Continued efforts to fortify the political mettle, communication skills, ability to gauge public opinion, and capacity to handle information of this force should remain an important and regular task.
Today, cyberspace has become an increasingly influential information environment. Hostile elements manipulate sensitive issues such as democracy, human rights, ethnicity, and religion, as well as matters of public concern, to distort facts, incite division, and undermine the great national unity bloc. Against this backdrop, grassroots communicators play a frontline role in shaping public opinion and countering false and distorted views at the local level. In mountainous, remote, border, and disadvantaged areas, where access to information remains limited and levels of public awareness vary, this role is even more important in strengthening communities’ “resilience” against harmful and toxic information.
Grassroots communicators operate directly within communes, wards, residential areas, agencies, and organisations – places where information spreads rapidly and has a direct impact on public perceptions. Their strength lies not only in being physically close to the people, but also in their close understanding of people’s lives, concerns, and aspirations. From this position, they both deliver official information from the Party and State to the people and serve as an important bridge in fostering greater unity in public awareness and action. Notably, the force is becoming increasingly younger, with many dynamic officials possessing strong qualifications and technological skills.
A key strength of grassroots communicators is their ability to discern developments and public sentiment at an early stage. Their advantage of being “close to and among the people” gives them opportunities to detect misconceptions, misinformation, and distortions, report them to Party committees and local authorities, and provide guidance within the community. Experience shows that when communication is practical, accessible, and responsive to people’s concerns, public trust and social consensus are strengthened, helping prevent ideological issues from developing into more complex problems.
In practice, the overwhelming majority of grassroots communicators nationwide are performing their duties effectively and substantively. Many complex ideological and public-opinion issues have been detected early and resolved in a timely manner, preventing them from spreading and becoming “hot spots”. Alongside traditional forms such as Party cell meetings, voter contacts, and dialogues with residents, many localities have integrated communication activities into mass organisations, competitions, grassroots mediation, and legal education, enabling official information to be delivered in a more flexible, accessible, and persuasive manner.
However, it is necessary to acknowledge frankly that in some places – largely due to objective constraints and limited resources – grassroots communication has not received adequate attention and has frequently lacked alignment with issues of concern to local residents. The quality of the force remains uneven, with some communicators lacking communication skills, analytical and critical thinking abilities, and technological proficiency. Most grassroots communicators work on a dual-role basis, while support policies and working conditions remain limited, impeding their motivation and effectiveness. These shortcomings must be acknowledged and addressed rather than avoided, but they should not be used to deny the significant contributions made by the overwhelming majority of grassroots communicators.
Yet some hostile elements have sought to manipulate these localised and isolated shortcomings, deliberately magnifying and generalising them as the “nature” of the entire force through increasingly sophisticated tactics. First, they seek to discredit grassroots communicators by labelling them “loudspeakers of the neighbourhood” and portraying their work as “imposing ideology” through rigid, one-sided messaging disconnected from people’s everyday lives. Second, they dismiss the effectiveness of grassroots communication, claiming that it is merely symbolic, wastes resources, and delivers no practical value. Third, they seek to sow distrust by exploiting complicated and sensitive local issues to spread false information and distort guidelines and policies, deliberately creating an antagonistic relationship between communicators and local communities.
It is important to recognise that openly identifying shortcomings and inadequacies in grassroots communication reflects a spirit of self-criticism and openness to improvement, as well as a willingness to face reality in order to continuously innovate. This has long been a fundamental principle in Party building. It is fundamentally different from the tactics employed by hostile forces, which manipulate a handful of isolated or localised incidents, equate them with the norm, turn temporary shortcomings into supposedly enduring characteristics, and thereby seek to completely negate the role, significance, and practical contributions of grassroots communicators. Their ultimate aim is to erode public trust in this “frontline force” and, in turn, weaken the Party’s ideological work from its grassroots foundations. Clearly identifying this tactic is the best way to avoid falling into the cognitive trap being deliberately laid by these elements.
The digital media environment also necessitates ovel paradigms. Grassroots communicators are increasingly using Zalo, Facebook, and online conferencing systems to broaden their reach, while adapting content to the characteristics of particular localities and population groups. Younger communicators, in particular, have an advantage in reaching adolescents and young people, who spend considerable time online and are also more susceptible to harmful and toxic information. This is a resource that should be encouraged and further developed.
To strengthen the frontline role of grassroots communicators, priority must first be given to enhancing their political mettle, theoretical knowledge, and practical capacity, while also developing their skills in information management, digital communications, and the identification and rebuttal of misinformation.
In an era when information spreads at unprecedented speed, communicators must be able to identify emerging issues early and respond promptly while ensuring accuracy, evidence-based communication, and an approach appropriate to each target audience. At the same time, content and methods should continue to be modernised, made more flexible, and tailored to specific audiences; dialogue should be strengthened; direct communication should be combined with digital platforms and social media; and positive stories and effective practices should be proactively promoted to enhance the persuasive power of constructive information.
Another important requirement is to enhance mechanisms, policies, and working conditions for grassroots communicators. Appropriate recognition and encouragement should be provided, while funding, equipment, materials, and professional training should be increased, particularly in disadvantaged areas. The practice of treating grassroots communication as a low priority or organising activities merely for form’s sake in some places must be firmly addressed, because the effectiveness of communication should ultimately be measured by its ability to resolve practical issues and build consensus among the people.
At the same time, coordination between grassroots communicators and other forces within the political system should be fortified, particularly the police, military, mass organisations, and social-opinion collaborators. When properly organised, equipped with the necessary skills and working conditions, and genuinely close to the people, grassroots communicators will be more than messengers. They will be an important force in strengthening public trust, enhancing resilience against misinformation, safeguarding the ideological frontline, and maintaining stability from the grassroots.
