Vietnamese Social Media Stokes Constitutional Debate

Under President Xi Jinping, the Chinese Communist Party is applying the Seven Prohibitions to shut down discussion about liberal constitutional change. In comparison, constitutional deliberations in Vietnam appear open, vibrant and far-reaching — prompting some commentators to speculate on whether Vietnam is a model for post-socialist institutional change. However, do all types of constitutional discussion translate into institutional reform or are some types of discourse more potent than others? This inquiry has particular relevance in Vietnam, where the discourse in social media has as much influence in shaping the actual constitution as that within state-mediated forums.

During the debates prior to the adoption of Vietnam’s 2013 constitution, commentators centered on public calls for liberal institutional changes. Hundreds of newspaper articles talked about limits to party energy, constitutional review and human rights. Much has also been made of Request 72, a demand for sweeping liberal constitutional reforms submitted by public intellectuals such as Nguyen Dinh Loc, a former minister of justice. These experts argue that this discourse unveils broad-based support for liberal constitutionalism and law-based governance in Vietnam.

But when the Nationwide Assembly approved the new constitution in late 2013, there were couple of tangible changes to government structures. Attempts to place constitutional limitations on Communist Party power, promulgate a human rights declaration and legalise personal land ownership were rejected. Although the new constitution seems to strengthen fundamental rights, Article 14 gives authorities wide-ranging forces to override civil legal rights in the interests of ‘nationwide defense, national security, community order, the security of society, and social morality’.

In a particularly bitter blow to reformers, after years of debate, the Party rejected the constitutional court with powers in order to strike down unconstitutional legislation as well as government decisions. Unprecedented thought in state-mediated forums, such as the press and academic journals, did not result in meaningful institutional change.

A look at the history of constitutional debates in Vietnam shows that public discussion in state-mediated discussion boards rarely produces liberal institutional reform. Since the Nhan-Van Giai-Pham affair in the Nineteen fifties, reformers have periodically urged the federal government to improve human rights and adhere to legal processes. Recurring attempts in state-mediated forums to introduce liberal democratic institutions, such as a constitutional court, have been unsuccessful.

Although the regulates are not as proscriptive as the 7 Prohibitions in China, the Celebration in Vietnam stage-manages constitutional debate in state-mediated forums. While windows that allow discussion about normally taboo liberal institutional changes may open in state-mediated discussion boards, these windows shut when constitutional amendments are passed. This particular forecloses further discussion and indicators the limits to institutional reform.

Vietnam nevertheless lacks the institutions which are generally considered necessary for generous constitutionalism. There is no constitutional court, electoral democracy, separation associated with powers or judicial safety of politically sensitive civil, economic and political rights. Although Vietnam lacks many liberal institutions, it is a mistake to believe that public discourse surrounding the constitution is merely fictitious with no correspondence to how the government actually works. Understanding how discourse in an illiberal polity might define and constrain state power involves looking past the legal and technical discourse associated with liberal institutional reforms.

In tandem with Party-managed debates in state-mediated discussion boards, there is a vibrant constitutional deliberation among ‘left-side’ (ben trai) social media circles. Reaching 36 per cent of the population, social networking penetration in Vietnam is among the deepest in Southeast Asia — similar to Thailand. State control over bloggers and social media sites in Vietnam is less restrictive than in China. Most bloggers engage in ‘lifestyle’ politics exactly where recounts of their lives are linked with topical ointment social issues such as environmental pollution, urban congestion and meals safety issues.

Other bloggers are playfully transgressive. Buried in their humour are satirical comments about the Party and state. They portray social problems because symptoms of wider regulatory failings and advocate systemic institutional change. Still, most bloggers tend to be careful to avoid discussing multi-party democracy — a subject that routinely attracts penal supports.

While a few bloggers engage in the actual technical legal discourse related to liberal constitutionalism, many more discuss nationwide identity. This discourse, for example, stresses the long good reputation for private control over land in Vietnam and valorises private resistance to state land grabs. Discourse of this kind constrains how the state is imagined and encourages lawmakers to craft a constitution that is embedded in the national consciousness. The extensive coverage associated with social media commentary about issues, such as land grabs, in Party and state publications suggests that social media is slowly impacting on Party thinking. For instances, although not recognising private land ownership, the constitution associated with 2013 has responded to social networking criticism and tightened state powers to take land.

In focusing on national identity rather than specialized legal details, constitutional discourse within social media resembles the debates that surrounded other constitutions within their embryonic stage, such as early constitutional debates in the United States.

To develop into a robust lawful text that can discipline institutional behaviour, what is needed in Vietnam is a continual discussion — as has been initiated in social media networks — regarding whom the constitution covers, whom it does not cover, how far state powers should lengthen over citizens and the validation for its exclusive claim to control the polity. A constitution that can’t justify its own authority as superior law will be ultimately dismissed as irrelevant.

Bloggers keep your windows open in Vietnam’s constitutional debates is republished with permission from East Asia Forum