Stephen B. Young,
Former Dean and Professor of Law, Hamline University School of Law
Executive Summary
Eighty years after the 1945 Declaration of Independence, the ideals of freedom and democracy remain unfulfilled. In his September 2, 2025 speech at Ba Đình Square, General Secretary Tô Lâm projected both nationalist rhetoric and ideological loyalty. This duality underscores the enduring disconnect between promises and realities in Vietnam’s governance. The address reflected Vietnam’s structural crises: political mistrust, social disintegration, and geopolitical dependence. Absent genuine reform, Vietnam risks further entrenchment within authoritarian blocs and the erosion of its long-claimed independence.
1. A Tô Lâm “Walking Two Roads” or “standing at a crossroads”?
At the outset, Tô Lâm surprised observers by employing language rarely used by senior Communist leaders: “the sacred spirit of the nation,” “the nation’s eternity,” “my people,” “my fatherland.” His repeated use of the pronoun “I” rather than “we” or “our Party” lent his speech a veneer of intimacy. It created the impression of a leader speaking as part of the national community rather than as the faceless embodiment of Party machinery.
Later in his National Day speech, To Lam also spoke of “Vietnameseness” – “dân tộc ta trường tồn”; “Đất nước Việt Nam trường tồn”
This intentional use of “Vietnameseness” established a moral foundation for elevating the Vietnamese people as the heart and soul of Vietnam. Most auspiciously, To Lam spoke of “đặt lợi ích … của Nhân dân lên trên hết, trước hết” (put benefiting the people first and above all else); “sức mạnh lòng dân” strength from the hearts of the people; and “Vinh quang mãi mãi thuộc về Nhân dân.” (forever and ever honor belongs to the people).
By elevating the importance of the Vietnamese people, General Secretary To Lam implies that the duty of the Party and the Government is to serve the people by delivering prosperity, peace, democracy, and equality.
For many listeners, this rhetorical shift offers a meaningful signal of potential change—a glimmer of hope that leadership thinking might evolve.
Yet the more significant feature was his indecision – which road should he take – the old, familiar one, or the new progressive one. The General Secretary recognized public exhaustion with lifeless slogans, and thus may have turned to populist phrasing to capture goodwill. But populism at the top, absent concrete policy, is hollow. If limited to pronouns and decorative words, it is merely a fresh coat of paint on a wall already crumbling from within.
2. Repeating the Old Formulas
After this novel opening, the address quickly defaulted to familiar ideological templates: “National independence must be tied to socialism” and “steadfast adherence to Marxism–Leninism and Hồ Chí Minh Thought.” The backbone of the speech was therefore the same outdated ideology—despite eight decades of evidence that such a model has not delivered liberty, democracy, or prosperity for the Vietnamese nation as revered Ho Chi Minh had promised 80 years ago.
Here the contradiction is most evident: invoking “my fatherland” and “my people” while simultaneously clinging to the mantra “the Party above all, ideology above all.”
This invites an unavoidable question: which socialism is still being defended? Beijing’s authoritarian centralism, Pyongyang’s stagnation, or the democratic socialism of Scandinavia? Vietnam’s reality—one-party dominance, a pervasive security apparatus, an economy dependent on external powers, and systemic corruption—suggests an uncomfortable hybrid: the ambition to govern in Beijing’s mold, mixed with cheap populist appeals. Or is this socialism – even in China – not much more than a crony capitalism?
3. Why This Dual Messaging?
The answer lies in Vietnam’s present crises. In an open letter to Tô Lâm, a civil society representative identified three interconnected breakdowns :
- Political trust crisis: Public confidence in leadership has eroded. Corruption trials, factional struggles, and opaque personnel decisions have alienated citizens.
- Moral and social crisis: The wealth gap continues to widen. Officials live in extravagance while workers endure hardship. Moral values erode, faith falters, and social cohesion weakens.
- Foreign policy crisis: Vietnam is squeezed between the U.S. and its Western allies on one side, and China and Russia on the other. It lacks both the independence to stand alone and the clarity to select a reliable strategic partner.
