Blog

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?

[This essay is sponsored by the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism (CRT) as a contribution to public policy discussions in Vietnam and the United States on Vietnam’s opportunities for growth and development, in the context of the CRT’s global ethical principles for capitalism and government]

I Ching Hexagram “Lake over Thunder – Following” (隨): What to do When Domestic and Foreign Policies Are Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Following external pressures while ignoring the will of one’s own people… Internal changes such as bureaucratic reshuffling, administrative downsizing, or inspections of major projects already underway may satisfy certain factions, but they have not yet liberated the vast social energies that have long been constrained.

Stephen B. Young & Nguyễn Thế Hùng

Introduction: The Political Wisdom of the “I Ching” 

In the “I Ching” (Book of Changes), the hexagram “Lake over Thunder – Following” (隨) conveys a profound political principle: when historical circumstances undergo powerful transformation, leaders cannot simply resist the currents of change. Instead, they must align themselves with the evolving patterns of the time and guide their nation through the turbulence.

The symbolic structure of this hexagram is revealing. The upper trigram is “Lake” (Dui), associated with joy, openness, and social harmony. The lower trigram is “Thunder” (Zhen), representing sudden movement, awakening, and dramatic change. The imagery suggests a society experiencing powerful forces of transformation beneath the surface, while the leadership above must maintain balance, responsiveness, and harmony.

The classical judgment for this hexagram reads: “Following. Supreme success. Perseverance brings benefit. No blame.”

In other words, when a society responds to change according to fundamental principles, it can achieve prosperity, benefit the many, and maintain long-term stability.

However, “following” in the I Ching does not mean blind compliance. The text consistently emphasizes that true success arises only when strength and flexibility are balanced, and when internal legitimacy aligns with external adaptation.

Viewed through this lens, a major tension becomes visible in contemporary Vietnam: foreign policy seeks flexibility and integration with the world, while domestic political structures remain constrained by outdated institutional patterns.

When the two sides of the same system operate according to contradictory logics, the balance described in the hexagram can begin to break down.

1. Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba: Global Thunder Before the Storm 

The inner trigram of this hexagram is Thunder (Zhen). In nature, thunder never erupts without warning. It is always preceded by the accumulation of dark clouds, pressure, and storm.

Recent developments in several countries illustrate this dynamic clearly.

In Venezuela, years of economic collapse, corruption, and authoritarian governance have produced extreme levels of social frustration. The anger of the population accumulated over decades before erupting into political upheaval.

In Iran, economic crisis has intensified as currency depreciation and inflation erode living standards. Public dissatisfaction has triggered waves of protests and growing instability within the political system.

In Cuba, the situation may be even more stark. Poverty and stagnation are visible throughout cities and rural areas. The country has experienced widespread blackouts, shortages of fuel, and lack of food supplies—clear signs of a system exhausted after decades of isolation and inefficient governance.

These examples illustrate an important political law: A regime may survive for a long time through political control, but without institutional and economic reform it eventually faces systemic crisis.

In many cases, the trigger for change is not purely domestic. External pressures often accelerate the moment of transformation.

The assertive foreign policy of Donald Trump toward countries such as Venezuela, Iran, and potentially Cuba should not be interpreted solely as a geopolitical struggle for resources like oil. Rather, it may function as a trigger mechanism within a larger historical process.

From the perspective of the I Ching, such actions correspond to the word “Yuan” (Origin or Foundational Principle) in the hexagram’s judgment. They attempt to reshape the underlying principles governing international order.

The key question, therefore, is not whether change is coming. The key question is which national leaders will recognize the emerging principles of the new era and adapt accordingly.

2. Should Vietnam “Follow the Times” in This Global Storm? 

Navigating between competing great powers is not automatically equivalent to practicing the wisdom of the Hexagram “Following”.

Vietnam currently faces intense geopolitical pressures. It must maintain relations with China, while simultaneously deepening economic and strategic cooperation with the United States, Europe, and other major powers.

In this context, the upcoming visit of Vietnamese Communist Party General Secretary Tô Lâm to Beijing fits the logic of pragmatic adjustment: one cannot ignore geopolitical realities and must adapt to protect national interests.

Yet the I Ching warns that genuine “following” only produces positive results when it rests upon moral legitimacy and a stable ethical center.

Without such a center, flexibility risks degenerating into dependence.

True strategic autonomy requires something deeper than diplomatic maneuvering. It requires internal legitimacy rooted in the trust and participation of the people.

3. Vietnam’s Greatest Paradox 

This brings us to Vietnam’s most fundamental contradiction today.

Vietnam is seeking deep integration into the global system—economically, technologically, and strategically. It has signed numerous trade agreements, expanded foreign investment, and established comprehensive strategic partnerships with many countries.

