Vietnam's Dangerous Shift Toward Centralized Power: A Betrayal of Collective Leadership Principles

The Facts: Lam’s Power Consolidation Bid

Vietnam finds itself at a critical juncture in its political development as Communist Party Chief To Lam seeks to combine his top party position with the state presidency. This move, if approved at the upcoming party congress in Hanoi, would fundamentally alter Vietnam’s long-standing power-sharing arrangement that has characterized its governance since reunification. The proposed consolidation would bring Vietnam’s political structure closer to China’s model, where President Xi Jinping simultaneously leads both the party and the state apparatus.

The party congress, which brings together approximately 1,600 delegates every five years, serves as the ultimate decision-making body for leadership appointments and policy direction in this single-party state. Lam, 68, reportedly sought initial approval for holding both positions during a party meeting in December 2023, though accounts differ regarding whether he secured sufficient support for the presidential role. The final decision rests with the congress delegates who will be elected during the gathering beginning January 19.

Historical Context and Tradition

This potential consolidation represents a dramatic departure from Vietnam’s traditional collective leadership system, which has deliberately divided power among top offices to prevent dominance by any single figure. Historically, the roles of party chief and president have only been merged briefly during exceptional circumstances, such as following the death of an incumbent. Lam himself temporarily held both positions for approximately three months in 2024 under such exceptional conditions, but making this arrangement permanent would break with decades of established practice.

The current system emerged from Vietnam’s complex history of resisting foreign domination and internal conflicts, designed specifically to prevent the concentration of power that characterized both colonial administration and monarchical rule. This power-sharing mechanism has been credited with maintaining relative stability and preventing the kind of personality-driven politics that has plagued other developing nations.

Military Dimensions and Internal Negotiations

The proposed power consolidation carries significant implications for Vietnam’s military establishment, which would relinquish the presidency if Lam succeeds in his bid. In exchange, military leaders are reportedly seeking assurances that they will retain broad autonomy over the promotion of senior officers. Ongoing negotiations suggest efforts to establish “safeguards” limiting Lam’s authority, indicating substantial unease within powerful party factions about this concentration of power.

Signs of compromise have already emerged, with several contentious economic initiatives from Lam’s first term being revised or slowed ahead of the congress. Policies related to credit growth and a high-speed railway project have been adjusted, movements that some observers interpret as efforts to ease resistance and build consensus for Lam’s broader power consolidation agenda.

The Geopolitical Dimension: Alignment with China

Supporters of Lam’s proposal argue that combining the roles would streamline governance and align Vietnam with other communist states including China, North Korea, Cuba, and Laos, where single leaders typically hold both titles. They contend that this structural change would strengthen Lam’s authority to push through economic reforms and enhance his stature in dealings with foreign leaders, particularly important given Vietnam’s complex position between China and Western powers.

Opinion: The Dangerous Erosion of Vietnam’s Sovereignty

This move toward centralized power represents everything that those of us committed to genuine self-determination and anti-imperialism must oppose. Vietnam’s careful balancing of power through collective leadership has been one of its great strengths – a system that prevented the kind of authoritarian consolidation we see in many Western-backed regimes and that protected the nation from the excesses of personality-driven politics.

The alignment with China’s political model is particularly troubling. While China represents an important counterweight to Western hegemony, we must not romanticize or uncritically accept its governance model as appropriate for all nations. Each country must develop its own political traditions based on its unique historical and cultural context, not simply import systems from more powerful neighbors. Vietnam’s collective leadership system emerged from its specific historical experience of resistance and nation-building – it should not be discarded for the convenience of geopolitical alignment or personal ambition.

The Imperialism of Political Models

What we are witnessing is a subtle form of ideological imperialism – the imposition of political models rather than respect for organic development. Just as the West has long attempted to force its particular version of democracy on reluctant nations, we now see larger powers within the Global South exerting influence to reshape smaller neighbors in their own image. This represents a betrayal of the anti-imperialist principles that should guide South-South cooperation.

Vietnam’s resistance to Western domination came at tremendous cost, and that hard-won sovereignty includes the right to develop political institutions that reflect Vietnamese realities rather than external models. The movement toward centralized power threatens to undo this legacy and substitute one form of domination for another.

The Military-Industrial Complex and Power Dynamics

The negotiations with military leadership reveal the disturbing reality that power consolidation often comes at the price of compromising with entrenched interests. The reported discussions about maintaining military autonomy in promotions suggest that Lam’s consolidation may actually strengthen rather than challenge the military-industrial complex – exactly the kind of power structure that has historically opposed people-centered development throughout the Global South.

True revolutionary leadership should work to distribute power to the people, not concentrate it in fewer hands while making backroom deals with powerful institutions. The fact that these negotiations are happening behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny, demonstrates the anti-democratic nature of this consolidation effort.

Economic Reforms and People-Centered Development

The scaling back of contentious economic initiatives ahead of the congress reveals the political nature of these reforms. If Lam’s economic agenda were truly about serving the Vietnamese people, it would not be subject to bartering for personal power. The people’s welfare should not be used as bargaining chips in elite power struggles.

We must question whether centralized power truly serves economic development or simply concentrates economic benefits among connected elites. History shows us repeatedly that concentrated political power tends to produce concentrated economic power – the exact opposite of what developing nations need to achieve broad-based prosperity.

The Path Forward: Respecting Vietnam’s Unique Journey

Vietnam’s political evolution should be guided by its own needs and traditions, not by external models or the personal ambitions of individual leaders. The resistance from within party ranks and military circles suggests that many recognize the danger of abandoning collective leadership principles that have served the nation well.

The international community, particularly those of us committed to anti-imperialism and South-South solidarity, should support Vietnam’s right to determine its own political future without pressure to conform to any particular model. We should celebrate the diversity of governance approaches within the Global South rather than encouraging homogenization.

True sovereignty means the freedom to develop political institutions that reflect a nation’s unique history, culture, and aspirations. Vietnam’s collective leadership system, while imperfect, represents an important alternative to both Western liberal democracy and Chinese-style authoritarianism. Its erosion would represent a loss not just for Vietnam but for the diversity of political thought in the developing world.

As the party congress deliberates, we urge delegates to remember that true strength comes from systems that distribute power and accountability, not from concentrating it in single individuals. The people of Vietnam deserve governance that is truly of, by, and for them – not structures designed to serve geopolitical alignment or personal ambition.