Li Sanhui: Eradicating "Digital Formalism" to Return Grassroots Governance to Practical Effectiveness
Formalism is a "chronic ailment" of grassroots governance. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee proposed to "carry out in-depth work on rectifying formalism to reduce burdens at the grassroots level." Digital transformation is regarded as an important path for empowering grassroots governance and increasing efficiency; promoting digital governance has become a universal action to enhance the modernization of governance. However, while digital technology empowers grassroots governance, it also gives rise to digital formalism, leading to formalized governance and an efficiency paradox, which catalyzes a "negative energy" effect. Preventing and managing the problem of "digital formalism" in grassroots governance is a practical task for purifying the social atmosphere, improving governance quality, and promoting the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity.
The Essence of "Digital Formalism" in Grassroots Governance
Grassroots digital governance is a systemic and dynamic process. In the course of leveraging the advantages of digital technology, it must be integrated and embedded within institutional structures and organizational actions. Digital technology does not inherently empower grassroots governance; if the application of technology and governance actions fall into formalism, they will inevitably become mired in the "negative energy" dilemmas of technology, such as digital formalism and digital burdens. "Digital formalism" in grassroots governance is the digital metamorphosis of formalism. It is a new manifestation of the old problem of formalism within the practice of grassroots digital governance, and a "distortion and deformation" of digital technology's empowerment of grassroots governance.
From the perspective of its generative scenarios, it is the product of operational alienation when digital technology is applied to governance practices—for example, blindly pursuing the speed of promotion and the scope of use for digital platforms, leading to redundant or fragmented construction of such platforms, which results in the "hollowing out" of digital construction and makes governance services difficult to respond to. From the perspective of content and form, its patterns exhibit the dual characteristics of both "digitalization" and "formalism." It is a new type of formalism presented in governance activities by relying on digital technology as a carrier. For instance, process management has become increasingly convenient with the support of digital technology, yet practices such as "photographing work first" and "leaving a trail [1] before doing anything" represent excessive "trail-leaving" that surpasses the work content itself. This "trail-leaving formalism" seriously affects work efficiency and deviates from the original intention of the action.
From the perspective of the operational process, it is a deviant execution carried out by actors in digital governance practices based on specific pressures and tensions, ideological motivations, and values. This catalyzes the phenomenon of "digital formalism" wherein formal rationality replaces substantive rationality. For example, some cadres lack a sense of responsibility and seek quick success and instant benefits [2], becoming keen on engaging in "image projects" [3] that are "short, smooth, and fast," and devoting themselves to competing for fraudulent "digital political achievements." In short, "digital formalism" in grassroots governance is a series of deviant phenomena caused by the "formalized" responses taken by actors under digital technological conditions and specific structural constraints to adapt to internal, external, objective, and subjective orientations. It is both the process and result of the failure to organically integrate technology with governance.
Regarding its causes, the generation of "digital formalism" in grassroots governance involves institutional factors like assessment games and the specific application of digital technology carriers, as well as individual factors like utilitarian styles of work. Ultimately, it manifests through erroneous practical actions of distorted and deviant execution. It is a value fallacy and consequential deviation that replaces practical operation with technical form and simplifies governance effectiveness through technical presentation. Essentially, "digital formalism" in grassroots governance is a violation of the goals of digital transformation and governance effectiveness. It is a deviation from the instrumental rationality of technological empowerment. It not only increases the burden on the grassroots and brings about a waste of digital resources but also causes governance actions to become detached from actual needs, hindering the release of digital technology's efficacy.
Achieving Digital Empowerment in Grassroots Governance
"Digital formalism" in grassroots governance is not a simple problem of digital technology falling into the alienation of formalism, but rather a problem of misaligned relationships between technology, institutions, and action. Its origins lie within institutions, organizations, and the environment. To prevent and manage it, one must start with the underlying logic of its occurrence. Through methods such as transforming systems and mechanisms, perfecting technology, and adjusting organizational actions, we must promote the organic integration of technology and governance, compress the living space for digital formalism, and achieve the digital empowerment of grassroots governance. Therefore, one can focus on making efforts in the following three areas.
