Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: A Bad Precedent In Tô Lâm’s ‘Rising Era’
Hoàng Mai wrote this Vietnamese article, published in Luật Khoa Magazine on April 4, 2025. Thúc Kháng translated this into English for The Vietnamese Magazine
***
Vietnamese state media reported in the first week of April 2025 that National Assembly Chairman Trần Thanh Mẫn announced a series of meetings set to begin on May 5, 2025. Among the key agenda items is a proposal to “review and revise certain articles of the 2013 Constitution and amend related laws, aimed at streamlining the state apparatus.”
The Chairman’s remarks and the enthusiastic response from other state bodies suggest that amending the Constitution has already begun, as discussed in the Luật Khoa Magazine article "The National Assembly and the People Are Completely Left Out of the Constitutional Amendment Process," in which the public and Congress have not been consulted.
Concerning this development, no National Assembly member has mentioned Article 120 of the Constitution, which says that constitutional amendments can only proceed with the approval of at least two-thirds of all representatives. Nevertheless, efforts to implement constitutional changes are already underway within the Party committees and state administrative bodies, undermining the Assembly's authority while relying on taxpayer funds.
These efforts to amend the Constitution in the name of “streamlining the state apparatus” are blatantly unconstitutional.
It is widely recognized that the National Assembly functions mainly as a “rubber stamp” for the Communist Party. Still, at least in form, it has long upheld the principle of “living and working by the Constitution and the law.” Yet, even this facade appears to be slipping in this so-called “rising era.”
The Chairman of the National Assembly is acting under the Party’s orders, not through a constitutional process. In doing so, he shows no regard for the institutional authority his position is supposed to represent.
In Vietnam, the phrase “under the Party’s direction” is all too familiar, appearing in most major decisions — from high-level personnel appointments and economic management to death penalty rulings to legislative changes.
In General Secretary Tô Lâm’s vision, the Party’s absolute leadership can somehow coexist with constitutionalism and democratic rights.
Yet the government’s actions contradict this rhetoric.
When the authorities — specifically the Party and the State — act as though they are above the Constitution, they erode the very legal foundation that gives them legitimacy.
The ongoing constitutional amendment process reflects nothing more than the will of the Party, devoid of public participation and respect for the rule of law.
Legitimacy and Its Importance
According to the “Practical Guide to Constitution Building” by International IDEA, a constitution’s legitimacy is rooted in legal, political, and moral sources.
Legal legitimacy demands that a constitution align with legal norms and principles.
Political legitimacy requires that a constitution embody the national will—the sovereign authority of the people who adopt it—and be accepted by a broad majority across different aspects of society.
Moral legitimacy entails that a constitution establishes a strong connection between its provisions and the values that form a nation’s moral foundation.
Similarly, in an article on popular constitutionalism published by Luật Khoa, Bùi Ngọc Sơn also identified three sources of legitimacy that a political system needs to maintain political stability: legal legitimacy, social acceptance, and moral justification. He argues that the decline in legitimacy across all three dimensions of Vietnam's political system in 2011 contributed to the emergence of popular constitutionalism.
If the Vietnamese government disregards the constitutional amendment procedures in the 2013 Constitution, any changes made will lack legitimacy. In addition, rushing constitutional amendments in an unconstitutional way raises serious concerns about the political and moral legitimacy of the country's leadership — particularly General Secretary Tô Lâm, who initiated and is overseeing this major reform.
His actions and demands contradict the promises he made when he first took office regarding the establishment of a socialist rule-of-law state; the supremacy of the Constitution and the law, which he once championed, is being violated.
Tô Lâm’s Hypocrisy
In his October 2024 article, “Promoting the Party’s Role in Building a Socialist Rule-of-Law State in Vietnam,” newly appointed General Secretary and State President Tô Lâm emphasized that “respecting the Constitution and the law” is a core objective in creating a socialist rule-of-law state. To “harmoniously manage the relationship between the Party’s leadership, the State’s governance, and the People’s ownership,” he outlined three key principles:
First, the Party’s leadership must be “absolute, direct, comprehensive, and all-encompassing.” He described “Party nature” as a “distinct feature” of the socialist rule-of-law state in Vietnam, meaning that “the socialist rule-of-law state in Vietnam is placed under the leadership of the Party.” Building this type of state is “a measure, a method to successfully achieve the goals of our Party.”
Second, democracy must be promoted so the people can participate in state governance according to the Constitution and the law; “under the leadership of the Party, the State manages society by law, constantly promoting democracy so that the People can participate in state governance as provided by the Constitution and the law.”
Third, respect towards the Constitution and the law is necessary for the people to truly be the owners of the state. He wrote, “In the socialist rule-of-law state of Vietnam, the People are defined as the owners according to the law and operate under the principle ‘the people know, the people discuss, the people do, the people inspect, the people supervise, the people benefit’. However, in order to achieve real democracy, not only must the legal system be complete according to the criteria of a socialist rule-of-law state, but the political system must also function effectively and align with the principle of respect for the Constitution and the law.”
According to Tô Lâm, balancing the roles of the Party, the State, and the People, requires that while the Party may set directions and policies, translating those directives into law through the Constitution and legal system must be done with full respect for the authority of the existing Constitution.
The Party's absolute leadership over the socialist rule-of-law state does not grant it the right to circumvent or break the law. It only means that the Party can guide the development of the law, but any necessary amendments must still follow proper constitutional and legal procedures.
Violating the Constitution to “streamline the apparatus” directly conflicts with the General Secretary's goals for the entire Party-State system when he first took office.
“Streamlining the Apparatus” is not an Excuse to Violate the Constitution
This round of constitutional amendments is being carried out under the banner of “streamlining the apparatus” by eliminating intermediate administrative levels, such as districts or merging provinces. It appears to be a well-intentioned effort toward administrative reform, budget savings, and reducing bureaucracy. However, upon closer scrutiny, this is not just a technical change but a profound transformation of the power structure.
The current Constitution clearly defines the structure of the state and the organization of administrative units. Eliminating the district level or merging provinces would disrupt many key systems, including budget allocation, the election of representatives, and mechanisms for public participation in overseeing and responding to local policies.
If the constitutional amendment process proceeds without following proper procedures, which require the involvement of two-thirds of the National Assembly and meaningful participation from the people, then this “streamlining” will stand as clear evidence that “Party nature” takes precedence over “state governance” and “people’s ownership.”
Such a move would set a troubling precedent and signal that the role of the state and the people will continue to be overshadowed in future reforms under General Secretary Tô Lâm’s leadership.