Political Legitimacy in Vietnam: Challenge and Response

Abstract

This article examines the challenges to the ideological basis of Vietnam's one‐party state and the state's responses to these challenges in the period from 1986 to the present. First, a brief historical overview of Vietnam's political system since formal reunification in 1976 is presented. Next, the article considers six major challenges to the political legitimacy of one‐party rule mounted by southern war veterans, communist intelligentsia, nonparty elites, peasants, retired senior generals, and pro‐democracy activists. Taken together, the regime's legitimacy was challenged in three main areas: ideology, economic performance, and political reform. The article concludes with a discussion of regime responses to each of these challenges. Although the regime's normal default position has been repression, the regime also has accommodated and adjusted its policies in response to criticisms from below. In sum, Vietnam's one‐party state rests on multiple sources of legitimacy and party elites are negotiating the pace and scope of political change. Este artículo examina los desafíos a las bases ideológicas del estado de partido único de Vietnam y las respuestas de este en el periodo de 1986 a la fecha. Primero, se presenta una breve visión general histórica del sistema político de Vietnam desde su reunificación oficial en 1976. Después, el artículo considera los seis mayores desafíos para la legitimidad política del gobierno de partido único, estos son: los veteranos de guerra sureños, la inteligencia comunista, las elites no‐partidistas, los obreros, los generales de alto rango retirados, y los activistas pro‐democracia. En conjunto la legitimidad del régimen fue desafiada en tres áreas principales: ideología, desempeño económico, y la reforma política. El artículo concluye con una discusión de las respuestas del régimen a cada uno de estos desafíos. Aunque la posición natural del régimen ha sido la represión, el régimen también ha acomodado y ajustado sus políticas en respuesta a las críticas de los grupos sociales mencionados. En suma, el estado de partido único de Vietnam descansa en múltiples fuentes de legitimidad y las elites partidistas se encuentran negociando el ritmo y el alcance del cambio político.

Star Search: Do Elections Help Nondemocratic Regimes Identify New Leaders?

“…Our evidence most strongly supports Thayer's (2010) suggestion that increased competition is a concession to demands from civil society for political reform. However, if this is the goal, it is not clear that the limited steps taken to increase competition have had the desired results.…”

“…Lockhart (1997) theorizes that the VCP uses them to mobilize and consult with citizens in order to maintain the bond between the party and society. Thayer (2010) suggests that increased competition is a response to domestic critics who challenge the legitimacy of singleparty rule. Other work has examined the extent to which the VCP may use elections to gain information about the popularity and competence of local cadres (Malesky and Schuler 2009) and whether they use elections to co-opt potential opposition (Malesky and Schuler 2011).…”

Developmentalism with Vietnamese Characteristics: The Persistence of State-led Development in East Asia

“…The net result is that what passes for civil society in Vietnam can still actually facilitate state control and influence despite some liberalisation of the media (McKinley, 2009) and greater activism and participation at the ''rice roots '' level (Wells-Dang, 2010). While there have been important challenges to both the legitimacy and ideology of the CPV, thus far the Party has been able to accommodate critics by allowing an expansion of the private sector and tokenistic concessions to democratic impulses (Thayer, 2010).…”

Securing freedom of information in Vietnamese government and law

“…A demarcation line between the VCP and the state was first drawn up by Đổi Mới in 1986 (Gillespie 2006;Thayer 2010;) but this line remains fragile (Gillespie 2006:105-30). In reality, there is some evidence of a transition to separation, however, the relationship between the VCP and the state remains one-way, with the VCP maintaining its grip on hegemonic leadership over the state and the Party resolutions and directives remaining supreme and unchallengeable (Fforde 2012: 176-85;Bui 2013b).…”

“…When it is inconvenient to express their true viewpoints on state controlled media, a number of journalists have resorted to individual blog-sites for their expression. More and more blogs operate under both pseudo and real names to provide free room for information sharing and discussion and analysis of the Party and the state's policies (Thayer 2010). …”