Yet domestically, the political system continues to severely limit fundamental civil liberties, including freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and broader civic participation.

This creates the central paradox: Following external change while not following the will of the people at home.

Internal reforms—such as administrative restructuring, anti-corruption campaigns, or oversight of large state projects—may resolve conflicts among political factions. But these actions have not yet unleashed the enormous social and creative potential of Vietnam’s nearly 100 million citizens.

If Vietnam truly wishes to “follow the time,” it must liberate the productive energies of its society.

A country cannot realistically aspire to become a Comprehensive Strategic Partner (CSP) with democratic nations while simultaneously maintaining a political system that restricts core civil liberties.

In the long run, foreign policy and domestic governance cannot travel on separate paths.

The I Ching teaches that yin and yang must remain balanced. If one side develops while the other is suppressed, the entire system becomes unstable.

4. The “Illusion of Stability” in Closed Systems 

One of the greatest dangers faced by closed political systems is self-deception produced by their own propaganda structures.

When information flows are tightly controlled, ruling elites may come to believe that society remains stable—even when deep transformations are occurring beneath the surface.

This produces what might be called an illusion of stability.

Propaganda does not only reassure the population; it can also prevent those in power from accurately perceiving the real condition of the country they govern.

In the digital age, however, this situation is becoming increasingly unsustainable.

As Vietnam integrates more deeply into the global economy and as internet connectivity expands, citizens inevitably compare their own political and economic realities with those of other societies.

Information, knowledge, and global benchmarks are steadily reshaping how people understand:

• their rights
• their opportunities
• and the legitimacy of political institutions.

5. Following the Time — But Ultimately Following the People 

The deeper message of Hexagram Following is not that societies should simply align with the strongest power.

Rather, it teaches that the ultimate force in history is the collective will of the people.

Wise diplomacy is necessary. But diplomacy cannot substitute for internal reform.

If a country truly seeks to integrate into the modern world—economically, technologically, and politically—it must build institutions based on:

• rule of law
• transparency
• and respect for human rights.

These principles are not merely moral ideals. In today’s global system, they function increasingly as structural requirements for sustainable development and international credibility.

Without such foundations, foreign policy strategies become temporary patchwork solutions.

Democratic societies cannot be indefinitely misled or manipulated. Their governments operate under real constitutions, competitive elections, and the constant scrutiny of voters.

Even when policymakers act from pragmatic interests rather than moral conviction, they must still respond to ethical expectations embedded within democratic institutions.

The earlier intellectual work on Moral Capitalism, as well as the continuing discussions within the CRT (Caux Round Table) community, reflect precisely this fundamental principle: societies endure when economic power is aligned with moral legitimacy.

Conclusion: 

The hexagram “Lake over Thunder – Following” teaches that political wisdom lies in recognizing when the fundamental principles of an era are changing. To recognize that shift is to understand how to move with the current of history rather than against it. But the defining currents of the 21st century are not limited to geopolitical competition among great powers. They also include:

• the rise of civil society
• the global diffusion of rule-of-law principles
• and the growing human demand for dignity, freedom, and civic participation.

If domestic and foreign policy are understood as two sides of the same coin, the strategic choice facing any nation becomes clearer. A country can adapt to the direction of history, reform its institutions, and integrate authentically into the international community. Or it can continue along an older trajectory—one that many nations have already followed, only to discover too late that delaying reform merely magnifies the crises that eventually arrive.

Stephen B. Young, JD, is a retired Dean and Professor of Law at Hamline Law School.  His book Moral Capitalism is being published in Vietnamese. His scholarly works on Vietnam include The Tradition of Human Rights in China and Vietnam, a study of classical jurisprudence in China and Vietnam. When serving in the United States Agency for International Development in Saigon (1968-1971) he studied the I Ching (Kinh Dich) with Mr. Duong Thai Ban, a noted master of the art of consulting the ancient hexagrams. He has been interviewed by the BBC in Vietnamese on his book Kissinger’s Betrayal: How American Lost the Vietnam War and has been published on the Tieng Dan website.

Dr. Nguyễn Thế Hùng, a Vietnamese physicist holding a Ph.D. in Physics, is a scholar known for his strong scientific foundation and analytical approach to philosophical and cultural studies. With a deep interest in exploring ancient principles, he brings a modern scientific perspective to traditional Eastern thought. His latest publication on I Ching (Kinh Dịch), one of the oldest philosophical classics of East Asia, reflects this interdisciplinary vision.

In the book, Dr. Nguyễn seeks to interpret the I Ching—a system centered on the concepts of yin and yang, transformation, and the dynamic nature of the universe—through the lens of contemporary scientific reasoning. Rather than treating it solely as a mystical or divinatory text, he approaches it as a symbolic framework that embodies profound insights into change, order, and human experience.