Recently in Hanoi, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam met to prepare for next year’s party conference. On the internet, one can become aware of a deep chasm between the party and the Vietnamese people. I was sent a link to a short essay by an anonymous writer on the voice of the “powerless.” The essay is attached here.
This emotionally compelling comment on power puts in high relief the Caux Round Table Principles for Government. These principles, in part, affirm:
Just as the Principles for Business, these Principles for Government derive from two ethical ideals: “kyosei” and “human dignity.” The Japanese concept of “kyosei” looks to living and working together for the common good, while the moral vision of “human dignity” refers to the sacredness or value of each person as an end, not simply as a means to the fulfillment of others’ purposes or even of majority demands.
The state is the servant and agent of higher ends. It is subordinate to society. Public power is to be exercised within a framework of moral responsibility for the welfare of others. Governments that abuse their trust shall lose their authority and may be removed from office.
My correspondent made three points in his cover letter:
First, the most consequential task of the forthcoming Party Congress is to pick Vietnam’s leaders. Which individuals will rise to the top of the country’s power structure and who will be passed over? From personalities will come policy. From policy will come weal or woe for the people.
More and more in Vietnam, the thought is to decentralize control of the economy, politics, education, culture and the press.
Secondly, the references by Party General Secretary To Lam to a “new era” or to “newness” for Vietnam and the Vietnamese are not supported by specific ideas or recommendations.
Thirdly, is there a deadlock within the party leadership between those who see the value in and the wisdom of “newness” leading to reform of the system of concentrated power and control of people’s lives and those who prefer the status-quo, which privileges them as the “powerful?”