To my mind, the ideal would be if everyone were guided by morals / ethics and just did what was right. To a large extent, I think that’s really what has kept Singapore running so well. To me, Lee Kuan Yew created and inspired a culture of good governance among the PAP, while also setting up institutions / self-sustaining systems that encourage future leaders to continue the good work.
To that end, I think a key feature is transparency. It doesn’t really matter whether deep down inside a person is good or bad. If his activities are seen by everyone around him, he will naturally do the right thing (and enjoy doing so, because we are all human and enjoy the love and respect of those around us). This transparency need not even be between government vs voters. As long as things operate transparently within the government, people who fail to do a good job will willingly step down. Corruption and incompetence thrive in darkness, and if we have systems in place so that everything is well lit, it becomes nearly impossible to do bad things.
Also, the people need not know exactly what goes on within the government, because ultimately, the line separating voters from the government is largely illusory. Our leaders are humans too, and if we want them to treat us well, we have to treat them well too (i.e. with respect, etc.). We also want healthy communication between the government and the people, so that the people can communicate their needs / wants, alongside their appreciation for the government’s good work.
Without morals, the strong will always oppress the weak, one way or another. Good thrives in the light, while evil thrives in darkness. Therefore, a country that runs on morals (and transparency) will work much better than a country run by ruthless competition between the strong and the weak. A country runs better when the people and the government see each other as friends rather than foes. Even within the government, things would work better if everyone sees themselves as friends working for the common good, rather than as disparate parties each pushing their own selfish agenda.
On civil disobedience: I believe that disagreement in itself is insufficient to justify disobedience, for the mere reason that cooperation is always better than competition. With competition, the Nash equilibrium is the best we can hope for. Opposing parties who act unilaterally will collectively always achieve less than parties who cooperate and act multilaterally. Hence, the ideal is always first to work things out diplomatically through sincere discussion. Violence should be seen as a last resort, disobedience being a form of violence. The ideal is that we are all human beings who are sufficiently similar that we can come to a common understanding. When our perspectives differ, we should try our best to reconcile our differences, rather than be too quick to assume that the differences are immutable.
Very relevant: Can Confucianism save the world? — Democracy and Confucian values can work together to make good governance. (http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/can-confucianism-save-the-world-20140523)