First, promote the transformation of grassroots governance systems and mechanisms. Establishing and improving the institutional system for grassroots digital governance is a long-term strategy for cracking the problem of "digital formalism." On one hand, we must promote the structural integration of digital technology and grassroots governance systems. We should strengthen the governance support provided by digital platforms and applications, realize the interconnection of different data sources through innovative technology, and expand channels for public participation in social affairs management. This will ensure that different governance subjects exert their efficacy under the leadership of grassroots Party organizations and the support of information technology. On the other hand, we must construct an adaptive system for the integration of digital technology and grassroots governance institutions. This involves improving the institutional system for digital technology management, strengthening the construction of systems for digital technology access, supervision, and accountability, and perfecting relevant laws and regulations for digital governance. We must attach importance to the ethical dilemmas and privacy protection issues of technical governance and standardize the data-sharing systems and security supervision mechanisms. Simultaneously, we should formulate and improve reasonable positive incentive mechanisms. Assessment systems are important mechanisms for ensuring the deployment of grassroots digital governance practices, but improper supervision and accountability can also catalyze "digital formalism." We must establish task allocation and governance evaluation mechanisms oriented toward digital needs, and an assessment system based on the principle of objective reform effectiveness. Assessment indicators should cover both quality and quantity dimensions, focusing on positive incentives that conform to reality, thereby avoiding the blind pursuit of data and the mere pursuit of the quantification and refinement of governance.
Second, rectify the mindset of technical governance. Firmly establishing the position that digital technology is a tool serving the essence of governance is the conceptual foundation for preventing the alienation of digital technology. On one hand, we must recognize the instrumental attributes of digital technology in empowering governance. Using this as a benchmark, we should grasp the usage boundaries and functional positioning of technology embedded in practice. Tools belongs to tools, methods to methods, and goals to goals. We must not use the degree of promotion or coverage rate of digital technology as the scale for judging the modernization of governance, so as to prevent the appearance of treating technical "means and tools" as "ends and values." On the other hand, the people-centered concept must be integrated throughout the governance process to establish a correct and reasonable awareness of digital governance. We should actively embrace and use digital technology to carry out governance activities and enhance the ability and proficiency to use digital technology. At the same time, we must strengthen "technological governance" (jizhi) ideological education, guiding human agency to dominate technology and break away from technological dependence, thereby establishing the concept that technology serves people. Meanwhile, we should continuously improve the digital literacy and capabilities of governance subjects, regularly collect the digital service needs of the masses, and formulate digital governance capability cultivation plans categorized for different populations—such as digital technology knowledge, digital security awareness, and case studies of "digital formalism." Special attention should be directed toward the "digital divide" among the elderly, promoting the adaptation of digital technology scenarios to the realities of life.
Third, shape behavioral choices guided by public rationality. Aligning the value stance of governance and the direction of action execution is the practical path for dissolving "digital formalism" in grassroots governance. On one hand, we must take the realization of public value goals as the governance orientation. We should integrate digital platforms based on public needs, shifting from the hierarchical structure's "task-based" orientation toward superiors to an orientation toward governance demands. We must build digital systems into a bond linking governance needs and service provision, thereby truly realizing the unification of technical means and governance goals, preventing "digital alienation," and promoting technology for good. On the other hand, we must persist in a work style of seeking truth from facts and being pragmatic. We should take the social application effectiveness of digital scenarios as the design orientation. Governance practice must not be detached from the needs of the masses or the service of the people. We must take responding to the people's aspirations for a better life as the starting point and foothold of digital governance. We must correctly view "tangible achievements" (xianji) and "intangible achievements" (qianji), reversing the erroneous practices of prioritizing surface over content and form over effectiveness. We must guard against the ill behaviors of egoism and utilitarianism and prevent the "disembedding" of online and offline governance spaces.
(The author is an Associate Researcher at the Institute of Population and Social Development, Henan Academy of Social Sciences) Source: Guangming Daily (January 6, 2026) Web Editor: Huihui