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

公务员的“制度牛马”人生:全球制度演化下的牺牲者逻辑

公务员的“制度牛马”人生:全球制度演化下的牺牲者逻辑

Daohe · Aug 30, 2025

——跨越历史、文明与制度的制度性操控陷阱 引言:全球性悲剧,制度型设定 在今天的许多国家,不论是民主国家、威权体制,还是新兴政体,“公务员群体”的角色都被困于一种危险而悖谬的结构中: 既要求他们忠诚,却不给他们清白的空间; 既赋予他们权力,却不保障他们的人格; 既要他们维持秩序,却随时能将其当作代罪羔羊。 这种“制度牛马式人生”不是东方独有,也非威权特产,而是全球制度文明长期演化的副产品,是行政官僚体系内部固有的牺牲机制,具有全球普遍性与制度传承性。 一、从古代帝国到殖民体制:公务员的全球“牺牲性”起源 1. 古罗马与波斯帝国:忠诚工具人 vs. 权力收割机 古罗马帝国建立了全世界最早的大型文官系统之一,但这套系统的核心逻辑就是:“执行者无权,责任全责”。地方总督若不能维稳、征税、供应军粮,就可能被元老院弹劾、失职流放,甚至当街处死。 波斯帝国也是如此,其“御使”(即帝国巡查员)虽地位崇高,却是帝王“耳目”与“祭品”合一——一旦被怀疑忠诚动摇,先杀之而后问责。 2. 中世纪教权与王权体系:公务官僚的高压困局 在中世纪的西欧王权与教权共治体系中,王室“书记官”、教廷“执事长”都是顶级公务员,却也是最高风险承担者。许多“替主办事”的高级行政人员死于权斗、背锅与舆情清算。 如英格兰托马斯·贝克特,既是忠臣,也是“政治尸体”。 3. 殖民体系:全球外派官僚的双重囚笼 英、法、荷、西等殖民帝国在全球派驻大量殖民地行政官员,他们既要“平定土著、榨取税收”,又不能得罪母国议会和本地资本。这些人时常在殖民危机、起义失败、经济衰退中成为“第一批牺牲者”。 全球殖民史中的“倒霉总督”,是最真实的制度燃料使用记录。 二、近现代国家的“行政机器”:权力之中被去人格 1. 纳粹德国与苏联体制:制度牲畜的极致形态 在极权制度下,公务员几乎是制度的消耗品: 这种政体下的公务员,表面代表国家,实则是高压权力体系的第一轮牺牲群体。 2. 民主国家的替罪结构:舆情下的抛弃机制 即使在制度成熟的民主国家,公务员也并未逃离“可抛弃性命运”: 民主制度未必更温和,只是抛弃公务员的方式更“文明”。 三、现代“制度牛马”人生的五大特征:全球通行的“操控套件” 无论是在哪个国家,今天的公务员系统都呈现出一种高度相似的“可操控“制度牛马”系统结构”: 1. 权力与责任严重不对称 拥有有限执行权,却必须对政策失误、舆情崩盘、预算危机负责。真正的决策者“法律免责”,执行者则“程序问责”。 2. 收入与期望严重错位 全球多数国家的公务员收入不足以匹配其工作强度与公众期待,从而滋生合法之外的“灰色激励体系、即灰色收入”。 3. 忠诚与独立人格不可共存 在许多国家,“政治中立”与“制度忠诚”常常矛盾。一名公务员若太独立思考,便容易被视为“不合作份子”;若过度服从,又将失去社会信任。 4. 被制度诱腐,再被制度清算 制度在表面上鼓励清廉,但在实际中留下大量“可腐空间”作为控制手段。一旦需要清洗,就从中选出“替罪羊”以平息不满。 5. 最终成为社会愤怒的集装箱 无论是民众对贫富不均、治理失效、官僚作风的怨恨,最终往往集中喷向公务员无能、腐败、躺平、弱智、不作为,而不是资本权贵或体制高层。 四、为什么制度总要一个“可杀的执行群体”? 制度总要解决三个关键难题: 问题 制度对策 如何维持执行效率? 养一群服从且依赖体制的人 如何延长制度稳定性? […]

世界に普遍的に存在する二つの人生:「制度の歯車」としての人生と「制度の燃料」としての人生

世界に普遍的に存在する二つの人生:「制度の歯車」としての人生と「制度の燃料」としての人生

Kishou · Aug 29, 2025

——人生を理解する:グローバルな制度進化における共生のジレンマと、そこからの解放への道 序論:世界的な制度の罠と、二つの人生の普遍性 北米、ヨーロッパ、アフリカ、ラテンアメリカ、中東、そしてアジアの各地域に至るまで、世界の社会には、制度設計によって形作られた二つの人生モデルが普遍的に存在します。それは、公務員の「制度の歯車」としての人生と、大衆の「制度の燃料」としての人生です。この二つの生き方は一見すると無関係に見えますが、現代の制度という機械において不可欠な二つの歯車であり、国家と社会の運転を共に駆動させると同時に、制度がもたらす深層的な操作と抑圧を共に受け止めています。 グローバルな視野からこの問題に切り込み、二つの人生の共通点と相違点を明らかにすることでのみ、現代の制度文明が抱える苦境をより深く理解し、その解決の道を模索することができるのです。 一、公務員の「制度の歯車」人生:世界の執行者たちが置かれた板挟みの状況 1.地域を越えた共通点:権限は限定的、しかし責任は重い 2. 役割の矛盾:忠誠心と人格の抑圧 公務員は上層部の政策を厳格に執行することを求められますが、十分な意思決定権や人格的な尊重を欠いています。彼らは制度における「交換可能な部品」となり、いつでも排除されるリスクに晒されています。 二、大衆の「制度の燃料」人生:世界で消耗され続ける社会の主体 1. 経済的搾取と社会的疎外の普遍的な存在 2. イデオロギーと情報操作という世界的現象 大衆は、断片化されたメディア環境の中で情緒的に誘導され、制度の深層的な問題に対する認識を欠いています。その感情は容易に操作され、制度を安定させ、動かし続けるための「従順な燃料」となります。 三、対立の否定:文化を越えた理解の下での共生の現実 四、グローバルな視点からの制度再設計:公正と尊厳を目指して 結論:共生を認識し、共に制度の束縛から解放されるために 公務員の「制度の歯車」としての人生と、大衆の「制度の燃料」としての人生は、現代のグローバルな制度文明における普遍的な現象であると同時に、制度的な共生のジレンマでもあります。文化の違いを乗り越え、互いの状況を認識し、共に制度設計を改革することでのみ、世界の社会は誤解と対立から抜け出し、真の公正、尊厳、そして幸福を実現できるのです。

read more

Related Content

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.
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 […]
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