The Rule of Law Transition and Internationalization of the “Fengqiao Experience”: A Global Dialogue on Social Governance Innovation

1. Introduction

In 1963, the “Fengqiao Experience” was born in Fengqiao Town, Zhuji County, Zhejiang Province, China. Over more than six decades of inheritance, iteration, and innovation, it has evolved from a specific historical experience for reforming the “four categories of people” into a typical model for comprehensive social security governance, and ultimately into a treasure of grassroots social governance. This journey has gradually freed it from the limitations of local practice, elevating it into a national-level institutionalized, standardized, and legalized governance resource, and making it a crucial tool for advancing the modernization of grassroots social governance in the new era. It can be said that the “Fengqiao Experience” is the intellectual crystallization and institutional model of China's efforts in preventing conflicts, resolving disputes, and promoting pluralistic co-governance (Liao, 2025). Consequently, how to effectively utilize the “Fengqiao Experience” in areas like grassroots social governance and endow it with new contemporary connotations has become a significant issue that various regions in China are actively exploring and cautiously addressing.

Amidst profound global changes unseen in a century, the international social environment is undergoing deep reshaping, and the global governance system is also entering a period of deep adjustment and transformation (Qi & Cao, 2023). Currently, geopolitical conflicts continue to escalate, internal societal contradictions grow increasingly complex, and transnational disputes become more diverse. These intertwined old and new issues pose severe challenges to existing governance frameworks. However, the Western-dominated adversarial, litigation-centric governance model, due to its high costs, excessive institutional rigidity, and lack of cultural adaptability, struggles to effectively respond to the differentiated social governance needs and realities of various countries. This model failure not only exacerbates the global governance deficit and trust deficit but also reveals the deeper predicament of a singular governance path. In stark contrast, the grassroots governance wisdom crystallized within the process of Chinese-style modernization is gradually becoming a significant resource for global governance innovation, potentially offering new approaches to resolving the aforementioned dilemmas. Against this backdrop, the “Fengqiao Experience” aligns with the developmental trends of global good governance, demonstrating universal value that transcends specific regions and civilizational barriers.

Based on this, this paper aims to systematically elucidate the rule of law transition logic and internationalization path of the “Fengqiao Experience” clarify the pathways and boundaries for its dissemination and application abroad, thereby providing theoretical references and practical guidance for the exchange and mutual learning between Chinese and foreign social governance models and for promoting the innovation of the global social governance system.

2. Internal Transformation: From Experience Management to Rule of Law – The Rule of Law Logic of the “Fengqiao Experience”

The core of the “Fengqiao Experience” internal transformation and upgrade lies in its own legalization. Essentially, it is about promoting a fundamental shift in grassroots social governance from a traditional, experience-driven, administration-led, extensive management model to a modernized governance model empowered by the rule of law, backed by institutions, and guided by rules. Over its sixty-plus years of evolution, the “Fengqiao Experience” has gradually shed the arbitrariness and fragmentation inherent in local experiential knowledge, constructing a comprehensive, standardized, and orderly rule-of-law governance framework, thereby forging a clear logic for its rule of law transition.

2.1. Reshaping Governance Philosophy: From Administrative Stability Maintenance to Rule of Law Good Governance

The “Fengqiao Experience” originated during the Socialist Education Movement in rural China, initially targeting the reform of the “four categories of people”: landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, and bad elements (Yin, 2020). In this practice, the cadres and masses of Fengqiao Town created the experience of "mobilizing and relying on the masses, ensuring that contradictions are resolved locally without being passed upward, achieving few arrests and good public security." Its core function focused on social security control and grassroots stability maintenance. At this time, the governance logic of the “Fengqiao Experience” was characterized by administrative dominance and empirical judgment, relying on grassroots cadres' experience, local customs, and administrative mobilization to resolve conflicts, carrying distinct political overtones and instrumental attributes, with governance goals limited to “appeasing people and maintaining stability”. This experiential management model played a significant role in specific historical stages but suffered from shortcomings such as “vague standards, unclear boundaries, weak stability, and insufficient sustainability”.

With the deepening of reform and opening-up, the focus of the Communist Party of China and the state shifted from class struggle to economic construction. The opportunities and challenges brought by the wave of internationalization, along with major adjustments in the socio-economic structure, posed significant challenges to social security and stability. To manage the relationship between stability and development, the “Fengqiao Experience” transformed from a pure grassroots social conflict resolution mechanism into a “mass prevention and mass treatment” model for comprehensive social security management.

