Liu Xukuan: An Analysis of the Root Factors Behind the Difficulties in Reducing Burdens at the Primary Level
"A thousand threads above, a single needle below" [1]—the daily necessities of the common people, their birth, aging, illness, and death, are all closely linked to the work of grassroots cadres on the front lines. Grassroots cadres must both untangle the "threads" coming from above and thread them through the "needle" of the grassroots with appropriate thickness and prioritization. The Party Central Committee clearly recognizes that grassroots overload must not become a "capillary blockage" [2] hindering the further deepening of reform. For six consecutive years, it has made special deployments to rectify formalism and reduce burdens at the grassroots level. A research team from the Office of the Special Working Mechanism of the Central Level for Rectifying Formalism to Reduce Burdens at the Grassroots pointed out: "The Central Committee's call for burden reduction has elicited a strong response at the grassroots. Many localities, following central requirements, have introduced a series of practical and effective measures which have relieved pressure to a certain extent. Overall, however, we 'must not overestimate' the achievements; these results 'still fall short of the expectations of grassroots cadres and the masses.'" This requires us to persist over the long term, recognize the "difficulties" of burden reduction and the "hardships" of burden increases, take corrective action at key points, strike at the root of the disease, and achieve practical results that enhance actual performance.
Typical Manifestations of the "Difficulties" in Grassroots Burden Reduction
Why is formalism's vitality so stubborn? Why do some anti-formalism measures themselves degenerate into formalism? Why has "reducing burdens and increasing energy" alienated into "increasing burdens and reducing energy" in some places? This precisely illustrates the "difficulties" inherent in grassroots burden reduction.
Regarding the reasons why the battle against grassroots burdens remains "deadlocked," many believe that while the symptoms appear at the bottom, the root lies at the top. The bureaucratic work style and "exquisite egoist" [3] mentalities of certain superior units are major causes of the excessive burdens and high pressure on grassroots cadres. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "The essence of formalism is subjectivism and utilitarianism; its roots are a distorted outlook on political achievements and a lack of responsibility. It replaces solid implementation with grand displays and hides contradictions and problems behind a glamorous exterior." Looking at typical cases investigated and reported, some appraisal systems have fallen into idealism, subjectivism, scholasticism, fragmented indicators, and data fabrication. The root lies in deep-seated official-oriented thinking and a warped view of power, where some individuals take an elitist stance, obsessed with "acting like an overlord" [4]. Idealism, subjectivism, and bureaucratism run counter to the basic principles of Marxism, detaching subjective understanding from objective reality. They often respond to grassroots business in a one-sided, static, dogmatic, and mechanical way, violating "the theory of points" and "the theory of two points" [5]. They attend to one thing while neglecting another, "picking up the sesame seeds only to lose the watermelon" [6]. They are unwilling to tackle "major issues," "key problems," "chronic ailments," "long-standing historical problems," "universal and institutional problems," or "deep-seated key issues involving reform, development, and stability." This is exactly why some cadres are unwilling to "throw themselves down," immerse themselves in the front line, and conduct in-depth research. Unable to recognize the essence and laws of things or find ways to solve difficult problems, they can only indulge in superficial work, "scoping out the flowers from horseback" [7], skimming the surface, or taking the part for the whole and the false for the true.
Along with technological changes, formalism has also taken on new forms. For instance, "opposing formalism with formalism": while large meetings are restricted, they are broken into smaller parts, and the number of small meetings requiring grassroots participation has increased. While "red-headed" formal documents [8] have decreased, "white-headed" informal ones have increased. While stamped notices are fewer, verbal instructions have become more frequent. The grand scenes of layered accompaniment of the past have lessened, but small teams have proliferated. Even with clear divisions of labor, grassroots cadres often find themselves "lacking the technique of bilocation" [9], unable to keep up with the sheer number of inspection and research teams. Formalism "at the fingertips," "leaving traces" by checking in on apps, reporting in WeChat groups, and mandatory actions on government APPs have joined the ranks of formalism, creating new "mountain-sized pressure" at the grassroots. Although higher-ups have made quantitative requirements to reduce forms and materials, specific departments remain harsh, with strict regulations on "refined" and "standardized" phrasing, font sizes, and line spacing. In the AI era, formalism has new tricks, further entrenching the idea that "doing the work well is inferior to writing the report well." "Key-to-key" [10] formalism may give way to a new, intelligent "screen-to-screen" formalism, inevitably leading to an increase in formalistic graphics, charts, audio, and video.
