In recent months, a number of murders of officials have occurred in various parts of China, triggering reflections on grassroots governance. Since June, a number of grassroots officials have been assassinated or attacked to death in Shanxi, Shandong, Henan, Hebei, Jiangxi and other places, which have caused the public to worry deeply about the state of grassroots governance. The officials who were killed were mainly concentrated at the grassroots level, and their highest positions were no more than the department level. Except for Liu Wenjie, director of the Hunan Finance Department, most of them were township or county-level cadres. These cases reflect the deep-seated problems in China's grassroots governance. Many scholars and observers believe that this is not only a personal incident, but also exposes the widespread failure of China's grassroots governance.

The frequent murders of grassroots officials this year have made people wonder: Why are these grassroots cadres more likely to become targets of attack? This is not unrelated to the daily work content of grassroots officials. As the "administrative end" closest to the people, grassroots cadres deal with conflicts very frequently on a daily basis, and often need to directly face public complaints, conflicts, and even fierce protests. At the same time, some grassroots cadres have shown arrogance and indifference to public opinion in the process of law enforcement, and even adopted high-pressure means to deal with problems, further intensifying the contradictions between cadres and the masses. Once this contradiction gets out of control, it may lead to extreme events.

Behind the concentrated outbreak of such incidents, there is another macro factor that cannot be ignored, namely the uncertainty of the current economic situation. As the downward pressure on the economy increases, the lives of some grassroots people are gradually in trouble, and problems such as unemployment and reduced income have caused dissatisfaction. In this context, the law enforcement actions of grassroots cadres, such as collecting fees and demolition, are more likely to cause disgust and resistance. Guo Jianyu, chairman of the Qin County CPPCC in Changzhi City, Shanxi Province, was stabbed to death for participating in the cleanup of illegal properties, and Zheng Zhiying, chairman of Handan Bank in Hebei Province, was retaliated for the decision to lay off employees. These are concrete manifestations of this contradiction.

Not only that, some grassroots officials are also in a social power vacuum. They are under pressure from their superiors and lack effective supervision. They can often use the power in their hands at will. For example, when the economic situation is tense, some grassroots governments will increase their control over private resources, leading to the deterioration of relations between cadres and the masses. Since July this year, conflicts between urban management and vendors, and between demolition and villagers have occurred in many places such as Anhui, Sichuan, and Jiangxi, further exacerbating the people's resistance to grassroots cadres. Such emotions are likely to escalate into violent incidents in certain situations.

Formalism and governance distortion: the ineffective cycle of grassroots governance

The difficulties of grassroots governance in China have not only emerged today, but have become increasingly severe in recent years. A recent research article by Professor He Haibo of Hubei Second Normal University pointed out that the phenomenon of "governance distortion" is prevalent in China's grassroots governance. That is, in the process of implementing superior policies at the grassroots level, information distortion, deviation from reality, and even obvious formalism often occur due to pressure from various levels. Professor He cited an example that he had investigated the implementation of targeted poverty alleviation policies and found that in order to achieve the poverty-stricken household indicators of the superiors, local governments had to include non-poor households in the scope of assistance, resulting in distorted resource allocation and a large amount of manpower and material resources wasted.

In addition, some places have also experienced serious governance distortion when implementing environmental remediation policies. For example, in some areas, farmers are not allowed to park farm tools at their doorsteps, chickens are restricted from moving in the yard, and even fines are imposed on small details such as unfolded quilts and untidy clothes, which shows the willfulness and rudeness of grassroots cadres in implementing policies. This policy that exceeds the needs of the masses reflects the arrogance of power and the neglect of the lives of the masses, further exacerbating the dissatisfaction of the masses.

These unreasonable regulations show a major problem in China's grassroots governance: the superior policies are issued layer by layer, pursuing formal digital achievements, and the grassroots "discount execution" in order to complete the tasks of the superiors, resulting in serious formalism. In this atmosphere, grassroots cadres become indifferent and utilitarian, and the people feel that their interests are ignored, which ultimately leads to a deepening gap between the grassroots government and the masses.

Formalism backlash: governance results are difficult to improve

The Chinese government is not indifferent to the phenomenon of formalism. In recent years, it has issued a number of documents aimed at reducing the burden on the grassroots and curbing formalism. But unfortunately, the implementation of these documents themselves is also a kind of formalism to some extent. The so-called "rectification of formalism" often stays on the surface, lacks a real supervision and feedback mechanism, and is difficult to shake the fundamental problem. The root cause of formalism lies in the lack of effective constraints in the power structure. Especially at the grassroots level, it is difficult for the masses to check and balance the power of cadres, resulting in a "one-size-fits-all" phenomenon in policy implementation, and grassroots cadres take radical measures to complete the tasks of their superiors. Furthermore, the conflict between grassroots cadres and the masses has also laid the hidden danger for the frequent attacks on cadres by the public in recent years.

This phenomenon reflects the essential problem of grassroots governance, namely, the absoluteness and lack of constraints on power. As Professor He Haibo pointed out, when power loses supervision and officials lack respect for the interests of the people, governance will eventually become a one-dimensional administrative order, resulting in the failure to protect the basic rights of the masses. When the people feel that their interests are infringed, they lack legal channels to fight back and often resort to violence in extreme cases.

The deep-seated reasons for governance failure: how to effectively improve it?

The frequent incidents of grassroots officials being killed reflect that China's grassroots governance urgently needs fundamental changes. The key to solving this problem lies in establishing a more effective supervision mechanism, strengthening the sense of responsibility of grassroots cadres, and ensuring that the reasonable demands of the people can be heard and responded to. If formalism is only used to govern formalism, the problem will be difficult to eradicate. Under the current economic pressure, grassroots cadres should fundamentally improve their service attitude and methods to the masses, attach importance to public opinion feedback in their daily work, rather than blindly pursuing digital achievements.

At the same time, it is also crucial to improve the information transmission mechanism and ensure the actual implementation of policies at the grassroots level. As mentioned in the survey, the problem of data fraud in targeted poverty alleviation can only be guaranteed if transparency and authenticity are ensured at every link in the information chain. The Chinese government needs to reflect on its current performance-oriented approach and ensure that policies can have a positive impact at the grassroots level, rather than turning grassroots cadres into mere execution machines.

The failure of grassroots governance is not only a product of formalism, but also a result of the lack of power constraints. If democratic participation in grassroots governance is not fundamentally strengthened and the people's right to supervise the behavior of cadres is not guaranteed, similar violent incidents may not end.