Thursday, June 3, 2010

Multi-Party Regime in Vietman -- Where Lies the Ultimate Truth?

A party is a political organization regrouping people sharing the same goal and ideal existing in a specific society. The direct goal of a party is to enter politics. The ultimate goal is to win and keep the state power (government). History of Vietnam and the world has shown that all revolutions to overthrow a social regime or to change the ruling forces, which are called 'colored revolutions', are often the results of mobilization and rally of the mass, sometimes underground sometimes open of political parties. When they become the ruling party, depending on concrete situation, they will opt for multi or mono party system.

Nevertheless, in many countries often there is no pure multi party or one ruling party system. In a multi party regime, there is always a ruling party governing for many years, even decades. In the case of a sole ruling party system, usually the power is complemented by the participation of official organizations (in the political system) or non official ones (Non-Governmental Organizations -- NGOs).

When studying the relationship between a political party and the social system, many people either deliberately or by political naivety tend to omit other factors such as specific historical background or national security concern, social order. Not a few people were lured into the playground of democracy or human rights of anti-communist forces. To them, the relationship between a ruling political regime (multi or mono party) and democracy is a sole one. Reality has proved the contrary. Multi-party system is not bad, as well as one-party system is not without reason. The recent 'hanging' parliament situation in the United Kingdom or the riots and conflicts of the 'red shirts' with the incumbent Thai government should provide foods for thought on the difficulties and complications of multi-party democratic regimes.

In Vietnam, to this date, what are the viewpoints on multi-party regime, based on political views?

First, there is the viewpoint of academic democrats. For them, democracy is the driving force of development. A democratic regime must inevitably be linked to a multi-party system with political competition. Naturally, the viewpoint of these academic democracy followers is not wrong in theory, but they have left out the particular historical characteristics and political realities of different countries.

Second, there is the viewpoint of pragmatic democrats. They believe that in our country at present, there exist too many mass frustrations over the bureaucratic, corrupted and irresponsible situation created by cadres and government employees. This situation can be reduced if there are other political parties to joint the state and society governance. But these pragmatic democrats did not see that in many 'multi-party' countries, bureaucracy and corruption are not lessened. On the other hand, this viewpoint did not take account of the fact that hostile forces could take advantage of the multi-party system to realize their dark schemes.
Third, there is the viewpoint of the demagogues. In theory, they do not differ from the academic democrats. To give more weigh to their view, they reason that in Vietnam 'there was a multi-party system' before. For example, the 'first National Assembly in 1946 was a multi-party one (with 72 non-elected seats reserved for the Vietnam Nationalist Party and Vietnam Revolutionary Party)'or 'the 1992 Constitution 'implicitly' recognizes multi-party system' as it does not stipulate the Vietnam Communist Party (CPV) is the sole ruling force... (In this article the author does not intend to argue over these issues).

The basic difference between the demagogues and the academic democrats lies in the political intention. For the sham democrats, this is not solely to propagate the doctrine, but to realize their ambition to change the political regime of Vietnam and to create a legal basis for overseas political parties such as 'Viet Tan (New Vietnam)', 'Democracy and Human Rights Alliance', 'People Action Party', 'Vietnam Democr atic Party' and others to 'repatriate'. These parties are not only anti-communist political organizations but they are also terrorist organizations in nature aiming at the overthrow the state of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. This is completely against the Charter of the United Nations and the principle of International Law. At the same time, the propagation of their viewpoints is targeted in creating opportunities for 'domestic' political organizations that are still in the 'embryonic' stage such as the 'Vietnam Socialist Party', the 'Vietnam Democratic Party' created by Tran Huynh Duy Thuc and Le Cong Dinh.

