 |
| Pix credit George Tooker (The Government Bureau, 1956) |
Operational level governance has always been an issue. It merely presents itself differently depending on the organization, its functional orientation, and the political-economic system from which operational level responsibility can be rationalized, and so rationalized, disciplined. All of that is well and good--and indeed managers at higher levels have developed the skill of describing the challenge to an art form.
That art form itself is founded on and remains deeply attached to qualitative measures. Qualitative measures have the value of being tautologically self-referencing. It transforms the noun form of governance (effectively the object or state to which action is directed) into a verb of itself (the action to be undertaken). That is, that governance, in its operational form, remains effectively stuck between an endless interplay between itself and the reflection of itself in action. One undertakes the objective by effectively becoming the objective. The space between objective and becoming itself remains fundamentally undefined.
This is not madness. It is, in its own way, a sound modality of governance within multi-level objectives-based governance hierarchies. The reason is simple at its most general level of operational consciousness. Complex objectives-based systems are necessarily grounded in discretionary-based administration--rather than rules-based administration. In simple terms, these are systems in which administrators, up and down the hierarchy, are not tasked with meeting objectives but instead are expected to enforce rules (which may themselves be the embodiment of objective). That rules-enforcement-as-core-objective system is eventually a solid basis for governance where the ultimate objective is the rule itself. Its danger is that it can becomes decrepit in the sense of reducing itself to dependence of rules application increasingly detached from the objects of rule application, ultimately transforming itself into a mindless and eventually self-destructive approach where rules themselves are not capable of modification as iterative application suggests instability. That is the great challenge of rule of law based techno-bureaucratic liberal democratic systems--with the European states in the vanguard and the Americans not far behind.
Instead, in systems like that of Chinese Marxist-Leninism, with strongly developed political-institutional hierarchies the legitimacy of which is dependent in large part on its ability to correctly articulate and fulfill progressive objectives along the socialist path, the opposite is true. In simple terms, these are systems in which administrators, up and down the hierarchy, are tasked with meeting objectives for which purpose rules and other instruments may provide instruction, guides or tools. Power is caged in regulation, but the reason for that is to manage discretion toward the fulfillment of objectives, which requires the overcoming of the contradictions that stand in the way of fulfillment. The construction, management, control, and alignment of discretionary authority, within cages of regulation, and undertaken primarily for the fulfillment of hierarchy-level appropriate objectives based tasks, remains the great challenge of Marxist-Leninist systems. It is one that the Soviet Union and its imperial dependencies failed in the 20th century; but one which is the underlying governance contradiction for vanguards of leading forces in the 21st century.
As a result, the most logical approach to the measure of the work of operational level administrators and cadres must at least start with the identity of task and objective. In that construct, one measures the value of the work of administrators and cadres at the operational level as a function of result, and one develops disciplinary systems that reflect this self-referencing circularity. The result, often enough, then leaves operational level staff with little guidance about pathways toward objectives and little basis for determining even the way that objectives attainment will be measured--and their performance judged. As a consequence, there may be a tendency for operational level staff either to shift their focus to those tasks which can be easily measured (micro-objectives based work) or developing cultures of conservative approaches to decision making that effectively shuts down innovation (and thus reduces significantly the risk to operational level staff). Therein lies the great challenge for discretionary decision based objectives driven systems--that as constituted, it produces cultures of risk aversion that may stifle innovation because the risk of failure is too great. In extreme form one begins to approach the decrepitude of the Soviet Union, in milder forms, the paralysis of the Cuban Communist Party.
It might then follow that there my need to be a stronger focus not merely on the qualitative drivers in objectives-based discretionary decision making systems, but also to develop an aligned set of quantitative measures. Not just that, but also to develop qualitative analytics that may effectively tie upper level objectives and goal formation both to reality (that is the capacity of operational level cadres) and to effective planning for objectives formation an timelines. And, of course, those measures can be used to nudge innovation where innovation or new or high quality production (新质生产力), becomes a central objective itself. Interestingly enough, the principles apply as well to rules-enforcing systems as it does to objectives-meeting systems, both of which appear to be reluctant to develop robust quantitative measures in the service of either objectives.based or rule-enforcement-based systems. That, certainly has become a critical element of Chinese objectives with respect to the cultivation of productive forces, now well articulated since the 3rd Plenum of the 20th Party Congress in July 2024 (see, here and ere), and which are also well represented in the articles published in Qiushi 2024:23.
