Only for a Few | Is Zhejiang’s Alcohol Ban the Most Humane? But I Feel Sad

Online, it is said that Zhejiang’s alcohol ban is the most humane.

Zhejiang’s alcohol ban mainly distinguishes between public and private: a complete ban on alcohol during working hours: including weekdays, during duty hours, and official reception occasions, strictly prohibiting the consumption of any alcoholic beverages. Moderate relaxation during non-working hours: after work, on weekends or holidays, public officials are allowed to drink alcohol in moderation, but they need to ensure that it does not affect the next day’s work and personal safety.

Compared to the alcohol bans in other provinces, Zhejiang’s alcohol ban should be relatively lenient, so it is called the most humane alcohol ban.

But I feel sad.

In the private part, there is no problem with Zhejiang’s alcohol ban. But in the public part, Zhejiang’s alcohol ban actually has problems.

Teacher Xie Zuoshi said in his comments on banning eating and drinking: “If it is public funds, then, it is forbidden to be private.”

I disagree with Teacher Xie’s view.

My view: whether public funds for eating and drinking should be prohibited should be left to the units below to decide for themselves.

Professor Nie Huihua of Renmin University of China pointed out that a very serious change in recent years is the shift from result assessment to process assessment, which seriously hinders economic development.

Nie Huihua’s vision is still very sharp.

Now the officials below, the first thing they value is that the process must be compliant, as for whether the process compliance can develop the economy, they can’t manage it. Anyway, the above doesn’t look at the results now. If the economy doesn’t develop, they won’t lose their official hats, but if they are not compliant, they will lose their official hats.

And banning public funds for eating and drinking is actually a process assessment thinking.

In fact, it is perfectly fine not to engage in process assessment, but only to engage in result assessment.

If your place has good economic development and the finances have money, you can eat and drink with public funds, it doesn’t matter. I only look at your results. In fact, to go a step further, if you work hard to optimize the business environment and develop the economy, you can even distribute bonuses, let alone eating and drinking.

In fact, many grassroots officials need to promote work through public funds for eating and drinking. Scholars who have studied the drinking culture in county-level officialdom say that, for example, the county party secretary, it is difficult to be completely fair and watertight in the rewards, punishments, and promotions of officials in the county, and some officials below who have been wronged will harbor resentment. Then, the county party secretary occasionally participates in the dinners of various units and toasts them, everything is in the wine, which can resolve a large part of the resentment. Wine, in some occasions, is indeed a lubricant for smoothing out relationships and promoting work, and this reality should be acknowledged.

Some people may say: “Haven’t you seen that many officials have drunk themselves to death, seriously affecting the image of officials? How do you calculate this big account?”

Indeed, in the past few years, there have been several cases of officials drinking together and getting drunk to death, which has made the people very dissatisfied.

But this still only looks at the results.

If something happens from drinking together, punish severely. Only manage the result of your drinking, not the process of your drinking.

You have to believe that officials also cherish their lives, even more than ordinary people. There are officials who drink themselves to death from drinking together, and there are even more ordinary people. The proportion of officials who drink themselves to death is very low. Seeing that a very small number of officials have drunk themselves to death, they want to manage the process, and do not allow drinking in the process, this kind of thinking is to think that everything will be fine if the process is managed well. They haven’t thought that, for this, sacrificing the flexibility of the work of the officials below will have other consequences.

In fact, the same thinking exists for state-owned enterprise reform. For example, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) manages central enterprises and state-owned enterprises, does it manage people, manage things, or manage capital?

When it is best to manage capital.

I only care whether your capital has increased in value, this is managing the results. Managing people and managing things is managing the process.

Think about it, if all the processes are managed, and the officials only focus on process compliance, but the economy does not develop, is this what everyone wants to see? Therefore, let the people below do the process themselves, and the above only needs to manage the results.

Just like what Li Yunlong said in “Bright Sword”, you, the leader, can’t give me guns and cannons, then how do I get guns and cannons, you don’t have to worry about it. If you manage my process, I won’t get guns and cannons.

If you manage the process, the people below have no way to be responsible for the results, which naturally leads to formalism becoming more and more serious. As the saying goes, formalism is a sharp weapon for dealing with bureaucracy.