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

台湾の大規模罷免運動:私たちは彼らを選べても、罷免は決してできないのか?

台湾の大規模罷免運動:私たちは彼らを選べても、罷免は決してできないのか?

Kishou · Jul 24, 2025

一乗公益 寄稿 私たちは、世界の民主主義制度における深いレベルの改革というテーマに、引き続き注目していきます。 付録:台湾の罷免制度に関する10の修正提案 序論: 多くの民主主義国家において、国民は「投票で代表者を選ぶ」権利を持つ一方で、「任期中に罷免する」ことは極めて困難です。 これは偶然ではなく、制度設計に「内在する障壁」が組み込まれているからです。近年、台湾で相次いで発生した罷免運動を例にとれば、その制度が実際には機能不全に陥り、民意が制度的に冷遇され、政治的責任追及がほぼ不可能になっている様子が明確に見て取れます。 この背景には、より深い民主主義の問いがあります。 罷免権を持たない民主主義は、制御不能な委任に過ぎません。 有効な罷免メカニズムを持たない制度は、単なる見せかけの政治に過ぎません。 一、台湾における罷免の苦境:現実レベルの「合法的な無効化」 √ 事例1:陳柏惟氏の罷免案(2021年) × 事例2:黄捷氏の罷免案(2021年) × 事例3:鍾東錦氏の罷免案(2024年) これらの事例が示すのは、制度が罷免の道を開きながらも、実際には「罷免阻止の仕組み」を構築しているということです。 二、なぜ罷免制度は「形骸化」しているのでしょうか?台湾における5つの制度的障壁 1. 手続きが複雑で、ハードルが極めて高い 問題は、制度が「罷免」を専門的な闘争に変えてしまい、一般市民が関与しにくい点にあります。 2. 政党による乗っ取りと政治的二極化、罷免を「選挙戦の延長」に貶める 罷免の本質は制度の自浄作用であるはずが、政党が互いに攻撃する道具として利用されています。 3. 市民の動員構造の解体、行動力が高度に分散 現代の民主社会では、個人は「自由」であると同時に「孤立」しています。 4. メディア環境の異質化、言論空間が「偽の民意」を生成 メディアはもはや市民の判断を導くのではなく、政党の方針を固めるのを助ける役割を担っています。 5. 罷免後の制度的な後始末がなく、市民が混乱を恐れる 市民が求めるのは「責任ある是正メカニズム」であり、混乱後の政治の空転ではありません。 三、民主主義には「完全な罷免制度」が不可欠です もし民主主義が公共の列車だとすれば、選挙は乗車であり、罷免はブレーキです。 ブレーキシステムを持たない民主主義は、自由な制度ではなく、制度的な制御不能に陥っています。 ▶ 完全な罷免制度は、以下の5つの要素を含むべきです。 構成要素 機能 台湾の現状 改善提案 ① 容易な発動 市民が発起でき、政党の支援は不要であるべきです。 極めて高いハードルです。 第1段階のハードルを0.5%にまで引き下げます。 ② 公正な審査 署名、資格、公文書のプロセスがすべて公開されるべきです。 行政権による審査が曖昧です。 超党派の独立罷免委員会の設立。 ③ 政党による操作の排除 […]

台湾大罢免:我们能选他们,却永远罢不掉他们?

台湾大罢免:我们能选他们,却永远罢不掉他们?

Kishou · Jul 24, 2025

一乘公益 出品 我们将持续关注世界民主制度的深层改革议题。 附:台湾罢免制度的十大修正建议 引言: 在多数民主国家,人民拥有“投票选人”的权利,却极难“中途罢人”。 这不是偶然,而是制度设计上的“内建屏障”。以台湾近年来接连爆发的罢免案为例,我们可以清晰地看到:罢免制度在操作上几近瘫痪,民意被制度性冷处理,政治责任几乎无法追究。 这背后,是一个更深刻的民主命题: 没有罢免权的民主,是失控的授权; 没有有效罢免机制的制度,只是表演性的政治。 一、台湾的罢免困局:现实层面的“合法无效” 案例1:陈柏惟罢免案(2021) 案例2:黄捷罢免案(2021) 案例3:钟东锦罢免案(2024) 这些案例说明:制度虽开罢免口子,实际却构建了“防罢免机制”。 二、为什么罢免制度“名存实亡”?台湾的五重制度性障碍 1. 程序复杂,门槛奇高 问题在于:制度把“罢免”变成了专业战争,普通人难以介入。 2. 政党绑架与政治极化,令罢免沦为选战延长线 罢免的本义是制度自清,却被政党当作政治互打工具。 3. 民众动员结构解体,行动力被高度分散 现代民主社会里,个体虽“自由”,但“孤立”。 4. 媒体生态异化,言论空间制造假民意 媒体不再引导公民判断,而是在协助政党定调。 5. 罢免之后,无制度性善后,导致民众恐惧动荡 民众需要的是“负责任的纠错机制”,不是混乱后的政治空转。 三、民主必须有“完整的罢免机制” 如果民主是一辆公共列车,选举是上车,罢免就是刹车。 一个没有刹车系统的民主,不是自由的制度,而是制度性失控。 ▶ 完整的罢免机制应包含五个构件: 构件 功能 台湾现状 优化建议 ① 易启动 民众能发起,无需政党支援 极高门槛 降低第一阶段门槛至0.5% ② 公正审查 联署、资格、公文全程公开 行政权审查模糊 建立跨党独立罢免委员会 ③ 非政党操控 去党化动员 政党完全主导罢免动员 限制政党使用行政资源介入罢免 […]

read more

Related Content

Understanding Civilization: The Dynamic Evolution of Human Morality
Understanding Civilization: The Dynamic Evolution of Human Morality
Avatar photo
Yicheng · Mar 26, 2025
Civilization isn’t just about accumulating wealth or advancing technology。 It is an ongoing journey that stretches throughout human history, shaped by our constant search for good, justice, fairness, and order. While religion, philosophy, law, and social structures are visible aspects of civilization, the true force driving its evolution is humanity’s continuous questioning, refining, and redefining […]
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 […]
Understanding the culture and civilization of a nation
Understanding the culture and civilization of a nation
Avatar photo
Yicheng · Feb 27, 2025
Culture and civilization are the two core forces driving a nation’s development. Culture shapes the character of a nation, while civilization reflects the depth of its moral progress and the path it takes toward higher ethical ideals. By exploring the relationship between culture and civilization, we can gain a deeper understanding of the inner forces […]
View All Content