Improving Possibilities for Participation

The Public Administration Reform (PAR) forms part of the overall reform process in Vietnam, therefore touching on normative and political issues (Painter et al., 2009; Buhmann, 2007).

According to Vasavakul, it is “aimed at re-establishing hierarchies of authority lost following Vietnam’s move from central planning in the 1980s” (Vasavakul, 2002: p.2). While the Party ran even the day to day issues of governance and administration in the time of state socialism, the responsibilities and tasks of the state and the Party have become more clearly defined and disentangled in the last 20 years; an important marker of this process was the amendment of the 1992 constitution in 2001. The leading role of the Party does nowadays result in the Party defining the overall political orientation, while the state apparatus implements and refines actions (Sidel, 2008; Salomon, 2007: p.200; Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 25.12.2001: Preamble). The restructuring of organisations and relations between agencies takes place, among others, in the fields of: internal authority relations, reform of state institutions, reform of administrative procedures, and improving the relationship with the non-government sectors and society (Vasavakul, 2002). One of the guidelines of the reform process is the decentralisation of responsibilities to levels of government situated closer to where decisions are implemented and their effects felt (Vasavakul et al., 2009). Additionally, new forms of horizontal organisation and networking have emerged, visible in the creation of organisations such as the Association of Cities of Vietnam (UN-HABITAT, 1996: pp.66-67).

From the 1990s on Vietnam saw the growth of a multitude of “popular organizations” without state sponsorship. According to Vasavakul, they filled a vacuum after the state retreated from the provision of services, thereby participating in national construction along the lines promoted by the Communist Party. International NGOs were also attributed a mainly functional role as providing financial assistance (Vasavakul, 2003: pp.33, 51-54; see also Wischermann, Nguyen Quang Vinh, 2003). The shifts in power relations between institutions of the Party and the state as well as the increasing importance of private activity also made new mechanism of social control and regulation necessary to retain the Communist Party’s legitimacy. One measure of legitimizing the regime’s activities is the creation of a modern, legal-rational bureaucracy under the leadership of the Party (Acuna-Alfaro, 2009). Another measure is the Grassroots Democracy process.

The program to promote Grassroots Democracy is an attempt of central authorities to provide more efficient and accountable local governance (Fritzen, 2002). It was introduced as a response to popular unrest such as the violent outbreak in Thái Bình in early 1997.

Dissatisfaction of protesters was due to a mixture of inefficiency, corruption, and illegal trading in land rights by local cadres and their families (Dixon, 2004: p.23; Painter, 2003:

p.265). In 1998, the Politburo issued Directive 30-CT/TW on the building and implementation of Grassroots Democracy, which was elaborated by a government decree later that year

157 4.2.2 The Participatory City: Improving Possibilities for Participation

(Chính phủ, 11.5.1998; Bộ Chính trị, 18.2.1998). In 2007, the decree was superseded by the Ordinance on Implementation of Democracy at the Commune Level (Ủy ban Thường vụ Quốc hội, 20.4.2007).¹⁸⁰ The documents grant people the rights to be informed about issues that concern them, their opinions to be heard in discussions, to take part in decision making processes and to supervise the implementation of decisions. The areas in which people can participate in the respective ways are clearly stated.

One study expressed the possibility that the Grassroots Democracy Decree might “drastically change the power balance between the people and the local authorities” (Center for Agricultural Policy, 2008: p.3). However, while the Grassroots Democracy process led to more accountable and transparent behaviour by the authorities, changes in power relations remain limited (McElwee et al., 2006). The major institution implementing the process is the Grassroots Democracy Steering Committee that is formed at the commune level. The committee is usually led by the head of the commune’s Communist Party division, its other members usually being the heads of the People’s Council and Committee and representatives of Mass Organisations.¹⁸¹ Thus, authority control on the overall process remains invested in these organisations (Center for Agricultural Policy, 2008: pp.26-27, 39-43). In many cases, participation is regarded by authorities as a tool in the implementation of pre-defined projects or as financial contribution (KAS, ACVN, 2009: p.30; McElwee et al., 2006: pp.14-17).

