Ma Diyuan: Effectively Using "Four Rulers" to Calibrate the Outlook on Political Performance

The view of political achievements is the value coordinate for Party members and cadres to perform their duties and fulfill their responsibilities; it is also a vital variable in the process of state governance modernization. Establishing and practicing a correct view of political achievements concerns both the direction of cadres' entrepreneurship and the quality of the exercise of public power. In recent years, Beijing’s "Immediate Response to Complaints" ^[1] reform has integrated the 12345 civic service hotline, embedding the demands of the masses into the operational processes of the government and incorporating public evaluations into the performance appraisal system. No longer allowing political achievements to remain confined to internal reports, this system directly faces the feelings of the masses, social supervision, and actual results. This institutional practice inspires us; the key to calibrating the view of political achievements lies in establishing scientific yardsticks. Proceeding from the operational logic of "Immediate Response to Complaints," we can distill "four yardsticks" for calibrating the view of political achievements.

The Yardstick of the People’s Standpoint: Assessing whether political achievements are truly for the people.

The view of political achievements is, first and foremost, a question of standpoint. Political achievements reflect not only "what a cadre has done," but more importantly, "for whom" power is exercised. If we discuss political achievements in isolation from the people’s standpoint, even the most sophisticated evaluation system may suffer from a deviation in direction. Taking "creating benefits for the people" as the greatest political achievement essentially requires establishing the people’s standpoint as the fundamental measure for all work. The primary yardstick for calibrating the view of political achievements is to see whether various tasks truly respond to the interests and concerns of the masses, and whether the people’s sense of gain, happiness, and security are used as the final basis for evaluation. Only by integrating the people’s standpoint throughout the entire process of policy formulation, resource allocation, and governance practice can the evaluation of political achievements avoid deviating from the fundamental direction of serving the people.

Under the background of megacity governance, public affairs are increasingly complex and diverse, while the livelihood demands of the masses are characterized by high frequency, specificity, and immediacy. Beijing’s "Immediate Response to Complaints" reform generates work orders from the problems reported by the masses via the 12345 hotline; the status of handling these orders is subject to follow-up evaluations, and relevant data are incorporated into the performance appraisal system. Under this institutional arrangement, the people’s standpoint no longer stays at the conceptual level but is embedded at the starting and ending points of the governance chain. Work begins with the demands of the masses, and effectiveness is tested by the evaluation of the masses; the logic of generating political achievements thus undergoes a profound transformation.

More importantly, when high-frequency livelihood issues are presented through data analysis, government decision-making can be optimized and adjusted around the most pressing, direct, and realistic ^[2] interests of the masses. By systematically sorting through demand data, relevant departments can identify weak links in governance and use this as a basis to promote the continuous improvement of public policies and governance rules. Thus, the people’s standpoint is reflected not only in responses to individual cases but also in the perfection of policies and the improvement of institutions.

The Yardstick of Problem Solving: Assessing whether political achievements truly solve problems.

The second yardstick for measuring political achievements is whether problems are truly resolved. The completion of a procedure does not equate to the resolution of a problem, and a data loop does not equate to the dissipation of a contradiction. If the evaluation of political achievements stops at technical indicators such as "case closure rates" or "reply rates," it is easy for the phenomenon of "formal compliance but limited effect" to emerge. To calibrate the view of political achievements, substantive results must be taken as the core standard. Only by taking whether a problem is truly neutralized and whether the demands of the masses are responded to as important measures can the evaluation system for political achievements stay closer to the reality of governance and avoid work becoming superficial.

The "Immediate Response to Complaints" reform emphasizes response speed in its institutional design, but it places even greater emphasis on the resolution rate and satisfaction follow-ups, driving a shift from "is there a response" to "is there a resolution." The demands raised by the masses not only need feedback within a specified timeframe but also need to be handled at a substantive level. For complex problems, relevant departments need to analyze causes, coordinate resources, and form rectification plans, rather than simply substituting the neutralization of a problem with procedural closure. Simultaneously, through continuous tracking and follow-up evaluation of results, deficiencies in the problem-solving process can be discovered in a timely manner, pushing departments to further refine their work methods. From a deeper perspective, true political achievements lie not in "how much work was done" but in "how many problems were reduced." When similar problems reported by the masses gradually decrease, governance blind spots are filled, and the quality of public service continuously improves, then the value of political achievements is truly realized.

The Yardstick of Quality and Efficiency: Assessing whether political achievements can withstand the test of time.