Entering the new era, the “Fengqiao Experience” completed a fundamental reshaping of its governance philosophy, integrating legal thinking and legal methods throughout the governance process, achieving a core shift from “experience-based judgment” to “law-based governance”, and from “stability maintenance” to “good governance”. This transformation not only transcends the traditional governance model but also injects new vitality into China's social governance (Zhang, 2021). On the one hand, the establishment of legal thinking shifts conflict resolution from “administrative control” to “law-based dispute resolution”. By improving multiple dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration, and administrative adjudication, legal rules are embedded in all aspects of grassroots social governance, ensuring that conflicts are substantially resolved within the legal framework. On the other hand, the proposal of the “good governance” goal means that governance is no longer oriented towards the short-term goal of “suppressing” conflicts but aims to enhance social fairness and justice and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the people, promoting the formation of a social governance pattern of “co-construction, co-governance, and sharing” (Zhang, 2021).

2.2. Upgrading the Governance System: Constructing a Pattern Integrating “Self-Governance, Rule of Law, and Rule of Virtue”

The “Fengqiao Experience” has also undergone a significant upgrade at the governance system level, constructing a grassroots social governance system integrating “self-governance, rule of law, and rule of virtue” (自治、法治、德治三治融合). This effectively addresses the structural defect of the traditional model, which relied solely on mass self-governance as its core, lacking institutional constraints and value guidance. This transformation uses the rule of law to solidify governance boundaries and standardize governance behavior, fundamentally reshaping the operational logic of grassroots social governance.

First, with self-governance as the foundation, it leverages the foundational supporting role of self-governance. By relying on institutionalized self-governance vehicles such as village rules and regulations and grassroots democratic consultation, it encourages the masses to achieve self-management, self-service, and self-restraint, fully activating the endogenous motivation and subject consciousness of grassroots social governance, and continuing the core essence of the “mass line” of the “Fengqiao Experience”. Second, with the rule of law as the normative framework, it leverages the rule of law's role in providing a safety net, protection, and normative guidance. By improving laws, regulations, and institutional norms for grassroots conflict mediation, risk prevention and control, and dispute resolution, it clarifies the power boundaries, operational processes, and handling standards for grassroots social governance, bringing all types of social governance behaviors and conflict resolution methods within the legal framework, eliminating the arbitrariness of experience-based governance. Third, with the rule of virtue as the spiritual core, it leverages the value-guiding role of virtue. It deeply explores and inherits the excellent traditional Chinese moral culture, embedding soft moral norms such as family ethics, family education, and family values into the grassroots social governance field. By employing traditional moral resources, it solidifies the humanistic foundation and moral constraint system of grassroots social governance, compensating for the flexibility shortcomings of rigid rule of law and achieving an organic integration of law, reason, and sentiment.

Innovative practices in various regions fully confirm the governance effectiveness of the three-in-one integration system. For example, Shawan Street in Panyu, Guangzhou, implemented “Ancestral Hall Mediation”, transforming unused ancestral halls into grassroots governance vehicles for the “three-in-one integration”. It builds a self-governance platform through villager assemblies, provides legal consultations and judicial confirmation services via lawyers stationed in the halls to implement rule of law safeguards, and cultivates village customs and morals through the moral education function of ancestral precepts and family rules. The three functions complement and coordinate with each other within the same space (Chen, 2025). Similarly, Xincun Street in Fengtai District, Beijing, created an integrated governance space combining “law, mediation, psychology, and moral education”, achieving a deep integration of rigid rule-of-law constraints and flexible moral guidance (Yin & Gao, 2025). Thus, the "three-in-one integration" governance pattern has not only become the core institutional achievement of the “Fengqiao Experience” rule of law transition but also an effective paradigm for constructing a new system of grassroots social good governance in the new era, leading the great transformation of grassroots social governance (Lu, 2023).