The commune, the administrative unit implementing the activities of Grassroots Democracy, is not only the level of administration closest to the people; it is also the one where grievances can be contained by preventing the building of geographically wider alliances.

The legislation on Grassroots Democracy does not only provide legitimate channels and instruments of participation, it also rules out other options.¹⁸² The emphasis on political stability over participation is expressed by the ordering of principles in the ordinance (Ủy ban Thường vụ Quốc hội, 20.4.2007):

1. Ensuring order and discipline in the framework of the Constitution and laws.

2. Ensuring the people’s right to know, contribute comments, decide, implement and monitor implementation of democracy at the commune level.

180 Decrees are passed by the government, while ordinances are passed by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly; ordinances are thus higher in the order of political documents.

181 Mass Organisations in Leninist state theory constitute “transmission-belts” which transmit the policies of the Party to the people and in turn serve as officially legitimized channels for the articulation of the interest of particular groups in society (Gray, 1946: p. 474).

182 At a training course on the application of people’s participation in urban management and planning for public servants I attended in Đà Nẵng in 2010, the issue of public opposition to the redevelopment of Thống Nhất Park in Hanoi was discussed. Attendants voiced their opinion that this had not been proper people’s participation, as opinions were not expressed through the channels laid down by regulations.

158 4.2.2 The Participatory City: Improving Possibilities for Participation

3. Protecting the State benefits, legal rights and benefits of organisations and individuals.

4. Publicity, transparency in implementation of democracy at the commune level.

5. Ensuring leadership of the Party, and management of the State.¹⁸³

In addition to the Grassroots Democracy Decree the Vietnamese government’s Committee for Organisation and Personnel issued Circular 03/1998/TT-TCCP adapting the decree’s regulations to urban areas. On the “building of communities” it stipulates that “group leaders are the representatives of the people in a residential group, under the administration and guidance of the ward’s or town’s People’s Committee, they are directly elected by the members of the groups and recognized by the President of the ward’s People’s Committee”¹⁸⁴ (Ban tổ chức cán bộ chính phủ, 6.7.1998: chapter 6). The position of group leaders had until then not been formalized. As these circular shows, the structures of authority extending into the residential group were formalized as part of the Grassroots Democracy Decree (Koh, 2004: p.203).

Despite these reservations on the Grassroots Democracy process and the Public Administration Reform, the possibilities for public participation in Vietnam and the legal framework supporting such participation have improved since the late 1990s (McElwee et al., 2006; Mattner, 2004). This has also had an effect on projects by international agencies promoting the participation of civil society in development projects. In the LA 21 Programme participation in discussions on urban development had been confined to members of the administration and Mass Organisations. The next part will present a project with a very different approach to the participation by communities.

183 1. Bảo đảm trật tự, kỷ cương, trong khuôn khổ Hiến pháp và pháp luật.

2. Bảo đảm quyền của nhân dân được biết, tham gia ý kiến, quyết định, thực hiện và giảm sát việc thực hiện dân chủ ở cấp xã.

3. Bảo vệ lợi ích của Nhà nước, quyền và lợi ích hợp pháp của tổ chức, cá nhân.

4. Công khai, minh bạch trong quá trình thực hiện dân chủ ở cấp xã.

5. Bảo đảm sự lãnh đạo của Đảng, sự quản lý của Nhà nước.

184 “Tổ trưởng dân phố là đại diện cho nhân dân của tổ dân phố, chịu sự quản lý và chỉ đạo của Uỷ ban nhân dân phường, thị trấn, do nhân dân trong tổ bầu trực tiếp, Chủ tịch Uỷ ban nhân dân phường thị trấn công nhận”

159 4.2.3 The Participatory City: The Cua Nam Model (2009 to 2012)