Formalism can bring "interests and benefits" to a few. As the saying goes, "one does not rise early without profit." The reason some grassroots workers have a flighty style, perform hollow work, and are keen on "mountains of documents and seas of meetings," superficial projects, and fraudulent vanity is that they seek personal fame, gain, and leisure. They trade the "exhausted bodies" of others for their own "comfort zone." Without having to endure the hardships of travel or the elements, they can get by by substituting expression for action, means for results, and noise for substance. They shout slogans to high heaven, substituting "mentioning," "saying," or "writing" for "doing"; they implement documents with documents and meetings with meetings, engaging in "flowery fist and fancy footwork" [11] and hanging up plaques to create the illusion of busy, high-speed operation.
Analysis of the Mechanism behind the "Hardships" of Grassroots Overload
The purpose of burden reduction is to simplify and prune away the "side branches and weeds" or "rotten grass and mud" that interfere with central tasks. However, it is not easy to reduce grassroots business that has been reinforced through institutionalization. Despite repeated warnings from the Central Committee and the tiered introduction of burden-reduction policies by local governments, the sense of "traveling light" among grassroots cadres is not obvious, and the "burden reduction and energy enhancement" still needs improvement. To "reduce burdens," we must first clarify "what to reduce." Burden refers to a coercive pressure that exceeds the financial resources of the grassroots organization or the authority, ability, healthy work-rest cycle, and psychological threshold of grassroots staff.
Scientifically demarcating the boundary between "responsibility" and "burden" is quite difficult. First, it is difficult to clarify the standards for whether the grassroots burden is excessive or overloaded—that is, determining the rationality and appropriateness of working hours. Second, from the perspective of mental health, examining whether overloaded mental pressure exceeds the range of healthy psychological tolerance often varies from person to person. Third, it is difficult to determine how to match financial power with administrative power. Having the "principle of matching rights and responsibilities at the procedural level" does not equate to realizing the "principle of consistency between form and substance at the efficiency level." That is, complete and standardized work forms must correspond to substantive work content and ultimately serve to enhance grassroots governance efficiency; however, the means of testing and the actual effects often involve a time lag.
Grassroots cadres at the end of the power chain suffer from an imbalance between rights and responsibilities. Heavy grassroots burdens are a comprehensive "pain point" and "hardship." The greater the responsibility, the higher the risk of being held accountable. Heavy tasks inevitably lead to "physical overload." The more "traces" that must be left, the more the wind of vanity prevails. In this unbalanced structure, grassroots cadres have nowhere to voice their grievances, with some self-deprecatingly describing themselves as "a rat in a bellows—taking heat from both ends" [12]. These "burdens," which make cadres more afraid, more tired, and more superficial the harder they work, not only overtax their physical health but also cause mental confusion.
When the pressure of mismatched rights and responsibilities is transmitted down to the lowest-level civil servants, it can go no further; all pressure accumulates at the base, intensifying grassroots hardship. Taxing tasks, frequent inspections, regular appraisals, receiving and sending off officials, relaying decisions, submitting materials, daily management, and emergency response leave grassroots governments—which already have little autonomous space—in a state of high-speed operation, frequently finding themselves "the spirit is willing but the strength is lacking." These "small" grassroots cadres are the responsible parties on the front lines of the "large platform" of social governance; they are "responsible for their territory" and bear immense weight. Furthermore, grassroots work is highly collaborative and difficult to quantify specifically; individual performance can only be reflected in the final overall results. It is difficult to distinguish the magnitude of individual contributions, and various honors and material rewards mostly go to the collective. While incentives are hard to individualize, accountability can pinpoint the individual with precision. Once a mistake occurs, the "accountability board" will surely strike the specific person in charge. This causes cadres at the end of the power chain to increasingly develop the unhealthy habit of only looking to superiors and power. They tremblingly bear the risks of "low power but high responsibility" through the "misery" of meaningless "forms." Their psychological bottom line is that they are not afraid of bitterness or exhaustion; the best possible outcome is simply "no incidents."
Salary, benefits, and promotion prospects are also suboptimal. In grassroots governance, the situation of "a small horse pulling a large cart" [13] has long existed, because the "small horse" cannot choose "whether to pull," "what to pull," "how much to pull," or "how many trips to make." There are many eyes and "probes" supervising grassroots governments and their staff, but few governance powers are granted, few governable resources are at their disposal, and the space for sub-district and rural autonomy is narrow. This manifests as a "lack of innovation and responsibility" and a situation where cadres "are able to do things but dare not." Township civil servants in the underdeveloped western regions face even more hardships: harsh working conditions, low pay, high pressure, no guarantee of the right to rest, limited promotion space, and no bright future. The self-preserving mentality of "the more you do, the more mistakes you make; the less you do, the fewer mistakes; do nothing, and make no mistakes" has quietly become popular. The Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively to Advance Chinese-path Modernization pointed out: "Deepen the reform of the cadre personnel system, clearly establish the correct orientation for selecting and appointing personnel, and vigorously select cadres who are politically sound, dare to take responsibility, are keen on reform, have outstanding performance, and are clean and honest. Work hard to solve the problems of cadres acting recklessly, doing nothing, being afraid to act, and being incompetent." "Strengthen talent incentive mechanisms, insist on delegating authority to employers and 'untying the hands' of talent," to encourage cadres to be enterprising and entrepreneurial. This is an important signal and historical opportunity to "improve the system for cadre benefits and incentives," "perfect the civil servant bonus system," "improve routine incentives," and "provide special recognition and awards."
The mental health of grassroots cadres is another hardship. Some regions have fallen into a "morbid governance" trap of rigid control. Overloaded routine burdens, high-intensity tasks, high-frequency supervision, and high-pressure accountability keep the nerves of grassroots cadres taut. They are often "busy from opening their eyes until the lights are out, and remaining vigilant even after closing their eyes." It used to be said that "weekend rest is not guaranteed"; now, "no rest is guaranteed on weekends." Grassroots cadres are like "wound-up springs of responsibility." Over time, their mental health becomes increasingly worrying. General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized the need to "care for and love cadres," "provide psychological care," and "focus on the physical and mental health of cadres." Focusing on the psychology of grassroots cadres is a matter of urgency. Some people experience emotional imbalances due to "competence anxiety," lack of experience, poor self-adjustment, and professional burnout. Combined with the social pressure from professional roles and public opinion, the "white + black" (day and night) work routine, and the inability to care for children or the elderly, these factors overlap to bring more psychological pressure and mental distress to grassroots cadres.
Analysis of the Crux: Why Grassroots Burden Reduction is Mired in Formalism
The effectiveness of implementation in the "last mile" [14] directly affects the value of the entire journey. Small, inconspicuous "bottlenecks" at the grassroots are often the key to "burden reduction." Organically threading the thousand complex strands from above into the "needle's eye" of grassroots government is work with high technical content, emotional weight, and psychological gravity. There are "entangled" threads, "bottlenecks," and "redundant burdens" that the grassroots government knows about but cannot change, while the superior government can change them but does not know about them. Behind this "paradox" lies the inertia of formalism and the deep-seated roots of bureaucratism. This is why "burdens increase the more they are reduced" in some places.
The root cause of a distorted outlook on political achievements is difficult to eliminate. For some cadres, it is not easy to reduce "selfish motives," do more "solid work" and less "hollow effort," produce more "actual results" and fewer "traces," and provide more "motivation" rather than just transmitting "pressure." A distorted outlook on political achievements often appears in the form of "loud rhetoric" and "professions of loyalty." They appear impassioned and willing to "die for the cause," but once faced with actual tasks, their "petty calculations" of "shirking, delaying, and dragging" are fully exposed. They only want to be an "abacus master" [15] who hoards wealth for themselves, rather than a "server" for the people. While their bodies have entered the New Era, their awareness of service and attitude toward the people remain stuck at the threshold of selfishness. They stick to old conventions, are unenterprising, and, knowing their abilities are insufficient, are unwilling to learn. Faced with new situations, they have no idea what to do and no tricks up their sleeves; they can only handle things based on experience. Those "few brushes" [16] they have are "three years for the new, three years for the old, and another three years of making do"—worn out long ago. When faced with the urgent and difficult needs of the masses, they can only use the same old set of tricks to brush them off.
Distortions in the outlook on political achievements [17] often result in putting the incidental before the fundamental, becoming top-heavy, and prioritizing flashiness over substance. Some leading cadres have allowed their consciousness of the principle of "serving the people heart and soul" to become increasingly hollow, while the pursuit of personal gain and leisure has become increasingly substantive. In their work, they do not think about seeking welfare for the masses, but rather how to obtain tangible benefits for themselves. They do not compete on actual performance, but only on superficial "highlights"; they do not compete on the effectiveness of methods, but only on the volume of slogans. They sharpen their knives every day, but never actually chop wood. They pass off "latent achievements" [18]—those that are slow to yield results but lay the foundation and benefit the long term—to others or push them down to the grassroots, while never refusing tasks that are high-profile, yield quick results, or offer superficial prestige. They "rush to handle" things that are easy to do, things that easily produce political achievements, or things that allow them to show their faces on television. Meanwhile, they "procrastinate on" difficult matters, matters where they might be held accountable, or matters that require hard work without recognition. For historical issues left over by predecessors, matters that involve clearing away others' stumbling blocks, or things that do not add to their own scores, they "leave them out to dry." They are keen on creating momentum and "scenery" [19], pursuing the novel and the strange. They even make arbitrary decisions and empty promises just for the sake of personal political achievement, votes, and image.
Grassroots "self-pressurizing" burden reduction. The true picture of grassroots governance is characterized by a lack of funds, manpower, authority, and time. Although "self-pressurization" sacrifices time and health, it can be exchanged for funding and specialized powers. The boundaryless nature of territorial responsibility, the imbalance of pressure transmission, and the limited nature of governance resources cause grassroots cadres to act with extreme caution before their superiors. They always seek to "prove" themselves through the volume of business. If the municipal level implements "one undercover visit and one briefing per month, and one evaluation per quarter," the county level responds with "one briefing per day, one ranking per week, one competition every half month, and one reward/punishment cycle per month." Facing limited resources and the selectivity displayed by higher-level governments in resource allocation, grassroots departments inevitably compete secretly to attract superior attention, forming a "catch-up" competitive posture. This is especially true for department leaders in the ranks of reserve cadres [20], who are even more keen on self-acceleration and may even request "added weight" through various means. The crux of why grassroots governments choose to actively "manufacture difficulties" lies in seeking more resources, recognition, and favor. They aim to demonstrate their mobilization capacity and strong execution, sending signals that "the capable are always capable," "there is still surplus capacity even under overload," and "sturdy horses eat more hay." By making a "preemptive move" [21] superior to sibling units, they aim to create a positive effect for resource extraction and secure new opportunities for promotion and cultivation.
Active acceleration [22] appears on the surface to be doing more work, but in substance, it is meant to create maneuvering room for shouldering responsibility. To reduce the risk of being held accountable, some individuals prepare comprehensive response plans ahead of inspections or research visits from superiors. They do not allow for a single flaw; even the cabbage in the courtyard must have its unsightly outer leaves removed, seeking only to look clean, tender, and pleasing to the eye. Such risk avoidance through "active acceleration" to create foolproof plans often results not in the improvement of people's livelihoods, but in "creating potted landscapes," "stacking new terms," "building samples," and "creating demonstrations"—exchanging "officials promoted via data" [23] for promotion opportunities for a few.
Technological alienation and information bottlenecks. "Digital government," "digital production," "digital governance," and "paperless offices" are the general trend. "Big data management," "intelligent operations," and "whole-process supervision" are inevitable trends in governance reform. However, we must not allow technology to become alienated or the information highway to slow to a turtle's pace, creating new forms of electronic bureaucracy and digital formalism [24]. Some grassroots cadres value leader satisfaction over mass satisfaction, attractive data over attractive performance, and beautiful reports over actual achievements in people's livelihoods. They arbitrarily demand that the grassroots fill out forms and report data; such technological alienation and data hollowing harm others and oneself. The key crux of the difficulty in reducing grassroots burdens lies in the fact that while some people are doing "subtraction" on formalism, they are simultaneously doing "addition" through the expansion of so-called supporting substantive responsibilities. This is most evident in digital governance: work comes "from the paper," "from the keys," "from the web," and "from the groups," but the results cannot simply go "onto the paper," "onto the keys," "onto the web," or "into the groups." Everything must be based on the needs of the people's livelihoods, their well-being, and the urgent, difficult, and anxious problems of the masses. Currently, the user-oriented thinking of some government APPs is not thoroughly implemented; the concepts of "user first, content is king, service supreme" are not fully realized, and their role in improving the precision and scientific level of burden reduction is not obvious. Facing heavy, multi-headed, repetitive, and trivial reporting requirements, the "cloud" can bear it, but people cannot; "APPs" can carry it, but people cannot. We must combine burden reduction with digital reform, break down "information barriers," promote the "integration of multiple forms," and achieve effective digital empowerment, intelligent integration, multi-party synergy, and holistic digital governance.
"He who is good at removing harm examines its root; he who is good at treating illness cuts off its source." [25] The entire Party must dig deep into the root causes of burdens, implement treatment of both symptoms and root causes, and govern at the source to resolutely prevent "rebound" and the return of burdens. The longer the road, the more strategic resolve is needed; the more difficult the task, the more genuine effort is required. The myriad threads of grassroots affairs are, in the final analysis, the livelihood matters of thousands of households. Grassroots cadres are the "burden-bearers" for further deepening reform and realizing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity. The problem of burden reduction is urgent, long-term, arduous, and comprehensive. We must achieve both "physical burden reduction" and "spiritual burden reduction," while promoting "increased service efficiency" and "results through practical work." We must reduce meetings, documents, accompaniments, inspections, evaluations, processes, and chat groups, and continuously enhance the "organizational power," "action power," "support power," and "centripetal force" of grassroots governance.