2.3. Improving Governance Mechanisms: From Fragmented Disposal to a Full-Chain, Rule of Law Closed-Loop Governance

The traditional conflict resolution model of the “Fengqiao Experience” focused on post-event disposal and passive response, with fragmented governance stages, inadequate prevention and control mechanisms, and limited replicability and scalability. Entering the new era, through creative transformation and innovative development, combined with digital and grid-based governance methods, the “Fengqiao Experience” has constructed a full-chain, rule of law closed-loop governance mechanism encompassing “source prevention – diversified mediation – effectiveness guarantee”, achieving standardization, refinement, and normalization of grassroots social governance.

At the front end of source prevention, the “Fengqiao Experience” promotes the establishment of mechanisms for regular risk assessment, legal publicity, and public opinion collection. Leveraging grid-based governance systems and intelligent analysis models, it extends governance reach to the point where conflicts are generated, enabling early identification and preemptive resolution of risks and hidden dangers. For example, the Fengqiao Police Station in Zhuji, Zhejiang, innovated a round-the-clock online fingertip police service platform, allowing the public to report demands and potential conflicts in real-time. Police personnel conduct online assessments and offline interventions, reducing the probability of conflict escalation from the source.

At the middle stage of diversified mediation, the “Fengqiao Experience” promotes the comprehensive construction of a linkage mechanism involving people's mediation, administrative mediation, and judicial mediation. It integrates platform resources such as comprehensive grassroots governance centers, shared courts, and mediation studios, establishing a dispute resolution pattern characterized by “one-stop acceptance, multi-actor collaboration, and standardized processes”, forming a tiered filtering and progressive resolution operating mechanism.

At the back end of effectiveness guarantee, the “Fengqiao Experience” emphasizes the connection with mechanisms such as judicial confirmation of mediation agreements and notarization of enforceable agreements, granting non-litigation dispute resolution outcomes enforceability and effectively preventing the recurrence of conflicts. Simultaneously, it focuses on extracting common rules from individual case resolutions, promoting institutional improvement through judicial recommendations, administrative guidance, and other means, achieving an efficiency upgrade of “resolving one case, governing a wider area”.

3. Value Ascension: The Foundation for the “Fengqiao Experience” to Move Towards Internationalization

The ascension of the “Fengqiao Experience” from a local Chinese governance wisdom to a global public good is not accidental but deeply rooted in its theoretical value's intrinsic alignment with global good governance and its rich practical responses to the global governance deficit. It is this dual support of theoretical resonance and practical demand that constitutes a solid foundation for the “Fengqiao Experience” to move towards internationalization.

3.1. Theoretical Foundation: Aligning with the Core Values of Global Good Governance

The internationalization of any governance experience first depends on whether its theoretical core possesses commensurability across cultural and institutional boundaries. The core values of “people-orientation, preventive governance, and pluralistic co-governance” crystallized during the rule of law transition of the “Fengqiao Experience”,advocating for non-adversarial, flexible, and inclusive governance logic, resonate deeply with the goals of “consensus-orientation, pluralistic participation, justice, and harmony” pursued by global good governance.

First, the emphasis of the “Fengqiao Experience” on “relying on the masses to resolve conflicts locally” aligns with the principle of sovereign equality established in the UN Charter and its advocacy for resolving international disputes through peaceful means such as negotiation, investigation, mediation, and good offices. Both reject zero-sum adversarial thinking and emphasize transforming differences into consensus through dialogue and consultation, while respecting the status of all parties, thereby achieving genuine restoration of social relations.

Second, the “Fengqiao Experience” adheres to the principle of “prevention first”, advocating for nipping conflicts in the bud and resolving them before they escalate, rather than passive response or post-hoc punishment. This “prevention is better than cure” methodology has particularly prominent application value in high-risk areas globally. In today's world, whether it's geopolitical conflicts, climate change crises, public health events, or financial risk contagion, common features are high uncertainty, cross-border diffusibility, and cumulative consequences. Once a crisis fully erupts, governance costs increase exponentially, potentially leading to systemic catastrophe. Therefore, the governance logic of the “Fengqiao Experience”, emphasizing source prevention and early intervention, resonates with these challenges, endowing this local experience with the intellectual power to respond to global challenges.

Third, the “pluralistic co-governance” aspect of the “Fengqiao Experience” aligns with the trend of multiple actors in global governance (Wang, 2024). Currently, various actors including governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions worldwide are widely participating in rule-making and dispute resolution, emphasizing dialogue, consultation, and complementarity between soft and hard laws. Similarly, the “Fengqiao Experience” has, at different times, strengthened the integrated application of various mechanisms such as mediation, administrative measures, litigation, and petitions (Peng, 2023), constructing a collaborative network for conflict resolution and achieving orderly co-governance within the rule of law framework. The two are highly consistent in their logic of multi-actor participatory governance and pursuit of the greatest common denominator.