Political achievements must not only show effects but also quality; they must not only have speed but also substance. The third yardstick for measuring political achievements is whether they can withstand the test of the masses and the test of time. Short-term, "sprint-style" rectifications and phased intensive campaigns might improve data for a time, but if a long-term mechanism is lacking, problems may recur and governance costs will rise accordingly. Political achievements of true quality should be able to maintain stable effects over a longer timescale and be continuously consolidated and enhanced in practice.

Through the "Immediate Response to Complaints" mechanism’s follow-up, data analysis, and continuous review, governance results are placed under dynamic supervision. Public satisfaction evaluations are not just one-off feedback but a vital basis for driving continuous work improvement. For high-frequency problems that recur, specific governance plans are formed through systematic reviews to reduce recurrence at the source. At the same time, the long-term accumulation of relevant data provides an important reference for policy adjustment and resource allocation, making governance decisions more scientific and precise. This mechanism helps prevent simplistic handling and short-term tendencies, ensuring the governance process focuses more on quality and efficiency.

From the perspective of the view of political achievements, achievements that can withstand the test must possess the capacity for continuous improvement. They must respond to current realistic needs while laying a solid foundation for long-term development. The yardstick of quality and efficiency emphasizes the depth and thickness of governance. Only by incorporating the construction of long-term mechanisms into the consideration of political achievements and avoiding the tendency to "value visible achievements over latent achievements" ^[3] can cadres focus more on foundational and strategic work.

The Yardstick of Structural Capacity: Assessing whether political achievements promote systemic optimization.

High-quality political achievements are reflected not only in the handling of individual cases but also in the optimization of institutions and the enhancement of capacity. The fourth yardstick for measuring political achievements is whether they can promote the optimization of governance structures, thereby realizing the unity of responsibility fulfillment and capacity building. From the perspective of governance modernization, if political achievements remain only at the level of disposing of specific affairs and cannot promote institutional perfection and capacity building, it will be difficult to form sustained and stable governance results.

In megacity governance, the demands of the masses involve multiple departments and levels; it is difficult for a single subject to solve them alone. If pressure is simply applied layer by layer and complex problems are pushed down to the primary level ^[4], it may increase the burden on the primary level and make systemic improvement difficult. "Immediate Response to Complaints" aggregates information through data platforms and identifies common problems by analyzing high-frequency demands, promoting cross-departmental synergy and specialized governance, gradually forming a work mechanism where "functional lines" and "geographical blocks" combine and exert force in coordination. Simultaneously, through information sharing and collaborative disposal mechanisms, information barriers between departments are reduced, and problem-solving efficiency is improved. This structural optimization of information processing flows prevents problems from circulating at the case level and instead moves them onto the track of institutional perfection.

A correct view of political achievements requires that responsibility matches capacity. It is necessary both to strengthen the sense of responsibility and to provide institutional support and resource guarantees. By optimizing the allocation of powers and responsibilities, strengthening professional support, and improving synergistic mechanisms, the primary level can possess corresponding capacities while undertaking responsibilities; this is an important prerequisite for achieving high-quality political achievements. The yardstick of structural capacity emphasizes systemic progress rather than individual breakthroughs, and institutional perfection rather than simple accountability. When political achievements are manifested as the optimization of governance structures and the enhancement of public service capacity, the operation of public power becomes more scientific and efficient. Such achievements are not just phased report cards; they are a concrete manifestation of the continuous perfection of the governance system, laying a solid foundation for the modernization of urban governance capacity.

From the yardstick of the people’s standpoint to the yardstick of problem-solving, and from the yardstick of quality and efficiency to the yardstick of structural capacity, these "four yardsticks" constitute a systematic framework for calibrating the view of political achievements. Beijing’s "Immediate Response to Complaints" reform provides a vivid practical sample for a correct view of political achievements by embedding the demands of the masses at the starting point of governance, incorporating public evaluation into the performance system, and transforming data analysis into a driving force for institutional improvement.

The transformation of the view of political achievements is, in essence, a transformation of governance logic. Shifting from task-centered to problem-centered, from internal evaluation to social evaluation, and from short-term sprints to institutional building reflects a profound change in the way public power operates. When the people’s standpoint becomes the fundamental measure, when problem-solving becomes the core orientation, when quality and efficiency become the value pursuit, and when institutional optimization becomes the long-term goal, political achievements will no longer be a simple accumulation of indicators but a true measurement in the process of the modernization of governance capacity. Such political achievements are written both into the system and into the hearts of the people.

(The author is an assistant researcher at the Beijing Academy of Governance, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Source: Guangming Daily (March 19, 2026) Editor: Huihui