Eliminate “Digital Formalism” and Let Grassroots Governance Return to Real Results

Formalism is a “chronic disease” of grassroots governance. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC proposed to “deeply carry out the work of rectifying formalism to reduce burdens at the grassroots level.” [1]1 The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC was held in July 2024, focusing on comprehensively deepening reform and advancing Chinese modernization. Digital transformation is regarded as an important path to empower and increase the efficiency of grassroots governance, and promoting digital governance has become a common action to enhance the modernization of governance. However, while digital technology empowers grassroots governance, it also spawns digital formalism, bringing about formalized governance and an efficiency paradox, and giving rise to a “disempowering” effect. Preventing and controlling the problem of “digital formalism” in grassroots governance is a practical task for purifying social atmosphere, improving governance quality, and advancing the modernization of China’s system and capacity for governance.

形式主义是基层治理“顽疾”。党的二十届四中全会提出，“深入开展整治形式主义为基层减负工作”。数字化转型被认为是基层治理赋能增效的重要路径，推进数字治理成为提升治理现代化的普遍行动。然而，数字技术在赋能基层治理的同时，也衍生出数字形式主义，带来形式化治理、效率悖论，催生“负能”效应。防治基层治理“数字形式主义”问题，是净化社会风气、提升治理质量与推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的现实课题。

The Essence of “Digital Formalism” in Grassroots Governance

基层治理中“数字形式主义”的实质

Grassroots digital governance is a systematic and dynamic process. In the process of leveraging the advantages of digital technology, it needs to be integrated and embedded with institutional structures and organizational actions. Digital technology does not necessarily empower grassroots governance; if the application of technology and governance actions fall into formalism, they will inevitably fall into the disempowering predicament of digital formalism and digital burdens. “Digital formalism” in grassroots governance is a digital transformation of formalism, a new manifestation of the old problem of formalism in the practice of grassroots digital governance, and a “deformation and deviation” of digital technology empowering grassroots governance. From the perspective of its generation scenario, it is the product of the operational alienation of digital technology when applied to governance practice. For example, blindly pursuing the speed of promotion and scope of use of digital platforms leads to the duplication or fragmented construction of digital platforms, resulting in the hollowing out of digital construction and difficulty in responding to governance services. From the perspective of its content and form, its manifestations possess the dual characteristics of “digitalization” and “formalism.” It is a new type of formalism that relies on digital technology carriers and appears in governance activities. For instance, process management becomes more convenient with the support of digital technology; excessive documentation, such as taking photos before work and leaving traces before doing things, goes beyond the work content itself. This “formalism of leaving traces” seriously affects work efficiency and deviates from the original intention of the action. From the perspective of its operational process, it is a deviant execution made by actors in the practice of digital governance based on specific pressure tensions, ideological motives, and value concepts, giving rise to the phenomenon of “digital formalism” where formal rationality replaces substantive rationality. For example, some cadres lack a sense of responsibility and are eager for quick success, enthusiastically engaging in short-term, quick-fix “image projects” and competing to show off false “digital political achievements.” In summary, “digital formalism” in grassroots governance is a series of deviation phenomena brought about by actors adopting “formalized” responses to adapt to internal and external subjective and objective orientations under the conditions of digital technology and specific structural constraints. It is the process and result of the failure to organically integrate technology and governance.

基层数字治理是一个系统性动态过程，在借助数字技术优势的过程中，需要与制度结构、组织行动融合嵌入。数字技术并不必然为基层治理赋能，若技术运用、治理行动陷入形式主义，不可避免会陷入数字形式主义、数字负担等技术负能困境。基层治理“数字形式主义”是形式主义的数字化变身，是形式主义老问题在基层数字治理实践中的新表现，是数字技术赋能基层治理的“变形走样”。从生成场景上看，其是数字技术被应用于治理实践而运行异化的产物，比如盲目追求数字平台的推广速度和使用范围，带来数字平台的重复或分散建设，造成数字建设空壳化、治理服务难响应。从内容形式上看，其样态呈现兼具“数字化”和“形式主义”的双重特征，是形式主义依托数字技术载体而在治理活动中呈现的一种新的形式主义，比如过程管理在数字化技术加持下愈加便捷，工作先拍照、做事先留痕等过度留痕超越了工作内容本身，“留痕形式主义”严重影响办事效率、背离行动初衷。从运转过程上看，其是行动者基于特定的压力张力、思想动机和价值观念，在数字治理实践中做出的偏差性执行，催生了形式理性对实质理性替代的“数字形式主义”现象，比如，个别干部责任心缺失和急功近利，热衷于搞短平快的“形象工程”，倾心于比拼虚假的“数字政绩”。总而言之，基层治理“数字形式主义”是行动者在数字技术条件和特定结构约束下，为适应内外部主客观取向而采取“形式化”应对所带来的一系列偏差现象，是技术与治理未能有机融合的过程和结果。