The problem is an old one, and the operational level objectives have
been highlighted since the time of the leadership of Deng Xiaoping and well before that (eg here). That
longevity of a challenge not yet overcome suggests both its complexity
and its importance. A good example of the challenges, from the perspective of Marxist-Leninist operational level challenges within an objectives-based hierarchically arranged discretionary decision making systems, were nicely illustrated in a quite fascinating essay published in volume 2024:23 of Qiushi Journal. The article, in the form of a letter from Zhuang Jie [庄 杰] (General Office of the CPC Guizhou Provincial Committee), 让基层干部轻装上阵 ['Let grassroots cadres go into battle lightly'] highlight both the challenges of developing (or at least articulating qualitative measures) and perhaps as well, highlighting the spaces where quantitative measures might prove useful, at last at the operational level.Indeed, each of the three qualitative challenge points identified--(1) 强化源头治理 [strengthen governance at the source]; (2) 突出问题导向 [Focus on problem solving orientation]; and (3) 统筹好减负与赋能 [Coordinate burden reduction and empowerment]-- might all lend themselves to appropriate qualitative measures, That, however, would require innovation, and new quality production of administration up from the grassroots.
The essay follows below in both the original Chinese and in a Crude English translation.
让基层干部轻装上阵
编辑同志：
基层是贯彻落实党中央决策部署的“最后一公里”、联系服务群众的“最先一公里”，工作极为重要而又复杂繁重，不能被形式主义、官僚主义束缚手脚。党的十八大以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央高度重视为基层减负工作，采取一系列有力措施，取得显著成效。同时要看到，形式主义、官僚主义之弊非一日之寒，从根子上减轻基层负担也非一日之功，需常抓不懈、久久为功。
党的二十届三中全会明确提出，健全为基层减负长效机制。不久前，习近平总书记在湖北考察时再次强调，要持续为基层减负，让基层干部能够用更多时间和精力来服务群众。基层减负，关乎民生福祉、干部作风，关乎抓落实的成效和水平。只有持续为基层卸下不必要的负担，广大基层干部才能放开手脚干事创业。
强化源头治理。“善除害者察其本，善理疾者绝其源。”笔者是一名党委督查干部，调研中常听到一句话，基层负担重，表现在基层，根子在上面。上面千条线、下面一根针，基层干部是“穿针引线人”。倘若“针”上线头过多过乱，基层干部难免疲于应付。为基层减负，不能只盯着基层，必须善于从源头上找准病灶、勇于从根子上对症下药。领导干部要以上率下，一级带一级，一级做给一级看，树立和践行正确政绩观，不定不切实际的目标，不开不解决问题的会，不发没有实质内容的文，不做“只留痕不留绩”的事。要进一步明确权责，搞清楚基层该干什么活、能办什么事、应担什么责，推动基层工作“松绑瘦身”、提质增效。
突出问题导向。当前，一些地方减负隐形变异、潜滋暗长、花样翻新，一些“老大难”问题仍存在整而未治、禁而不绝甚至反弹回潮的风险隐患。把减负工作向纵深推进，必须坚持问题导向，努力解决基层干部反映强烈的突出问题。笔者在调研中发现，基层干部一度反映最多的是繁琐的考核、过频的检查、无奈的留痕、指尖上的负担等。干部群众最希望得到纠治的问题，就是要下气力整治的靶向。要锲而不舍落实中央八项规定及其实施细则精神，持续精简规范会议文件和各类创建示范、评比达标、节庆展会论坛活动，严格控制面向基层的督查、检查、考核总量，整治过度留痕和“指尖上的形式主义”，真正把基层干部从无谓事务的奔走中解脱出来、从提供材料的忙乱中解放出来。
统筹好减负与赋能。基层减负为干部卸下了包袱，但有的干部将减负作为不担当不作为的“挡箭牌”，让减负变了形走了味。减负不是减责任、减担当，而是让广大干部轻装上阵，更加积极主动抓落实、谋发展。要区分应尽之责与应减之负，引导广大基层干部把减负腾出来的时间用在干事业上，察实情、出实招、办实事、求实效，把该担的责任担起来，把该做的工作做到位。继续推动资源、服务、管理向基层下沉，保证基层事情基层办、基层权力给基层、基层事情有人办。减负和赋能双向发力，才能真正减到实处、减出实效。
中共贵州省委办公厅 庄杰
Let grassroots cadres go into battle lightly
Source: "Qiushi" 2024/23 Author: Zhuang Jie 2024-12-01 09:00:00
Editor:
The grassroots is the "last kilometer" for implementing the decisions and deployments of the Party Central Committee and the "first kilometer" for contacting and serving the masses. The work is extremely important and complex, and cannot be bound by formalism and bureaucracy. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping as the core has attached great importance to reducing the burden on the grassroots, taken a series of powerful measures, and achieved remarkable results. At the same time, it should be noted that the evils of formalism and bureaucracy are not a one-day cold, and reducing the burden on the grassroots from the root is not a one-day job, and it requires constant and long-term efforts.
The Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee clearly proposed to improve the long-term mechanism for reducing the burden on the grassroots. Not long ago, General Secretary Xi Jinping reiterated during his inspection in Hubei that we must continue to reduce the burden on the grassroots so that grassroots cadres can spend more time and energy to serve the people. Reducing the burden on the grassroots is related to the well-being of the people, the style of cadres, and the effectiveness and level of implementation. Only by continuously unloading unnecessary burdens from the grassroots can the majority of grassroots cadres let go and start businesses.
Strengthen governance at its source. "Those who are good at eliminating harm examine their roots, and those who are good at curing diseases cut off their sources." The author is a party committee inspection cadre. During the investigation, I often heard a sentence that the grassroots burden is heavy, which is reflected in the grassroots, and the source of that burden lies above. There are thousands of threads above and one needle below, and the grassroots cadres are "needle threaders". If there are too many threads on the "needle" and they are too messy, the grassroots cadres will inevitably be exhausted. To reduce the burden on the grassroots, we cannot just focus on the grassroots, but must be good at identifying the lesions from the source and be brave enough to prescribe the right medicine from the root. Leading cadres should lead by example, lead one level at a time, and show one level to the next level. They should establish and practice a correct view of political achievements, not set unrealistic goals, not hold meetings that do not solve problems, not issue documents without substantive content, and not do things that "only leave traces but no achievements". We must further clarify the rights and responsibilities, figure out what the grassroots should do, what they can do, and what responsibilities they should bear, and promote the "loosening and slimming" of grassroots work and improve quality and efficiency.
Focus on problem solving orientation. At present, some places have seen the invisible variation of burden reduction, the hidden growth, and the innovation of new methods. Some "hard-to-solve" problems still have the risk of rectification without treatment, prohibition without elimination, and even rebound. To push the burden reduction work forward, we must adhere to the problem orientation and strive to solve the prominent problems that grassroots cadres strongly reflect. In the survey, the author found that the most common problems reflected by grassroots cadres were cumbersome assessments, frequent inspections, helpless traces, and burdens on fingertips. The problems that cadres and the masses most hope to be corrected are the targets that we must work hard to rectify. We must persevere in implementing the spirit of the Central Eight Regulations and their implementation rules, continue to streamline and standardize meeting documents and various activities such as demonstration creation, evaluation and compliance, festivals, exhibitions and forums, strictly control the total amount of supervision, inspection, and assessment facing the grassroots, rectify excessive traces and "formalism on fingertips", and truly free grassroots cadres from running around for meaningless affairs and from the hustle and bustle of providing materials.
Coordinate burden reduction and empowerment. The burden reduction at the grassroots level has unloaded the burden for the cadres, but some cadres use the burden reduction as a "shield" for not taking responsibility and not taking action, which has distorted the burden reduction. Burden reduction is not about reducing duties and responsibilities, but about allowing the majority of cadres to go into battle lightly and be more proactive in implementing and seeking development. We must distinguish between the responsibilities that should be fulfilled and the burdens that should be reduced, and guide the majority of grassroots cadres to use the time freed up by the burden reduction to do their careers, investigate the facts, take practical measures, do practical things, and seek practical results, take up the responsibilities that should be taken, and do the work that should be done. Continue to push resources, services, and management to the grassroots level, and ensure that grassroots affairs are handled by the grassroots, grassroots power is given to the grassroots, and grassroots affairs are handled by someone. Only by reducing burdens and empowering in both directions can we truly reduce them in practice and achieve practical results.
Zhuang Jie, General Office of the CPC Guizhou Provincial Committee
No comments:
Post a Comment