Such can be a profoundly risky turning point. Because afterwards, systemic governance no longer follows the principle of “legitimizing power through law,” but privileges power “to selfishly legitimize itself.”
Introduction:
Stephen B. Young, Global Executive Director, the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism
This essay reflects on the implications of consolidating control of media and two academic institutions under the supervision of Vietnam’s Communist Party. The author – writing under a pen name – defends the Rule of Law consistent with the Caux Round Table’s Principles for Moral Government.
The fundamental Principle for Moral Government is:
Power brings responsibility; power is a necessary moral circumstance in that it binds the actions of one to the welfare of others. Therefore, the power given by public office is held in trust for the benefit of the community and its citizens. Officials are custodians only of the powers they hold; they have no personal entitlement to office or the prerogatives thereof. … 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.
Second, the CRT Principles for Moral Government affirm the wise and responsible use of discourse, including free expression of opinion:
Public power, however allocated by constitutions, referendums or laws, shall rest its legitimacy in processes of communication and discourse among autonomous moral agents who constitute the community to be served by the government. Free and open discourse, embracing independent media, shall not be curtailed except to protect legitimate expectations of personal privacy, sustain the confidentiality needed for the proper separation of powers, or for the most dire of reasons relating to national security.
Third, the CRT principles for Moral Government affirm the Rule of Law as the foundation for legitimacy of public decision-making:
Only the Rule of Law is consistent with a principled approach to use of public power.
Nguyễn Hữu Quang, taking a Microscopic eye view
No need for euphemisms: the decision to transfer a wide range of key state institutions—from the national media system to the two academies—under the direct authority of the Vietnamese Communist Party’s Central Committee is unconstitutional.
This is not just another “bureaucratic restructuring,” nor is it about “strengthening the leadership role” of the Communist Party. It is a reorganization that warps the power structure as has been authorized by the Constitution for many years.
A constitution—under any regime— provides the necessary, protective, boundaries between potentially competitive institutions: the state, political parties, and society. It is not a superficial, only decorative, trapping. It is a promise to the people that power, no matter how overwhelming, must always remain within limits.
But when state institutions—belonging to the nation, funded by public resources, and carrying public authority—are transferred outright to a political organization, what is erased is not merely an administrative structure. What disappears is a definitive boundary between the State and the Party. The Party thus assumes for itself the authority of the people.
And if the Constitution has not been amended to allow this, then there is no other way to describe it than to plainly say out loud: power has suppressed the Constitution.
NOT A LEGAL WORKAROUND — BUT STOMPING THE LAW UNDER FOOT
For years, major changes have typically followed a familiar sequence: adjusting policy first, formalizing the law later. That is how power politely and circumspectly “worked around” institutional constraints.
But what is happening now is no longer a workaround. It is a direct suppression.
The timing of the change—before the National Assembly session scheduled for April 6—is not a technical detail. It is a political message.
And that message is clear: there is no need to wait for formal legal ratification. What the Party decides, that is the law.
If there were still respect for the Constitution, the process would begin with a constitutional amendment followed by a reordering of structures. But when reform action precedes legal authorization, it can only mean one thing: the law has lost its power.
Taking such a shift comes with many risks. From this point forward, the system no longer legitimizes power through law, but allows power to legitimize itself.
In other words, the Constitution ceases to be a foundation of the nation and becomes just a byproduct of history.
“SITTING ON” THE CONSTITUTION — NO LONGER A METAPHOR BUT A REALITY
There were stages in the past when power needed to maintain respectful appearances—when a veneer of constitutionality was thought necessary for its legitimacy.
But when a structural decision is made without seeking any constitutional approval, then even that veneer is devalued as superfluous.
This is when metaphor becomes reality.
The Constitution—rather than the apex of the legal system—is reduced to nothing more than a document capriciously revised at will. Its words no longer constrain power; the entire document is no more than a tool in the service of power.
What else can this subjugation be called if not “sitting on the Constitution”?
What is striking is that such disrespect is no longer concealed. It is open, direct, and requires no justification.
That disrespect reveals a system which has crossed a psychic threshold: it no longer feels the need to pretend to follow rules.
