Become a Member for $9.99/month

Hoàng Mai wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on March 6, 2025. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.

Over a decade has passed since Việt Nam concluded its 2013 constitutional reform, a period remembered for its fervent public debate, driven largely by Petition 72 and the "Let’s Write the Constitution” campaign.

On Feb. 4, 2012, a group of 72 intellectuals, led by former Minister of Justice Nguyễn Đình Lộc, submitted a petition calling for sweeping changes to Việt Nam’s socialist constitutional order. It proposed free elections, political competition, separation of powers, the establishment of a constitutional court, and the protection of universal human rights. However, even with the support of around 14,000 people, these proposals were not adopted in the final text.

This outcome raises critical questions: What did this powerful expression of public opinion mean for Việt Nam’s constitutional evolution? And what does its rejection reveal about the limits of reform and the rule of law in a one-party state?

These questions are the focus of a 2017 study by leading scholars Dr. Bùi Ngọc Sơn and Professor Pip Nicholson. In their paper, “ Activism and Popular Constitutionalism in Contemporary Vietnam, ” published in Law & Social Inquiry, the authors argue that despite its apparent failure, Petition 72 played a pivotal role in promoting new constitutional norms and represents a landmark case of popular constitutionalism in Việt Nam.

The group that drafted and signed Petition 72. (Photo source:Tễu Việt) What Is Popular Constitutionalism? Popular constitutionalism is a political theory that puts the public, not just judges or lawmakers, at the heart of constitutional interpretation and change. It functions through grassroots discussion, civic engagement, and social movements to advance foundational principles like constitutional supremacy, government accountability, separation of powers, constitutional review, judicial independence, and the protection of human rights.

This approach stands in contrast to judicial constitutionalism, which relies on courts to interpret and enforce legal norms. In authoritarian regimes where courts lack independence, popular constitutionalism becomes a necessary, citizen-driven vehicle for challenging state power.

In Việt Nam, Petition 72 stood as a rare and powerful expression of this civic ideal.

The Roots of Constitutional Activism in Việt Nam The spirit of Petition 72 is rooted in a long Vietnamese tradition of intellectual-led activism calling for political and constitutional reform. This tradition dates back to the feudal era, when scholars routinely petitioned the monarchy.

During the 20th century under French colonial rule, it flourished in nationalist and reformist movements like Phan Chu Trinh’s Duy Tân movement and the Đông Kinh Nghĩa Thục school. Western-educated intellectuals, like Nguyễn An Ninh and Phan Văn Trường, used journals like La Cloche Fêlée and Thanh Nghị to advocate for national liberation and introduce liberal constitutional ideas. Some pro-French figures like Phạm Quỳnh and Bùi Quang Chiêu even called for constitutional reforms within the colonial system.

Copy of the 1946 Constitution. (Photo source: State Magazine) This long history of advocacy culminated in Việt Nam’s 1946 Constitution, which was enacted after the 1945 August Revolution and is widely considered the country’s most liberal to date. However, this spirit of reform was later challenged. In the late 1950s, the Nhân Văn – Giai Phẩm (Humanism–Fine Arts) movement, which included prominent intellectuals and artists like Phan Khôi and Văn Cao, demanded civil liberties and democratic reforms.

The movement was violently repressed by the Communist regime in 1956, and many of its members were imprisoned or sent to re-education camps. From 1959 onward, Việt Nam’s constitutional texts became increasingly authoritarian, codifying the absolute leadership of the Party.

Yet, the tradition of constitutional activism endured. In the post-Đổi Mới (Reform) era, especially in the 2000s and 2010s, new petitions emerged on issues such as bauxite mining, corruption, and national sovereignty. Petition 72 is the direct continuation of this powerful and resilient legacy.

A Window for Constitutional Engagement Despite being a one-party authoritarian state, Việt Nam has occasionally created windows for limited public input on constitutional matters. The 2013 constitutional revision process stands as the most notable example. From January to March 2013, the government launched a public consultation, inviting citizens to submit comments on its draft constitution—including on Article 4, which enshrines the Communist Party’s monopoly on power.

Phan Trung Lý, then chair of the drafting committee, highlighted this unprecedented openness at the time, stating: “The people can comment on Article 4 of the Constitution just like any other provision, nothing is off-limits.”

It was this environment that enabled Petition 72 to gain momentum and introduce sweeping reformist proposals, including:

Free and fair elections with political competition Private land ownership The formation of a constitutional court Robust human rights protections that adhere to international standards Though the petition was ultimately rejected, it successfully sparked broad national debate on constitutionalism, raising public awareness of citizen rights and the people's role in shaping governance.

