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

Life’s Three Levels and Three Mindsets

Daohe · Oct 23, 2024

  On the journey of life, everyone faces different choices and pursuits, which often reflect their mindset and level of existence. People can be categorized into three different types based on the way they think. There are three different mindsets among people: the Grassroot Mindset, the Elite Mindset, and the Extraordinary Mindset. Each mindset has […]

人生的三种层次与三种思维

人生的三种层次与三种思维

Daohe · Oct 23, 2024

在生活的道路上,每个人都会面对不同的选择和追求,而这些选择往往体现了他们的思维方式和人生层次。可以将人生的层次以三种不同的思维来划分:草根思维、精英思维和强者思维。每一种思维都有其独特的逻辑和价值取向,塑造着人们对待生活的态度和方式。 第一层次:草根思维 草根思维的底层逻辑是大众思维。对于这种思维方式的人来说,人生没有明确的目标,一切的努力和进取只是为了更好地享受当下。他们追求的可能是日常的安逸、短期的快乐或是简单的满足,重视当下的享受胜过长远的规划。因此,在生活中他们更容易随波逐流,缺乏长远的愿景和深刻的思考。 草根思维往往在社会的底层较为普遍,因为这种思维与追求眼前利益和安全感的心态紧密相关。在生活的压力下,许多人会选择这种思维方式,因为它简单、直接,并能在短期内提供满足感。然而,草根思维的局限在于,它容易使人沉溺于现状而缺乏进取精神,难以突破现有的生活圈子和自我认知。 草根思维并不只是存在于社会底层中,有不少人拥有社会资源,却不懂得如何合理规划,长远打算。一个典型的例子是古罗马的皇帝尼禄,他以奢华、享乐和荒淫无度而著称。他的执政并没有明确的政治目标或长远的国家规划,更多的是追求个人的享受和奢侈的生活。他热衷于音乐和艺术,甚至亲自上台表演,对国家事务漠不关心。在罗马大火期间,他被传言在纵火后的夜晚弹琴吟诗,尽管有争议,但这种形象反映了他对民生和治理的轻视。 尼禄的行为代表了草根思维中的短视和自我中心,他缺乏更高的理想或社会责任感,专注于个人的感官享受,最终导致了民众的反抗和自己的覆灭。他的统治也因奢靡和残暴而被认为是罗马帝国衰落的一个重要原因,可见草根思维如果出现在掌权者身上,危害更大,如果缺乏远见和责任,最终可能会导致个人和社会的双重失败。 第二层次:精英思维 精英思维以“什么是最好、最优秀”为底层逻辑,人生的目标不再是简单的享受,而是追求金钱、权力或社会地位的高度。这种思维方式认为,只有通过不断的努力和奋斗,才能获得自己想要的一切。因此,精英思维者往往拥有明确的目标,并以此为驱动力,不断提升自我,实现个人的成功和价值。 这种思维方式常见于那些拥有物质优势或出身较好的群体,但也存在于一些自我奋斗的草根人士当中。精英思维激励着人们去突破自我,追求更高的成就和社会地位。然而,有精英思维的人往往将物质上的成就和社会的认可看得过重,而忽略了内心的真正需求以及生活的深层意义,忽略了对他人与社会的爱与关怀,从而变得冷漠,无法与自我和他人真正链接。 拿破仑·波拿巴是典型的精英思维的代表人物。他出身普通,但凭借着不懈的努力和卓越的军事才能,最终成为了法兰西第一帝国的皇帝。拿破仑的目标明确,就是要通过不断的征战和扩张来建立一个强大的帝国,实现个人的雄心壮志。他的整个生涯充满了挑战和野心,从一个普通的军官到掌控欧洲的皇帝,他始终在追求权力的巅峰。 拿破仑的精英思维体现在他对权力的渴望和对成就的不断追求,他通过个人的努力和领导才能获得了广泛的社会地位和历史影响力,但他的失败也提醒人们,精英思维过度追求物质和权力时,可能会忽略其他重要的价值。 第三层次:强者思维  强者思维的底层逻辑是“爱与慈悲”。在这种思维方式中,人生同样没有特定的目标,但因为对人间疾苦的深刻感知,他们常常心生悲悯之情,愿意为他人排忧解难。强者思维者的内心深处确立了一个为他人服务、化解痛苦的人生目标和态度,这种目标并不是外在强加的,而是源于对人类苦难的深刻理解和内心的无私关怀。 有趣的是,很多强者思维的人往往并非出身优越,而是来自底层。他们通过自己的人生经历,对生活的艰辛有着深刻的感受,这种感受使他们在面对他人的痛苦时,选择主动承担责任,而不是仅仅追求个人的利益。这种思维方式不仅赋予了他们强大的内在力量,也使他们具备了更广阔的心胸和更高的精神境界。 圣雄甘地是强者思维的典型代表。甘地出身于印度的一个普通家庭,虽然他后来成为一名律师并有机会过上相对优越的生活,但他选择了带领印度民众争取独立的道路。他倡导“非暴力不合作”的原则,为了民众的福祉和社会的正义,他多次绝食抗议,甘愿承受身体上的痛苦。他的目标并不是个人的荣誉或财富,而是通过自己的行动来改变整个社会,帮助人民摆脱殖民统治的压迫。 甘地的强者思维体现为他超越了个人利益,将爱与慈悲作为行动的核心,立志为人类服务,解决社会的不公和痛苦。他的思想和行为影响深远,不仅在印度,也为世界范围内的和平运动提供了宝贵的精神财富。 通过这些历史人物的故事,我们可以看到不同的人生态度和追求方向,同时也看到了不同的思维方式如何塑造了他们的人生轨迹和成就。草根思维如尼禄是古罗马的皇帝,注重眼前的生活乐趣;精英思维如拿破仑,追求权力和成就的巅峰;而强者思维如甘地,则超越了个人的追求,以慈悲和爱为动力,为他人和社会做出了巨大贡献。不同的思维方式不仅影响个人的生活方式,也在历史长河中留下了不同的印记。

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.
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 […]
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 […]
View All Content