Aren't both Japan and China societies where only the citizens end up being sacrificed?

‌Looking at Japan, I can't help but feel it is a very frustrating country.
They are intoxicated by the past glory of being an economic superpower,
but the reality is long-term low growth and stagnant real wages.
While the economy has been losing vitality for decades,
how much has politics actually changed?
Political positions are passed down through generations,
the collusion between vested interests and the bureaucracy repeats itself,
and political funding issues never cease.
Yet, what they actually demand from the citizens
is to endure, persevere, and not cause trouble for others.
Regarding the recent fatal accident at a local festival,
the story that the bereaved family apologized is bitter to swallow.
While the facts need to be verified separately,
if the atmosphere is such that even the victims must bow their heads
while worrying about how others perceive them,
one must question if that society is functioning normally.
A society where those trying to correct wrongs
are treated as people breaking the organizational order,
and where silence and conformity are packaged as virtues.
In such a culture, is there any reason for the vested interests to change?
And what about China?
If Japan's issue is hereditary politics and vested interest structures,
China's issue is the single-party rule of the Communist Party and the concentration of power.
They constantly promote the nation's economic achievements,
but the real estate slump, youth unemployment,
and local government debt problems remain serious.
In a structure where national prestige and
regime maintenance take precedence over the lives of the people,
how much can ordinary citizens actually change policies?
The difference is that Japan demands conformity through social pressure,
while China demands conformity through political control.
Of course, one cannot view the political systems and civil liberties
of the two countries as being the same.
However, the commonality I am focusing on is this:
when the most fundamental principle—that power must exist for the people—is shaken,
the burden ultimately falls back onto the ordinary citizens.
A strong nation does not mean happy citizens.
Large corporations being wealthy does not mean the citizens are wealthy.
What is the point of having a large economy and superior technology
if ordinary citizens worry about the future,
if young people find it difficult to dream of a stable life,
and if it is hard to speak up even when facing injustice?
A truly advanced nation is not determined solely by GDP, military power,
glitzy cities, or cutting-edge technology.
Shouldn't it be a place where those in power take responsibility when they make mistakes,
where victims can confidently assert their rights,
and where ordinary citizens can design their futures
in proportion to their efforts?
It is not that the citizens exist for the state;
the state must exist for the citizens.
Looking at the realities of Japan and China,
I believe this is ultimately what we must be wary of.
A society where vested interests are protected and only the citizens
are required to make sacrifices and show patience.
If such a structure cannot be changed,
no matter how powerful a nation is, its internal problems
will inevitably continue to accumulate.