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

社会性怀旧问题:全球文明停滞下的无奈现象

Daohe · Oct 31, 2024

全球怀旧情绪如潮水般涌动,席卷了每个人的心。人们在无尽的信息洪流中,常常停下脚步,凝视从前,回望过去,试图在回忆的温暖中找到慰藉。这种情绪甚至体现在了文化创作中,翻拍过去的题材和电影,几乎成了票房保证。值得警惕的是,这种社会性怀旧并不仅仅是对旧时光的简单追溯,它深刻地揭示出我们对当下生活的失望,对文明停滞的无奈,和对文明升级的渴望。 文化产业的怀旧潮流 在全球范围内,文化产业正在经历一场怀旧的浪潮。从电影到音乐,从时尚到游戏,许多作品都在翻拍、重新制作,让人们重温经典。这种趋势确实满足了人们对美好往昔的向往,但也反映出当代文化的某种焦虑。例如,翻拍电影与旧剧集的回归,往往引发观众的集体共鸣,成为社交媒体上的热门话题。这种现象背后,隐含着观众对当下现实的无奈与失落。 这种文化现象并不止步于娱乐行业,它还影响着广告、品牌营销等领域。品牌利用怀旧元素来吸引消费者,以一种“重温经典”的方式来打动内心。这种策略在短期内或许有效,但长远来看,缺乏创新的文化产品可能会导致观众的审美疲劳。 停滞的文明与精神空虚 社会性的怀旧不仅仅是对过去的简单回顾,更是对当下现实的一种反思。尽管经济在持续发展,社会文明思想却停滞不前。我们目睹了技术的飞速发展,但在文明思想层面,即道德观念、社会价值和人际关系等方面,似乎并没有实质性的进步。这样的现状使得许多人在追求物质的同时,精神世界却倍感空虚。怀旧因此成为一种情感寄托,人们在回忆中寻找慰藉。 我们每天面对的信息与选择如潮水般涌来,但内心的孤独感却愈发加重。意识形态的矛盾与文化的冲突,让个体在喧嚣中感到孤立无援。人们在追逐物质的同时,精神世界却愈显空虚,怀旧成为了一种自我保护的情感机制,让我们在纷扰的现实中寻找到那份逝去的温暖。 对文明思想升级的恳切 如果社会无法对文明思想进行有效的升级,这种怀旧情绪将持续蔓延,文化产业也将陷入更加严重的创新危机。怀旧所带来的短暂满足无法替代对未来的积极探索,文化产业如若只依赖过去的辉煌而不寻求创新,必将失去其生机。 面对社会性怀旧的盛行,我们需要看到其背后的真正原因,推动社会文明的升级与突破。这意味着要客观审视现有社会制度中的问题,在社会各个方面提出创新的思想,进行实践与变革,推动文明的升级。我们必须清晰地认识到问题的根源,并愿意采取行动去改变现状。这正是一乘公益正在做的事情。 结语 社会性怀旧的蔓延,是对过去美好时光的渴望,更是对当下问题的情感逃避。在历史的长河中,尽管我们无法改变已逝的岁月,但可以通过提升文明思想和推动社会创新,开辟通往未来的道路。唯有如此,才能让人们不再沉溺于怀旧的情感中,而是共同推动社会进步,迎接一个更加幸福的未来。看得到未来的行动,才是无望生活最好的解药。

Human morality will always stand above workplace rules

Kishou · Oct 30, 2024

This article explores the relationship between workplace rules and human morality, emphasizing that moral values stand above regulations. While rules help ensure work efficiency, they cannot replace the ability to discern right from wrong. The article calls for integrating morality into professional practice in order to foster deeper human care and promote social harmony.

read more

Related Content

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 […]
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 […]
The Real Enemy of Civilization
The Real Enemy of Civilization
Avatar photo
Yicheng · Apr 10, 2025
Yicheng Commonweal has written over a hundred articles, aiming to awaken the public’s fundamental understanding of goodness, virtue, civilization, ignorance, love, and progress. We originally thought that many misunderstandings and indifference stemmed from a lack of awareness. However, after engaging with more people, we discovered that for some, their evil is intentional, a disguise crafted […]
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.
View All Content