Examining the reasons, the generation of “digital formalism” in grassroots governance involves both institutional assessment games and the specific application of digital technology carriers, as well as individual utilitarian work-style factors. Ultimately, it manifests as erroneous practical actions of execution distortion and deviation. It is a value fallacy and result deviation that substitutes technical form for practical operation and simplifies governance effectiveness with technical presentation. In essence, “digital formalism” in grassroots governance violates the goals of digital transformation of grassroots governance and effective governance, deviates from the instrumental rationality of technology empowerment, not only increases the burden on the grassroots and causes waste of digital resources, but also makes governance actions detached from actual needs, hindering the release of digital technology’s effectiveness.

究其原因，基层治理“数字形式主义”的生成，既有制度性的考核博弈、数字技术载体的特性运用，也有个体性的功利主义作风因素，最终以执行扭曲与偏差的错误实践行动而展现，是以技术形式替代实践操作，以技术呈现简化治理实效的价值谬误和结果偏离。本质上讲，基层治理“数字形式主义”是对基层治理数字化转型和治理有效目标的违背，对技术赋能工具理性的偏离，既加重基层负担，带来数字资源浪费，也造成治理行动脱离实际需求，阻碍数字技术效能释放。

Realizing Digital Empowerment of Grassroots Governance

实现基层治理数字赋能

“Digital formalism” in grassroots governance is not simply a problem of digital technology falling into the alienation of formalism, but a problem of misalignment in the relationship among technology, institutions, and actions. Its root causes lie in institutions, organizations, and the environment. To prevent and control it, we must start from the underlying logic of its occurrence, promote the organic integration of technology and governance through changes in systems and mechanisms, technological improvement, and organizational action adjustment, compress the living space of digital formalism, and realize digital empowerment of grassroots governance. Therefore, efforts can be focused on the following three aspects.

基层治理“数字形式主义”，不是简单的数字技术陷入形式主义的异化问题，而是技术、制度与行动间关系错位问题，本源在制度、组织和环境之中。对其进行防治，要从发生的底层逻辑入手，通过体制机制变革、技术完善、组织行动调适等方式，推进技术与治理有机融合，压缩数字形式主义生存空间，实现基层治理数字赋能。因此，可以重点考虑从以下三个方面进行发力。

First, promote the reform of grassroots governance systems and mechanisms. Establishing and improving the institutional system for grassroots digital governance is a long-term strategy for cracking “digital formalism” in grassroots governance. On the one hand, it is necessary to promote the structural integration of digital technology and the grassroots governance system. Strengthen the governance support of digital platforms and applications, achieve interconnection and interoperability of different data sources through innovative technology, expand channels for public participation in social affairs management, and enable different governance subjects to play their governance roles under the leadership of grassroots Party organizations and the support of information technology. On the other hand, build an adaptive system for the integration of digital technology and grassroots governance institutions. Improve the management system for digital technology, strengthen the construction of systems for the access, supervision, and accountability of digital technology, improve relevant laws and regulations for digital governance, pay attention to the ethical dilemmas and privacy protection issues of technological governance, and standardize and improve the data sharing system and security supervision mechanism for governance. At the same time, formulate and improve a reasonable positive incentive mechanism. The assessment system is an important mechanism to ensure the development of grassroots digital governance practice, but improper supervision and accountability can also breed “digital formalism.” Establish a task allocation and governance evaluation mechanism oriented by digital needs, and an assessment system based on the principle of objective reform effectiveness. Assessment indicators should cover both quality and quantity dimensions, focus on positive incentives and be in line with reality, and avoid blindly pursuing data and chasing the quantification and refinement of governance.

首先，推进基层治理体制机制变革。建立健全基层数字治理的制度体系，是破解基层治理“数字形式主义”的长远之策。一方面，要推进数字技术与基层治理体系的结构性融合。强化数字平台和应用的治理支撑，通过创新技术实现不同数据源的互联互通、拓展公众参与社会事务管理的渠道，实现不同治理主体在基层党组织领导、信息技术支撑下发挥治理效用。另一方面，构建数字技术与基层治理制度融合的适配体系。健全数字技术管理制度体系，强化数字技术的准入、监管、责任追溯等制度建设，完善数字治理的相关法律法规，重视技术治理的伦理困境和隐私保护问题，规范完善治理数据共享制度和安全监督机制。同时，制定完善合理的正向激励机制。考核制度是保障基层数字治理实践展开的重要机制，但不当的监督和问责也会催生“数字形式主义”。建立以数字需求为导向的任务分配与治理评估机制、以客观改革实效为原则的考核体系，考核指标应涵盖质量、数量双重维度，侧重于正向激励且符合实际，规避一味地追求数据、追逐治理的量化与精细化。