Thus, only when the value core of local knowledge deeply resonates with the universal pursuits of human society does it truly possess the qualifications and conditions to go global and engage in dialogue.

3.2. Practical Foundation: The Realistic Need to Address the Global Governance Deficit

The international dissemination of governance experience ultimately depends on the persuasiveness of its governance effectiveness. For over sixty years, in adhering to and developing the “Fengqiao Experience”, various regions in China have focused on integrating their local socio-economic realities and historical and cultural heritages, exploring mature governance models covering diverse scenarios such as urban and rural communities, maritime disputes, ecological protection, and commercial disputes. This has formed a systemic solution that effectively addresses common challenges like weakened grassroots governance, delayed conflict handling, and high governance costs, accumulating rich and diverse practical samples for its international export.

Among these, the “Maritime Fengqiao” governance model implemented in Ningde, Fujian Province, is exemplary. Targeting the pressing issues of frequent fishery disputes, complex cross-border fishing frictions, and prominent maritime security risks, this model has established an integrated governance mechanism encompassing “maritime investigation, on-board mediation, and onshore coordination”. By establishing maritime dispute mediation committees and extensively incorporating representatives from fishery associations, experienced captains, and clan elders, it extends governance reach to fishing boats, rafts, and deep-sea operations. It has successfully resolved numerous civil disputes arising from overlapping fishing zones, maritime accidents, and aquaculture conflicts, and even flexibly mitigated multiple transnational fishing frictions, achieving the goal of “minor issues not leaving the boat, major issues not leaving the port, and conflicts not being passed upward” (Huang & Li, 2025). This model not only safeguards harmony in maritime communities but also provides a mature reference model for global areas with high rates of fishery disputes. Furthermore, border regions in Yunnan, which border multiple countries, face conflicts and disputes that are often transnational and embedded in close-knit communities, posing special requirements for governance. Building on the “Fengqiao Experience”, local authorities creatively apply concepts of soft law governance, flexible governance, pluralistic governance, and source governance to conflict resolution, exploring a distinctive path of “Borderland Fengqiao Experience”, offering a practical Chinese sample for cross-border grassroots governance globally (Huang et al., 2024).

The common characteristic of the diverse practices mentioned above lies not only in adhering to the core principles of the “Fengqiao Experience” but also in adapting and transforming them according to local conditions. It is the dual accumulation of theory and practice that provides the “Fengqiao Experience” with the endogenous impetus to move from China to the world, making it a significant solution for addressing the global governance deficit.

4. Global Dialogue: Pathways and Limits for the “Fengqiao Experience” to Integrate into Global Governance

Although the “Fengqiao Experience” possesses the value foundation for international dissemination and application, internationalization is not about simple replication or transplantation. Instead, it should be based on global governance scenarios and involve adaptive transformation and innovative development suited to the traits of different civilizations. In the process of participating in global dialogue and integrating into the global governance system, it is necessary to construct scientifically sound and feasible pathways for dissemination and transformation, while clearly defining its application boundaries and adaptation limits to avoid homogenized application and blind export, thereby ensuring the benign dissemination of governance wisdom.

4.1. Dissemination Pathways: Multidimensional Empowerment, Constructing a Layered International Communication System

First, it is crucial to strengthen the international interpretation of the theoretical system and enhance the academic discourse power of the “Fengqiao Experience”. On the one hand, based on the common discourse framework of global governance, and focusing on universal governance cores like “people-orientation, preventive governance, and pluralistic co-governance”, the “Fengqiao Experience” should be further refined by drawing on Western legal sociological resources such as Ehrlich's “living law”, Parsons' structural functionalism, and Putnam's social capital theory. This will help extract universally applicable governance logic with cross-cultural explanatory power, transforming it into comparable, testable, and disseminable academic concepts and operational models. On the other hand, it is essential to deeply participate in global governance forums and comparative law academic dialogues. By setting up discussion topics around core directions like front-end risk prevention and non-adversarial dispute resolution, and systematically comparing with Western adversarial judicial models, the unique advantages of the “Fengqiao Experience” in reducing institutional costs, restoring social relations, and maintaining grassroots order can be highlighted. This will promote the elevation of the “Fengqiao Experience” from local knowledge to a governance theory with international referential value, enhancing its visibility and influence in the global governance academic landscape (Huang & Pan, 2026).