In such circumstances, Tô Lâm must “walk two roads”: appealing to domestic audiences with nationalist terms like “Vietnameseness” and “people,” while reassuring Party cadres with slogans of Marxism–Leninism.
But such dual messaging will not end the crises of political trust or moral and social discontent.
Yet a strategy of dual messaging, if prolonged, risks self-deception and inaction, leaving the country more vulnerable to missteps and deeper crises.
4. Diplomatic Personnel as a Strategic Signal Unresolved: the Diplomatic Crisis
On the eve of National Day, Vietnam quietly changed its foreign minister. At first glance, this appeared a technical adjustment. In reality, it was a decision with potentially far-reaching implications for Tô Lâm’s tenure. Diplomacy has become Vietnam’s principal tool for survival in an increasingly polarized international environment, and the individual at its helm often shapes life-saving foreign policy trajectories.
Both outgoing minister Bùi Thanh Sơn and his successor Lê Hoài Trung were educated in the United States. But their political orientations differ. Trung, a more enigmatic figure, has long been rumored to enjoy favor from Beijing. If such assessments are correct, this personnel shift was not merely an exchange of officials but a signpost of Vietnam’s potential drift toward the China–Russia orbit—despite rhetorical commitments to “diversification and multilateralism.”
Placed alongside the tepid welcome Tô Lâm has received from Washington, and Beijing’s open embrace—underscored by the nearly simultaneous appearances of President Lương Cường and Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính in China—this adjustment reads as sends a warning signal. Vietnam’s balancing act increasingly tilts toward one pole, one not very eager to promote Vietnameseness.
5. Pressure from China–Russia and the BRICS Dilemma
One day before National Day, Beijing accorded Prime Minister Chính an elaborate reception, sending an unmistakable message: China seeks Vietnam’s alignment within its anti-Western bloc. Russia, increasingly isolated after the Ukraine war, is likewise pressing Vietnam toward BRICS.
The central question follows: if Vietnam were to join BRICS, what would remain of “multilateralism”? Such a step would close off paths of integration with the U.S., Japan, and Europe. Economic dependence on China and Russia would soon translate into diminished political independence.
This is the “headband of control” Beijing seeks to tighten around Vietnam’s leadership. Even if Tô Lâm wishes to innovate, the pressure from abroad is immense and the room for maneuver extremely limited.
6. An Imaginary Dialogue: Party Rhetoric and Civil Society
Viewed together, Tô Lâm’s speech and the civil society open letter put two sides of an historic national dialogue before the Vietnamese people:
- The official speech offered phrases such as “I—my people—my fatherland—the eternal nation,” but which, despite their novel tone, were coupled with familiar ideological formulae.
- The open letter reminded us all: “Power endures only when it builds trust. Legitimacy cannot be imposed; it must be conferred by the people.”
- While Tô Lâm struggles to balance Party factions and foreign pressures, civil society underscores a different measure: legitimacy derives solely from the citizenry. That truth has yet to be realized—whether in 1945 or in 2025.
7. Conclusion: The Persistent Gap
The 80th anniversary of National Day should have been a moment to celebrate national achievements and, more importantly, to realize the unfinished promise of the 1945 Declaration: “Vietnam has the right to be free and independent, and in fact has become a free and independent country.”
Instead of freedom and democracy, citizens witnessed a tightening power structure. Instead of independence, the country faces mounting dependence on Beijing. Instead of reconciliation, society is increasingly divided.
Tô Lâm’s September 2, 2025, speech simultaneously revealed a desire for renewal and the inability to escape the constraints of ideology and foreign pressure. He sought to “say something different,” but remained too tethered to tired and ineffective old formulas.
From Ba Đình 1945 to Ba Đình 2025, the gap between ideal and reality has remained unchanged: promises on one side, hard facts on the other. Unless Vietnam breaks free from authoritarian alliances and undertakes democratic reform, history will not remember Tô Lâm as the leader who opened a new era, but rather as one who squandered a unique opportunity to lead the nation out of darkness.
