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

When I heard the Harvard girl Jiang Yurong speak at graduation

When I heard the Harvard girl Jiang Yurong speak at graduation

Master Wonder · Jun 2, 2025

“Going beyond ideology and belief”—that is the devil’s flute. Not every gentle voice brings peace—some quietly lead us away from justice. People who often well-dressed and well-educated, speak sweetly about “going beyond beliefs,” “transcending oppositions,” and “celebrating our shared humanity.” They speak of how “we are all the same” and how “our shared humanity matters […]

当我听到哈佛女生蒋雨融在毕业典礼上的讲话

当我听到哈佛女生蒋雨融在毕业典礼上的讲话

Master Wonder · Jun 2, 2025

——超越理念与信仰的做法,就是魔鬼的竹笛 这个时代,总有人打着“超越理念”“超越信仰”的旗号,煞有介事地谈什么“共同人性”“超越对立”“我们都一样”。他们话语温柔、神态可爱、学历光鲜,看上去像是道德化身,实际上却是现代文明最危险的麻醉剂,披着正义外套的魔鬼。 我听了哈佛女生蒋雨融在毕业典礼上的讲话,那种“超越理念与信仰”“我们彼此联结”“制造麻烦的人也是血肉之躯”的温情喊话,让人瞬间联想到那些在人类悲剧与暴政中高唱团结与包容的刽子手助手。 所以,必须写下这篇文章。 超越理念信仰?那是耍流氓 理念与信仰,是文明之基。它们是人类几千年在血与火、苦难与智慧中淬炼出来的价值边界。它们规定了什么是善,什么是恶,什么应当,什么不能。 而所谓“超越理念与信仰”,说白了,就是拒绝判断善恶,拒绝坚守正义,让强者行恶、恶人行凶、暴君作孽,依然堂而皇之地要求你“理解他们”“包容他们”,然后继续做他们的顺民、猎物、工具。 这不是宽容,而是道义背叛。这不是开放,而是精神自残。 那些超越者,本质是为魔鬼争权 凡是鼓吹“超越理念、超越信仰”的人,表面在讲和解、讲包容,实际上是为恶势力开路、为强权正名。他们用人性和爱当作话术,把对立双方虚假等量化,把正义和罪恶强行平衡,掩盖阶级压迫、权力罪行、制度暴力,把那些制造苦难者洗成“也是血肉之躯”。 别忘了,猎人与猎物、主子与奴仆、刽子手与受害者,的确“同是血肉”,但他们的立场、利益、处境天差地别。用“同是血肉”去掩盖阶级本质、压迫逻辑,便是对受害者的二次杀戮。 这是魔鬼式的人性洗脑:让猎物在受宰前感恩,让奴仆在被压迫时感动。 社会差异,远超性别与文化 我们常说“男女平等”“种族平权”“文化互鉴”,但最残酷的社会差别,其实是阶级差异。它决定了谁能掌控规则,谁必须忍受结果;谁能决定他人生死,谁只能乞怜活命。 而当你忽略阶级差异,只谈“血肉相连”“同理心”“超越理念”,你就是把统治者与被压迫者、刽子手与牺牲品强行捆在一条道德绳索上。对强者,这是伪善仁慈;对弱者,这是死亡判决。 他们说:“我们彼此联结”。是的,感恩节我也跟火鸡说过这句话。然后火鸡就成为我餐桌上的美味。这种“联结”,火鸡领悟不了,但现代文明中许多被收割者,已经在笑着配合。 魔鬼的竹笛 所谓“超越理念与信仰”,就是魔鬼手中的竹笛。它吹奏出动听的旋律,让民众相信世界没有绝对恶,仿佛一切都可以对话、联结、和解。 当你放下理念和信仰,你也就放下了警觉、抵抗、判断与底线。最终,你便成了顺从的群体,任人宰割,甘当盘中餐,还感恩赐予自己食物。 结语: 理念可以升级,信仰可以完善,但它们绝不能被篡改、放弃或超越。因为这是文明之锚、正义之剑、人类之尊严。 那些口口声声喊着“超越理念与信仰”的人,不论外表多纯真,话语多柔软,都是在为魔鬼争夺话语权与正义定义权。我们可以善良,但绝不蠢。我们有同理心,但不为伪善鼓掌。 记住:不是所有温情喊话都是仁慈,很多只是刽子手披着可爱皮囊的审判令。

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 […]
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 […]
Cowardice and brutality in Chinese education: a warning and threat to global civilization
Cowardice and brutality in Chinese education: a warning and threat to global civilization
Avatar photo
Master Wonder · Jun 9, 2025
I. Why are cowardly and brutal styles of education so common in Eastern societies, especially in China? To understand these two distorted educational patterns, we must go beyond blaming individual parents or schools. Instead, it is necessary to examine the deeper cultural and historical roots—particularly the long-standing authoritarian structure of Chinese civilization. For centuries, Chinese […]
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 […]
View All Content