a small group of people with strategic competence. When these two are blurred, decisions risk becoming shortsighted and driven by emotion, leading to power imbalances that ultimately weaken social governance.
Inside the “cage trap”: how authoritarian governments maintain control
Avatar photo
Yicheng · Dec 19, 2024
If a regime or government adopts the “Cage Trap” policy, it essentially acts as an extreme mechanism to safeguard privilege and protect class interests. This article offers a multidimensional exploration of this concept. The “Cage Trap” refers to government policies that impose strict controls on citizens’ freedoms, often justified in the name of national security […]
Three keys to civil society: power, responsibilities, and protection
Three keys to civil society: power, responsibilities, and protection
Avatar photo
Yicheng · Apr 3, 2025
One of the greatest advancements of civilization today is not just the height of technology or the prosperity of cities, but the fact that people are finally being seen as an end rather than a means. When individuals transition from being ruled and managed to becoming thinking, vocal, and responsible members of society, we step […]
View All Content