Second, correct the thinking on technological governance. Firmly establishing the positioning of digital technology tools serving the essence of governance is the conceptual foundation for preventing the alienation of digital technology. On the one hand, it is necessary to recognize the instrumental attribute of digital technology empowering governance, grasp the boundary of use and functional positioning of technology embedded in practice based on this benchmark, and attribute governance tools to governance tools, governance methods to governance methods, and governance goals to governance goals. Do not use the promotion degree and coverage rate of digital technology as a yardstick to judge the modernization of governance, and prevent treating technical “means and tools” as “end values.” On the other hand, the people-centered concept should be run through the governance process, and a correct and reasonable awareness of digital governance should be established. Actively embrace and use digital technology to carry out governance activities, enhance the ability to use digital technology, and also strengthen “technological governance” ideological education, guide humanity to dominate technology and get rid of technological dependence, and establish the concept of technology serving people. At the same time, continuously improve the digital literacy and ability of governance subjects, regularly collect the digital service needs of the masses, and formulate digital governance capacity-building plans for different groups by category, such as digital technology knowledge, digital security awareness, and case analysis of “digital formalism.” Focus on the digital divide issue of the elderly group, and promote the adaptation of digital technology scenarios to actual life.

其次，扶正技术治理思维。树牢数字技术工具服务治理本质的定位，是防范数字技术异化的理念基础。一方面，要认清数字技术赋能治理的工具属性，以此为基准把握技术嵌入实践的使用边界与功能定位，将治理工具的归治理工具、治理方式的归治理方式、治理目标的归治理目标，不以数字技术的推广度、覆盖率作为判断治理现代化的尺度，防止出现把技术性的“手段工具”当作“目的价值”。另一方面，要把人本理念贯穿治理过程，树立正确合理的数字治理意识。既积极拥抱和使用数字技术开展治理活动，增强运用数字技术的能力本领，也要强化“技治”思想教育，引导人性主导技术、摆脱技术依赖，树立技术为人服务的理念。同时，持续提高治理主体的数字素养和能力，常态化收集群众的数字化服务需求，分类别制定针对不同人群的数字治理能力培养计划，如数字技术知识、数字安全意识、“数字形式主义”案例分析等，重点关注老年群体数字鸿沟问题，推进数字技术场景适配于生活实际。

Finally, shape behavioral choices guided by public rationality. Correcting the value stance of governance and the direction of action execution is the practical path to eliminate “digital formalism” in grassroots governance. On the one hand, the realization of public value goals should be taken as the governance orientation, digital platforms should be integrated based on public needs, shifting from task-oriented obedience to higher levels in the bureaucratic structure to governance demands, and building digital systems into a link connecting governance needs and service supply, thereby truly realizing the unity of technical means and governance goals, preventing the phenomenon of “digital alienation,” and promoting technology for good. On the other hand, adhere to the work style of seeking truth from facts, take the social application effectiveness of digital scenarios as the design orientation, governance practice cannot be divorced from the needs of the masses and serving the people, take responding to the people’s aspiration for a better life as the starting point and落脚点 of digital governance, correctly view “visible achievements” and “latent achievements,” reverse the wrong practice of emphasizing surface over content and form over effectiveness, be vigilant against the bad behaviors of egoism and utilitarianism, and prevent the disembedding of “online” and “offline” governance spaces.

最后，塑造公共理性导向下的行为选择。摆正治理价值立场和行动执行航向，是消解基层治理“数字形式主义”的实践路径。一方面，要把公共价值目标实现作为治理导向，以公众需求为基准整合数字平台，从科层结构的任务式唯上转向治理诉求，把数字系统建设成链接治理需求与服务供给的纽带，从而真正实现技术手段与治理目标相统一，防止出现“数字异化”现象，推进技术向善。另一方面，要坚持求真务实的工作作风，把数字场景的社会应用效能作为设计导向，治理实践不能脱离群众需要和为民服务，把回应人民群众对美好生活的向往作为数字治理的出发点和落脚点，正确看待“显绩”与“潜绩”，扭转重表面轻内容、重形式轻实效的错误做法，警惕利己主义、功利主义的不良行为，防范“线上”与“线下”治理空间的脱嵌。

(The author is an associate researcher at the Institute of Population and Social Development, Henan Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者系河南省社会科学院人口与社会发展研究所副研究员）

Online editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