A Crisis of Legitimacy Political legitimacy is typically derived from three sources: legal standing, societal acceptance, and moral authority.

Critics argued that the 1992 Constitution lacked legitimacy, as it was drafted by a party-controlled legislature and never subjected to a public referendum—a key reason Petition 72 called for one.

This legal deficit was compounded by eroding societal acceptance. High-profile corruption scandals involving state firms like Vinashin and Vinalines diminished public trust, while rising tensions with China in the South China Sea fueled discontent over the government's ability to defend national interests.

On the moral front, legitimacy was further undermined by Việt Nam’s human rights record. While notable for its progress on social and economic rights, the state continued to severely restrict political and civil liberties, notably through the arrests and imprisonment of dissidents, bloggers, and activists. The authors of Petition 72 repeatedly stressed that this cumulative absence of legitimacy necessitated a new constitutional order grounded in justice and civil liberties.

The Future of Democratic Constitutionalism in Việt Nam As Bùi Ngọc Sơn and Pip Nicholson argue, radical constitutional thought is not foreign to Việt Nam; it has deep roots in its history, civil society, and political needs. Petition 72 proved that Vietnamese citizens are not passive observers of constitutional injustice, but whether this popular constitutionalism can grow faces significant barriers.

The primary obstacle is the nature of the ruling authoritarian regime, which is designed to limit citizen participation and often responds to social movements with violence and suppression. A second challenge is a lack of public awareness, as many citizens do not view the constitution as a tool to protect their rights.

Despite these hurdles, there are paths forward. Popular constitutionalism can survive in authoritarian contexts, especially when regimes facing legitimacy crises open limited space for debate to defuse public anger. Furthermore, democratic movements often arise not from legal knowledge, but from real-life grievances like corruption, injustice, and abuse of power. As these issues persist, public demand for constitutional change may grow.

Even without immediate legislative victories, the discourse can continue through media, civil society, and academia. The 2013 Constitution itself provides a new foothold: for the first time, its preamble declares, “The Vietnamese people build, implement, and defend this Constitution.”

Ultimately, the study offers a clear lesson: intellectuals and activists must carry on the tradition of constitutional thought by educating the public on their rights, the role of the constitution, and the power of civic engagement. Change begins with awareness; when people believe that the constitution can improve their lives, they are more likely to demand reform.

Petition 72 and the History of Popular Constitutionalism in Việt Nam

RELATED POSTS

State TV Tried to Cover Up the Death of Đỗ Ngọc Phương Thùy. Gen Z Asked Even More Questions.

Police Cleared Gen Z’s “Justice Tree.” Then the Internet Made It Impossible to Erase

NAFOSTED Announces 7 Billion Đồng Grant for Constitutional Amendment Research

Hoàng Mai

Related Posts

Sacrificing the Individual: The Ethics of Land Seizures in Việt Nam

Content Creation in Việt Nam: Navigating Censorship and Post-Takedowns

Phil Robertson: “Việt Nam has the capacity and the political will to abduct people abroad.”

BPSOS Director Nguyễn Đình Thắng: Việt Nam’s Terrorism Charges Are an ‘Absurd Fabrication’

Reddit’s Growing Popularity in Việt Nam Amid Internet Censorship

Partners in Profit and Crime: Việt Nam’s Lucrative Alliance With Min Aung Hlaing

Why Constitutional Review Failed to Take Root in Việt Nam

Transparency on Trial: More Questions Than Answers in Việt Nam’s MIA Search

OPINIONS

Southern Vietnamese Changed After 1975. Loving the Old Words Doesn’t Mean Fighting the New Ones.

Four Journalists Are in Prison in Việt Nam. Their Mother, Sister, and Wives Demand Their Release

Canada and the West Cannot Ignore Việt Nam’s Human Rights Record

POPULAR STORIES

Hà Nội ‘Justice Tree’: Social Media Users Demand Investigation into Former Lawmaker Nguyễn Sỹ Cương

Việt Nam Culture Ministry Blocks Threads Posts Accusing Nguyễn Sỹ Cương

Religion Bulletin – April 2026 – Việt Nam Passes Amended Religion Law As Authorities Prosecute Four Independent Protestants

Post-1975 Tragedy: The Grim Reality of Life in Vietnam’s Re-education Camps

Former Deputy Nguyễn Sỹ Cương Trends on Vietnamese Social Media Following Rap Album Censorship