Second, it is necessary to build platforms for transnational practical exchange, promoting the “Fengqiao Experience” from “concept export” to “scenario embedding”.On the one hand, regular “offline + online” bilateral or multilateral social governance forums should be held, inviting local government officials, grassroots police officers, and mediation staff from various countries to visit frontline sites in China, such as the Fengqiao Police Station, village mediation committees, and conflict mediation centers, allowing them to observe the entire workflow of conflict front-end investigation, tiered mediation, and closed-loop governance. Simultaneously, cloud observation platforms can be established to broadcast grassroots mediation scenes in real-time, supplemented by multi-lingual explanations and interactive Q&A, visually demonstrating the practical effectiveness of the “Fengqiao Experience” in neighborhood disputes, community risk prevention, and preemptive resolution of mass incidents. On the other hand, drawing on mature models like Fujian's “Maritime Fengqiao”, small-scale, targeted pilot cooperation on dispute resolution can be initiated in key countries along the “Belt and Road”, focusing on three typical scenarios: economic and trade exchanges, border livelihood issues, and maritime co-governance. Through localized adaptation and joint evaluation, replicable overseas practice samples can be accumulated, laying an empirical foundation for subsequent large-scale promotion.

Third, reliance on intergovernmental international organizations for top-down institutional implementation can achieve a critical breakthrough in the international dissemination of the “Fengqiao Experience”.On May 30, 2025, the Chinese government representative signed the “Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation” in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, marking the formal establishment of the world's first intergovernmental international organization dedicated solely to resolving international disputes through mediation (Wu, 2025). Compared to post-hoc adversarial dispute resolution mechanisms like the International Court of Justice or international arbitration, the International Organization for Mediation is not intended to act as a “judge” after conflict erupts but aims to establish a “mediator” role that intervenes during or even before the event. Through non-adversarial, non-coercive, consensus-based mediation procedures, it can effectively prevent the spiral escalation of misunderstandings and prevent local frictions from sliding into full-blown confrontation. As some scholars have noted, the institutional design of the International Organization for Mediation is precisely a creative transformation and international application of the “Fengqiao Experience” governance philosophy of “prevention first, mediation priority, and local resolution” (Xie, 2025). Therefore, the establishment of the International Organization for Mediation signifies that the “Fengqiao Experience” has been formally embedded in the global official dispute resolution system, becoming a global public governance product recognized by international conventions and characterized by Chinese features. Its institutional demonstration effect and rule-guiding function will continue to exert influence in future multilateral governance practices.

4.2. Transformation Pathways: Localization Adaptation and Innovation Based on Local Conditions

The “Fengqiao Experience” has traveled from Fengqiao Town to the whole country, from rural to urban governance, from grassroots to municipal governance, and from a typical case of governance to a replicable governance model. The essence embedded in this expansion of its applicable fields and scope is that various regions, based on a clear understanding of the intrinsic value and substantive content of the “Fengqiao Experience”, have adapted, inherited, and integrated it with distinction, rather than mechanically promoting, applying, or copying it. From this perspective, “adapting measures to local conditions, to the people, and to the times” constitutes a secondary localization development of the “Fengqiao Experience” (Qiu & Li, 2024).

Following this logic, in the process of global dialogue, the “Fengqiao Experience” must also undergo differentiated innovative transformation in combination with the governance systems, rule of law traditions, and social customs of different countries. Specifically: On the one hand, for Western countries with mature rule of law systems and developed social organizations, the focus should be on exporting mechanisms such as diversified mediation, source-based risk early warning, and consultative governance. This can compensate for their governance shortcomings, such as high costs and adversarial relationships, arising from over-reliance on litigation, making it an efficient supplement to their judicial system. Simultaneously, it should align with local theoretical discourse systems in the West, such as restorative justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), to reduce resistance to institutional acceptance. On the other hand, for developing countries in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America, where grassroots governance is weak, social conflicts are frequent, and judicial resources are scarce, the complete practice models of grassroots community self-governance, folk mediation, and front-end risk assessment can be exported. This can help them build low-cost, high-efficiency dispute resolution networks under conditions of limited resources. Such regions often possess deep traditional community ties and customary resources, which have an inherent affinity with the “mass line” and “folk mediation” of the “Fengqiao Experience”, offering broad space for adaptation.