Advocating Pluralism, Multi-Party System
Among those advocating 'pluralism', 'multi-party system', it cannot be excluded that there were people who had once implemented the '10/59 Law that outlaws all communists' clearing the way to the killing of tens of thousands communists and patriotic people during the last years of the fifties of the 20th century. The majority of overseas people who are propagating political pluralism and opponent multi-party system for Vietnam still hold a deep grudge towards the revolution or they are trying to distort and negate all achievements made by our people in the great war to defend the country and the leading role of the Vietnam Communist Party in the resistance against the aggressors, among which there is the anti-american imperialists war. After 35 years of liberation of the South and reunification of the country (1975-2010), while the whole nation is expressing with pride its gratitude towards heroes and martyrs, among whose were tens of thousand Vietnamese communist cadres and members who had sacrificed their life, Bui Tin is calling for 'all people should ask the ruling communist state to sincerely apologize to the people'! There are people who consider the liberation day as the 'national humiliation day'. This is the portrait of the overseas people demanding multi-party regime.

What is the historical, political and legal foundation of the leading and ruling role of the Vietnam Communist Party?

Historically speaking, everyone knows that for the last 80 years (since the party establishment 3-2-1930 to date), the CPV led and formed by President Ho Chi Minh is the sole vanguard organization that spare no sacrifices and hardships to mobilize and lead the August Revolution in 1945 to regain national independence and sovereignty and build a modern Vietnam under the democratic republic regime. For the first time in history, all citizen and human rights of the people are recognized in the Constitution (1946). Next, the CPV is the sole force that leads the Vietnamese people to carry on the resistance wars against aggressive colonialists to defend the revolutionary achievements. The CPV is also the sole political force to initiate the renewal work and the integration into the international community thus helping to elevate the Vietnam's position in the world.

Political and Ideological Aspect
On the political and ideological aspect, CPV follows the Marxist-Leninist doctrine and Ho Chi Minh's thoughts with a revolutionary and creative spirit. The goal of the Party is: National independence and sovereignty with emphasis on building a 'rich people, strong country, equitable, democratic and civilized society' society and speeding up international integration under the spirit of 'Vietnam want to befriend with all countries in the world regardless of differences in social regime'.

Those who are advocating for multi-party regime are often the same people who are trying to smear the repute of the CPV. Their arguments follow a deceitful logic: that as Marxism-Leninism has collapsed (their arguments often copy the views of anti-communist people such as Brezinsky in his 'The Grand Failure' or Fukuyama in his book 'The End of History and the Last Man'), the CPV with Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh's thoughts as the guiding ideology, would inevitably becomes an outdated political force and the socialist society in Vietnam would soon collapse. Hence, the need for a new political party in Vietnam to lead the country is obvious! The initial step would be to accept a multi-party political system!

Naturally, most of the professors, doctors, 'historians,' 'academicians', 'biographers', writers and journalists who advocate for democracy and pluralism only read Marx superficially or indulge in sophistic thinking. They deliberately conceal or naively pass over the new thinking, political lines and policy of the CPV on socialism and the path to socialism in which the party has acknowledged its past mistakes and errors during the era before the renewal work ( such as subjective voluntarism, abolition of commodity economy, market mechanism and so on). Our party has asserted to build a market economy with socialist orientation; to build a state of law of the people, by the people and for the people; to bring into full play the role of the National Fatherland Front and other social organizations and to push forward deeper integration into the international community.

Degenerating Individuals
On the leading role of the party, it has been written in the documents of the 10th National Party Congress: 'The party operates within the framework of the Constitution and the Law and will not do the work of other organizations in the political system. So, it cannot be said that the CPV is a 'monopolistic' party. It is true that within the party, there are still a number of degenerate individuals who take advantage of the party's prestige to indulge in bureaucratic and corrupted activities and violate the mastery right of the people but they are being eliminated by the party's redressing process.

On the legal aspect, the leading role of the CPV has been unanimously endorsed by the National Assembly and stipulated in Article 4 of the SRV Constitution (1992). This totally conforms to international law. In Article 1, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1996), it has been written: 'All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Hence, multi-party or mono-party -- where is the truth? The truth lies in the realities, in the best benefits to the people. The choice of multi-party or a one ruling party regime must be based on the actual situation of each country. In any case, it is first and foremost to put national interest above everything else and make national security, stability and sustainable development as the prerequisites (for other requirements).The next step, naturally, would be that the choice of any political system must be endorsed and supported by the mass majority via their legitimate representatives at the National Assembly.

No comments: