Socialist Republic of Vietnam

(This article appeared in The Hill, May 27, 2011, page 5)

On May 22, more than 60 million Vietnamese elected their representatives. Among the 827 candidates for the 500-member body, 117 were independent from the ruling Party and 15 were self-nominated, according to a government election website.

This picture contrasts sharply with the perception of Vietnam’s governing bodies in the United States. Vietnam is routinely criticized in the United States for lacking the form of multiparty democracy that is predominant in the West. But democracy is not only reflected in the number of parties. The U.S. two-party system does not accept its inferiority to the European systems with a plethora of political parties and groupings.

On the ground in Vietnam, a picture emerges of democracy within the bounds of order and national purpose. All citizens over the age of 18 can vote, and elections are competitive among Party members as well as between Party and non-Party candidates.

The system has nominally been in place since independence in 1945, but in the traumatic war years and the period of reunification, the Communist Party tolerated little dissent. This has changed since the reforms that began in 1986 and made an economic powerhouse out of this formerly dirt-poor nation. The government sees it as its main goal to improve the living situation of its people and considers stability key to this endeavor. As a result, it requires adherence to certain ground rules that are alien to Western democracy, but well accepted in a Confucian, East Asian culture.

The most basic rule is the commonality of purpose, not surprising for a nation that had been dominated by invaders for almost its entire history. In 1986, when political and economic reforms were initiated, three in four Vietnamese lived in poverty. Today the poor number below 20%, and Vietnam was listed as a middle-income country in 2011. Moreover, income inequality is much lower in Vietnam than in other rapidly developing economies, giving all strata of society a share in the growth.

These indicators point toward a healthy representation of all social groups. Political scientists define democracy in a variety of ways. Robert Dahl, one of the leading democracy theorists, coined the term “polyarchy.” He argues that true democracy is an unachievable utopia. States should instead be ranked by their responsiveness to the needs and demands of their citizenry. In this respect, the Vietnamese National Assembly does comparatively well.

There is very little dissent about the general direction Vietnam should take, and Vietnamese consistently rank as the happiest East Asians in a survey conducted by a Singapore university. While debate about the details on how to achieve national goals is vigorous, few Vietnamese argue over the goals themselves.

A representative assembly
In the reform years, Vietnam’s National Assembly has increasingly taken up the torch of representing its constituents in Hanoi. The Assembly is not a rubber stamp for the Party and the Government, and has voted against their proposals a number of times. Only recently, the Assembly voted down a high-speed train link favored by the Party due to its high cost. It has also rejected special status for the capital city Hanoi, and earlier significantly amended a major dam project in the upper reaches of the Red River.

The increasing number of independent candidates is an important element of the oversight function the Assembly exercises. All candidates in Vietnam must be vetted by the authorities to assure that they fulfill the requirements of the law. Once approved, they can run a vigorous campaign for election. Competitive elections among Party members also assure that citizens are given choices about their representation on the national level.

This tension between government, Party and local constituents has found its way into social research in Vietnam. David Koh, a social scientist, found that many, leaders in Vietnam are routinely torn between their responsibility to their neighbors and voters on one hand, and the Party and government representing the common good on the other. This dilemma is typical for the social system in East Asian society, where responsibility is owed much more to the community than to any individual’s benefit.

The Vietnamese political system thus reflects its cultural and historical roots. Some Western-minded Vietnamese may prefer a different political structure, but the vast majority of Vietnamese who voted last week did so with a sense of the very optimism about a bright future that has served this country so well in its remarkable transformation over the last two decades.