“NOT LIKE ANY OTHER” DECISION —THAT IS THE PROBLEM
Supporters may call this decision to place state functions under the Party “exceptional.” But in politics, being “unlike any other” is rarely a sign of thoughtful evolution. More often, it signals willful radicalization.
Even in highly centralized systems, certain limits still exist:
- In China, major academies and research institutions remain within the government system.
- In Russia, despite tight media control, the state retains the legal role of authorizing public institutions.
Why don’t the Chinese Communists and Russian autocrats erase that boundary between personal power and constitutional legitimacy entirely?
Because they understand one thing: if the state dissolves into a just a factional political organization, the entire legal structure of the country loses its meaning, encouraging lawlessness across the board
The state, even when subordinate in practice, must still exist as a formally independent entity. That is a condition for maintaining international relations, signing agreements, assuming responsibility, and functioning within the global system.
But the current decision goes further than re-arranging supervisory control relationships: it is direct and explicit absorption of state functions by a sub-state apparatus. It is a tail wagging a dog.
This is no longer “the Party leading the state.” It is the Party replacing the state.
And that is precisely why it is “unlike any other.”
WHEN MEDIA NO LONGER BELONGS TO THE NATION
Radio, television, and news agencies are, by nature, the public voice of a nation—not of a party, but, ideally, of the collective.
They are founded with taxpayers’ money, operated with public resources, and represent the country as a body-politic both domestically and internationally.
When these institutions are transferred to a political organization, what changes is not just governance. The very nature of the national voice is what changes.
From such a point on, there is no longer a “Voice of Vietnam” in the national sense—only the voice of a political organization purporting to speak in the name of the nation.
This distinction is not superficial. It is elemental. The one can never become the other.
A country without a voice independent from its ruling organization loses part of its internal sovereignty.
WHEN SCIENCE TOO BECOMES AN INSTRUMENT OF POWER
If media provides the flow of information, science is the foundation of knowledge.
The academies, in principle, must safeguard intellectual independence, provide policy critique, and generate knowledge free from short-term political objectives.
But when they are placed under the direct command of a political organization, an unavoidable question arises: how much intellectual space remains for academic freedom?
Science cannot develop in an environment where conclusions are predetermined. Research cannot survive if its goal is not the pursuit of truth, but compliance with elite narratives.
At that point, science becomes something history has seen before: a tool for legitimizing willful self-interest.
And once science is politicized, the consequences extend far beyond laboratories and conferences—they spread across society, from education to technology to national competitiveness.
AN INEVITABLE CHAIN OF CONSEQUENCES
A decision like this is not a singularity. It belongs to a familiar pattern seen in centralized systems:
- Concentration of power in a single center
- Central control over the entire information system
- Elimination of space for dissent
- Politicization of knowledge and science
- Gradual isolation from the global ecosystem
There are no exceptions.
- When information is monopolized, errors go undetected.
- When errors go undetected, they accumulate.
- When they accumulate long enough, they conjoin and erupt all at once—often when the system encounters a serious weakness .
- History has demonstrated this repeatedly.
THE COST MAY BE DELAYED – BUT INEVITABLY IT WILL BE PAID
Advocates of the by-passing the Constitution might argue that the decision will guarantee “stability”.
But stability based on absolute control is not sustainable. It can only cover the surface of society, with no more adhesive holding power than cellophane tape.
Beneath such surface stability lies:
- A system without self-correction mechanisms
- A suffocated scientific environment
- A controlled information landscape
- A society gradually losing all nourishing connections with the world
- An economy that cannot modernize
- A system that will not become either effective or efficient because all criticism is treated as a threat.
CONCLUSION: HOW MUCH DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE?
The pertinent question now is no longer whether the system is moving toward centralization.
Rather, the important question is: how much centralization of power has been consolidated?
- When the Constitution is no longer a constraint, but a utensil.
- When the state is no longer an independent sovereign entity, but only the extension of a partisan organization.
- When both media and science are directed from a single center of power.
- Then this is no longer a sign warning of danger ahead. It is already a social condition.
A social condition in which power no longer needs to conceal itself, justify itself, or limit itself.
And history has made one thing clear: systems like this do not collapse from a lack of power.
They collapse because they lose the ability to self-correct.
The question is not whether destabilizing consequences will come.
It is: when?