Uniquely Việt Nam: How National Election Council Members Organize and Campaign

​In football and other professional sports, the referee must stand apart from any interests tied to the outcome of the match. [1] Similarly, test organizers are not allowed to oversee localities where their relatives are taking an exam, [2] corporate board members are prohibited from voting on transactions that bring them personal benefits, [3] and procurement evaluators must not hold financial ties to companies competing for a contract. [4]

​These examples share a fundamental principle: individuals who design, administer, or supervise a contest cannot simultaneously benefit directly from its outcome. Only under such conditions can a competition be considered fair.

​While one might expect this principle to apply universally, the National Election Council appears to operate under a different standard. During elections for deputies to the National Assembly and People’s Councils—arguably the most vital “contests” in Việt Nam, as they determine who will represent the “will and aspirations” of the people for the next five years—a striking contradiction is present. 

Specifically, members of the National Election Council (NEC) organize the election while simultaneously running as candidates. [5] Although this situation may seem unusual and difficult to explain, it is a practice that has persisted for many years.

Nothing Prohibits the National Election Council from “Playing the Game and Refereeing”

​Under Việt Nam’s current legal framework—specifically the Law on Election of Deputies to the National Assembly and People’s Councils and the Law on Organization of the National Assembly—there is no provision prohibiting NEC members from running for election as National Assembly deputies. [6] [7] As a result, it is entirely lawful to have 20 NEC members on the candidate list for the 16th National Assembly. [8] [9]

​The law doesn’t set up broad preventative measures; instead, it looks at possible conflicts of interest in a much more limited way. By focusing only on specific electoral districts, the legislation merely aims to prevent individuals from simultaneously serving as a vote counter and a candidate in the exact same location. 

Specifically, Article 27 of the Law on Election of Deputies to the National Assembly and People’s Councils states that candidates may not serve as members of the Election Committee or Polling Station Team in the specific electoral unit where they are running. [10]

​Because of this narrow scope, it is perfectly legal for an individual to serve as a provincial or city election committee member while simultaneously running for the National Assembly. 

For example, Phùng Thị Hồng Hà, Chairwoman of the Hà Nội People’s Council, is currently serving as both the head of the Hà Nội Election Committee and a candidate for the National Assembly in Hà Nội. [11] [12]

​The “hotspot prevention” approach effectively addresses the risk of direct interference at the grassroots level, which is responsible for issuing, collecting, and counting ballots. While conflicts of interest at this level could visibly impact election results, the law notably fails to establish similar safeguards at the central level, where the entire electoral process is designed, guided, and supervised, potentially leading to unchecked biases and manipulation in the electoral outcomes.

​According to Article 14 of the Law on Election of Deputies to the National Assembly and People’s Councils, the NEC holds extensive authority. Its responsibilities include organizing National Assembly elections, guiding People’s Council elections at all levels, directing propaganda and election mobilization, and supervising the implementation of election laws. [13] 

Hence, even though the NEC does not directly handle ballot boxes at polling stations, it acts as the central coordinator for the nationwide electoral process.

​When NEC members run as candidates, their dual roles provide them with an undeniable advantage over others, including earlier access to information, a deeper understanding of electoral mechanisms, and potential indirect influence over the system, which can lead to concerns about fairness and transparency in the electoral process. 

This is why democratic electoral systems typically mandate complete independence for election management bodies. For instance, even Southeast Asian neighbors like Cambodia and the Philippines prohibit election commission members from running for office. [14]

​However, in Vietnam, the lack of mechanisms to prevent subtle, high-level conflicts of interest enables members of the National Election Council (NEC) and provincial election committees to engage in both active participation and whistleblowing.

Are Electoral Principles Being Violated?

​Because the law does not prohibit National Election Council (NEC) members from running for the National Assembly, it is necessary to examine the core principles of elections to answer a crucial question: when individuals simultaneously “play and referee” an election, are fundamental electoral principles violated?

​To answer this, it is essential to identify those foundational principles. According to Clause 1, Article 7 of the 2013 Constitution and Article 1 of the Law on Election of Deputies to the National Assembly and People’s Councils, elections are governed by four principles: universal suffrage, equality, direct voting, and secret ballots. [15] [16]

​The fact that NEC members both organize elections and run as candidates does not inherently violate universality, direct voting, or secret ballots. [17] The primary concern in this situation is the principle of equality.

​According to the NEC, equality is intended to ensure “objectivity and impartiality so that all citizens have equal opportunities to participate in voting and standing for election.” [18] The council elaborates that equality is upheld by restricting citizens to a single voter roll and candidates to a single electoral unit. It is also maintained by ensuring one ballot per voter, granting all ballots equal value, and balancing the allocation of candidate structures and social representation across different regions and groups.

​But it’s clear that the NEC’s definition of equality isn’t being used in all cases. While the council emphasizes creating equal conditions for candidates, it approaches equality almost entirely from a formal, structural perspective. 

If one relies solely on this interpretation—focusing strictly on ballot value and representative quotas—one might conclude that equality remains intact, as there is no overt manipulation of vote counts or ballot values.

​Yet, a broader perspective reveals a different reality. The Vietnamese Dictionary (edited by Hoàng Phê) defines “equality” (bình đẳng) as parity in status and rights. [19] 

Under this definition, an election is equal only when all candidates enter the race holding the exact same position and enjoying the same rights.

​This leads to a critical question: is an NEC member truly on equal footing with an ordinary candidate?

​The answer becomes clear when comparing their roles. An ordinary candidate enters solely as a participant. Conversely, a member of the organizing body enters as both a participant and a coordinator. 

Even though NEC members do not count ballots in their own districts, they belong to the central body that issues guidelines, supervises the process, and exercises vast legal powers. From the very outset, one group is subject to the rules, while the other group designs and enforces them.

​This dynamic is usually accepted within a one-party system. When a single political party controls the electoral process, it is considered “normal” for state officials to concurrently serve on the NEC and run for the National Assembly. [20]

​Ultimately, the issue of the NEC organizing and participating in its elections goes beyond mere compliance with government-written laws. It reflects how democracy is shaped within a specific political framework. In authoritarian party-states, the electoral process is entirely directed by the ruling party, rendering the citizens’ ballot as little more than a tool to legitimize existing governmental authority.

---

Trường An wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on March 6, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.