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

Time, history, and how we understand them

Time, history, and how we understand them

Daohe · Jun 5, 2025

Since the dawn of human civilization, history has carried people’s collective memory and experience. People have long tried to draw lessons from it, hoping to avoid repeating past mistakes and to push society forward. Yet when we look back across thousands of years, the rise and fall of dynasties, the cycles of war and peace, […]

重新认识时间与历史的关系

重新认识时间与历史的关系

Daohe · Jun 5, 2025

自人类文明诞生以来,历史便承载着我们的集体记忆与经验。人们常试图从历史中汲取教训,以避免重蹈覆辙、推动社会进步。然而回顾数千年的文明演进,王朝更替、战争与和平、专制与反抗似乎反复出现,呈现出某种周期性的循环。 原因不在于历史本身,而在于我们看待历史的方式。 当我们以“时间线”的视角审视历史,历史就成为一个可以被分析、归纳与理解的对象,帮助我们辨识文明演化的脉络与制度演进的逻辑。 而当我们以既有的经验去类比现实,便容易落入命运论的思维模式,将历史简化为宿命的重复,使得经验的教训难以真正转化为制度变革或认知跃迁。 本文将从这两种不同的历史观出发,探讨它们对人类文明认知、集体心理及制度构建的深层影响,并尝试回答一个关键问题:为何我们常常意识到历史的教训,却依然难以摆脱文明困境的轮回? 一、时间线历史观:还原事实,厘清路径 将历史置于时间轴上,是一种理性且系统的观察方式。它以事实为基础,将事件依时间顺序展开,使过去不再只是模糊的传说或情绪化的记忆,而成为可以分析、理解的历史现实,具备因果关系与结构逻辑。 这种方式的核心价值在于: 时间线历史观的价值,在于它拒绝将历史视为命运的重演,而是强调变量的作用。 它承认历史的开放性与文明路径的多样性,强调人类行为的能动性与制度选择的重要性。 文明是否走向进步,并非由所谓的“历史规律”决定,而取决于我们如何面对现实、反思过去、选择未来。 二、历史中的历史观:经验循环与宿命陷阱 与以时间线为基础的理性观察不同,另一种更常见的历史理解方式,是在历史中看历史——即人们倾向于以过去的历史模式解读现实,并尝试从中提炼出“规律”,以此指导当下。 这种思维背后的动因,是人类对不确定性的天然恐惧。面对复杂多变的现实,我们倾向于从既有经验中寻找解释与预判路径,以此缓解对未来的焦虑。但正是这种趋向确定性的本能,容易滑向宿命论的深渊。 具体体现在以下几个方面: 以历史看历史,最大的危害是让历史教训合法化为历史规律,使当代人失去纠错与变革意志。 三、历史为何教而不改 为何人类社会屡次面对相似的灾难,却始终难以真正吸取教训?问题并不在于历史本身不清晰,而在于文明内部存在三种深层机制,使得历史教训在传承与转化过程中被系统性削弱,甚至失效。 1. 权力的自我维系机制 执政者与既得利益集团往往出于延续统治的需求,有意回避甚至篡改历史真相。前朝之覆可能被描述为“天命已尽”或“人心叵测”,而非制度崩溃或社会失衡。 这种对历史教训的选择性叙述,实质是为了削弱变革的正当性,从而维持现有秩序。 2. 集体认知的惰性机制 公共意识倾向于接受熟悉、线性、符合传统经验的解释,而对复杂性与不确定性保持天然警惕。这种认知惰性让社会更愿意接受“盛极必衰”这样的宿命叙事,而非深入剖析具体的制度性失败。 久而久之,历史经验被简化为模式,变成一种“心理安慰”,而非行动指南。 3. 叙事权的封闭控制机制 谁掌握叙事,谁就掌握历史的意义。在大多数社会中,历史往往由官方书写,反思性的民间声音则被边缘化甚至封锁。结果是,即使真实的教训存在,也难以进入主流教育与公共讨论,从而失去触达集体意识的渠道。 这三种机制相互交织,使文明难以形成有效的自我修正能力。历史不仅被遗忘,更被格式化、被利用,成为延续旧模式的工具,而非开启新路径的资源。 因此,哪怕灾难重演,社会依然可能选择熟悉但失败的方案,陷入一次次看似“不可避免”的轮回。 四、文明突围的现实路径 要真正吸取历史的教训,文明必须挣脱经验主义与宿命论的束缚,回归基于事实、逻辑和变量的历史理解。这种突围不是抽象的理念转变,而是现实中集体认知和制度实践的深刻重构。 这意味着: 结语 当我们将历史的发展置于时间线中去看待,历史便回归其真实面貌,成为文明认知自身演进路径的参照。 而当我们用既有的历史模式去解释现实与未来,便容易落入经验的循环与宿命的陷阱,使教训失效,让文明困于自我复制的轮回。 文明的进步并非时间推移的自然结果,也不是历史规律的自动演化。它的发展依赖于少数清醒之人——那些敢于质疑旧范式、突破经验窠臼、重构制度与秩序的人。他们推动时代断裂与文明重生,赋予历史真正的价值。

read more

Related Content

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 […]
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 […]
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