In summary, the essence of “adapting measures to local conditions” lies in the dialectical unity of universal governance principles and local practical contexts. It requires respecting the legal sovereignty and cultural autonomy of other countries while ensuring, through gradual practice, joint evaluation, and dynamic adjustment, that the transformed governance tools can genuinely embed into local governance processes, achieving "rooted" rather than "grafted" survival.

4.3. Boundaries and Limits: Respecting Civilizational Diversity and Avoiding Alienation of Governance Paradigms

First, institutional boundaries. The “Fengqiao Experience” is endogenous to China's socialist system with Chinese characteristics and the grassroots party-building system. As such, in its internationalization process, a strict distinction should be made between “universal governance concepts” and “local institutional carriers”.Concepts, rules, systems, and methods with universal significance and shared values can be effectively exported. However, specific institutional frameworks cannot be imposed on other countries as “standard templates”.Otherwise, this would violate the laws of governance and constitute a disrespect for the institutional autonomy of sovereign states.

Second, cultural boundaries. Global culture is diverse, and different countries have significantly different social ethics, dispute handling customs, and community governance models (Lu & Li, 2022). As local knowledge deeply embedded in China's specific legal cultural tradition and social value spectrum, the governance logic embedded in the “Fengqiao Experience” is, to some extent, in fundamental tension with the Western tradition of formal rational law and the legal cognitive schemas of diverse civilizations. Different societies have varying cultural prescriptions regarding the ontology of justice, the legitimacy of mediation subjects, and procedural due process. Consequently, the cross-cultural dissemination of this experience inevitably undergoes “cultural filtering” and meaning reconstruction. Forcible implantation can easily trigger “cultural resistance” or even functional alienation. Therefore, its international communication should abandon the cultural hegemonic tendencies of governance universalism and instead adopt a dialogical universalism stance, replacing “cultural export” with “cultural translation”.It should seek dialogue space for common goals like low-cost dispute resolution and social resilience building, while respecting the autonomous choices of various countries regarding their legal cultures, rather than pursuing institutional convergence or unification of value paradigms (Lu & Li, 2022).

Third, scenario boundaries. The core strength of the “Fengqiao Experience” lies in preventing and resolving grassroots social conflicts, civil daily disputes, and routine social risks through mediation and consultation. However, it is not directly adaptable to high-level international disputes such as transnational political conflicts, major geopolitical disputes, or sovereignty and security games. It cannot replace mature mechanisms like international judicial rulings, diplomatic mediation, or UN Security Council resolutions, nor should it be inflated as a “universal mediation model”. Nevertheless, as the international community has become an inseparable entity, the future role of the “Fengqiao Experience” in safeguarding national sovereignty, maintaining world peace and development, promoting international dispute resolution, and mitigating national cultural conflicts is worth exploring (Jin, 2024). Currently, it is imperative to precisely define the level and radius of its application scenarios, avoiding over-extension, misuse, or alienation. Otherwise, it will not only fail to solve problems but may also dilute its unique characteristics and undermine its professional credibility as a wisdom of grassroots social governance.

5. Conclusion

Over sixty years of iterative innovation have enabled the “Fengqiao Experience” to complete a fundamental transformation from experience-based management to rule of law, constructing a legalized, institutionalized, and refined social governance system. This lays a solid foundation for the long-term stability of China's grassroots society and the modernization of its governance capacity. In the new era of profound transformation in the global governance system and deepening exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations, promoting the international development of the “Fengqiao Experience” and its participation in global governance dialogue requires firmly adhering to the local governance foundation, grounding it in the core of the rule of law, and respecting the diversity of world civilizations. Looking ahead, it is necessary to continuously deepen the construction of the legalized theoretical system of the “Fengqiao Experience”, optimize pathways for transnational dissemination and transformation, and strictly adhere to its application boundaries in social governance. This will enable this Chinese-style governance wisdom to continuously empower global grassroots good governance, contributing to the pluralistic coexistence, mutual complementarity, and co-evolution of global social governance models.