General Tran Do is the highest ranking member of the Vietnamese Communist Party to date calling on the Party to reform and implement democracy over the country.

With surprisingly frank language, in a 13-page letter, the retired general analyzed the need for the Party to reform or face inevitable self-disintegration.

While this letter has generated quite a discussion among Vietnamese inside and outside the country, Hanoi already shrugged off Do's letter as an insignificant event. The foreign ministry called his comment "a normal thing". In radio interviews with Western reporters, this retired general said no officials from the Vietnamese Communist Party or the government had replied to his writing.

Following is the full translation of the said letter by Gen. Tran Do.

Respectfully sent to :
The Party
The National Assembly
The Government
and concerned friends

I would like to send you this letter of mine not as an impulsive discussion of a certain matter but rather a long accumulation of my thinking toward the Nation and the Party. [This is also] my contribution to the upcoming Ninth Congress and other Central Conferences. These are drops of blood wrought out of the heart a person, who, for the last several decades, has borne a great desire to express his thought and to discuss [matters pertaining] the Nation and the Party.

Sincerely
Tran Do

THE STATE OF THE NATION AND THE ROLE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

Part I :
Facing the Truth Once Again

1. Not long ago, the public media described the state of the nation as "on the road to great victories", as "already out of the social, economic crisis", as "full of colors", "full of encouragement", "full of excitement", "full of promises", etc., and currently "changing to a new phase of development in modernization and industrialization." But then, in recent days, over the same media, one heard the economic expansion has "balked down" ; life in many areas, particularly in the countryside, faced many difficulties; and social vices, notably corruption, have shown a tendency of increasing; and so on. The unrest in Thai Binh and other places were mentioned very cautiously but enough for us to realize the country is facing a new turbulence. Those newspapers that wanted to report the real situation were criticized or banned. For example, the Tien Phong paper, after printing a series of four articles on Thai Binh, had offered "Apology to readers" because its report did not "follow closely reality". The truth is these articles described only a small part of what has and is happening. Among the public, great concerns are emerging: what is going on ? is the country advancing or stopping ? is the bright side or the dark side in control ?

There is definitely a problem here - a very fundamental problem of how to evaluate the situation. History has given us many lessons in this respect. Correct evaluation leads to correct course of action; and conversely, incorrect evaluation to inevitable blunders. We still remember vividly the lesson from the VI Party Congress that the reform effort could only vigorously advance under the touching motto "Facing the Truth !" and not the prior singing of "achievements" and "advancement" over the public broadcast. With that still-warm lesson, I highly support Prime Minister Phan Van Khai's reiteration of the principle "Facing the Truth" in his report at the recent second meeting of the Tenth National Assembly. Only following this principle, could we correctly analyze the current state of the nation.

2. Then, what is the current state of the nation ?

To be truthful, after ten years of reform, the country now has a number of positive changes and the claim of a number of achievements does have some bases. I would like not to repeat those real achievements here, not that I want to "ignore" or "overlook" them but because these achievements have been talked about so much (so thoroughly) on official forums. In just the economic realm, who would not be happy to hear that thanks to our "open door" policy, foreign investors and international financial institutes have poured in billions of dollars to help us build the infrastructure, joint-venture, etc. Our country has risen from a food-importing country to an exporting one of 2, 3 million tons of rice per year. The living condition has generally improved for a considerable section of the population; etc.

What also needs to be said is, beside those achievements, we should have also analyzed from the beginning the negative side, the observed and potential contradictions, and the major problems for our stability and development. We now clearly see them growing into critical problems for the nation.

Just a few simple questions are enough to give us the picture.

- Why does "the state-owned economic sector taking the leading role" continue to be emphasized while this is the least effective sector and the worst "den" of corruption ?

- Why could we not mobilize domestic capital (projected to equal the amount borrowed from outside) to reach the level of 40-50 billion dollars from 1996 to 2000, which is the minimum condition to raise the GDP per capita to $400 in the year 2000 ?

- What caused foreign investors to become more hesitant in investing in our country; some foreign firms are even withdrawing their capital ?

- Why are we unable to push back corruption effectively; instead, it has continued to roam freely and tauntingly today ?

- Why are citizens, with better living conditions, not interested in contributing their effort and wealth to the building of the country as the Party constantly calls for ? In some regions, why did people even oppose Party's functions and stand up fighting (for they have no other options) to defend their interests ?

- Why do the reform and open door policies lead to such a deep social division, and to such a bold and illegal get-rich scheme of a small group composed mainly of office holding cadres and Party members ? (I also want to point out that we need to evaluate fully the significance of the on-going unrest in Thai Binh. This probably is the first time tens of thousands of peasants joined in the struggle against the "new village bullies" with such scope and intensity. Peasants of Thai Binh, from my personal experience, has long been a solid social base for the Party in the struggles of revolution, colonial resistance, and national building. Those very peasants are now turning their backs to local Party's functions (and so to the Party itself) for the sake of self-defense. I could never imagine such eventuality. I am afraid that the unrest in Thai Binh is the early warning of a much more dangerous condition facing the Party if it refuses to seriously derive proper (and painful) lessons from this incident.

- With so many giant machinery to run the country, why are the campaigns against corruption, smuggling, and social vices almost totally ineffective ?

Indeed, with just that many questions, we can see the current state of the nation manifest itself not only in the achievements and successes but also on the negative side. This fact has worried the population about a new social crisis, more serious than before.

I am not a prophet but I want to point out that potentiality so we can all think about it. There is no way to avoid it anyway. We need to raise it openly and, again, in the direction of "Facing the Truth."

Part II
What are the causes ?

The reality of our society today is : despite important achievements in economic growth (which need to be appropriately evaluated, rather than exaggerated in the tradition of "drum-beating-ism", an old disease reportedly taking a new life), our country is still poor and backward, with ever growing threat of falling behind and socio-economic chaos. The oft-mentioned goals of stability and development are drifting further and further away. In addition, the financial and monetary crises in Southeast Asia and East Asia are causing us new difficulties, new disruption, and consequently a restless society.

The whole society has generally lost the initial enthusiasm. In its place now is worry and disappointment for a large section of the population. It is a danger not being able to develop internal potential and increasingly depend on the shrinking flow of capital from outside. At the same time, social vices are expanding beyond control, e.g. drug trafficking and corruption. Both the number of individuals that get rich illegally (many of whom use the power of their offices to do so) and the number of people that are thrown deeper into poverty (especially in rural areas) are growing. Consequently, cynicism and indignation are expanding in society. It is hard to tell which of these factors could contribute to the type of social unrest and confrontation in Thai Binh.

Facing such reality, many conscientious people (including senior revolutionary cadres who have dedicated their lives to the effort of national liberation and social revolution) are restlessly trying to understand the causes of this phenomenon. Like it or not, there have emerged various views about the current society. Those opinions, however, are only circulated among small groups.

In such circumstances, honest and constructive debates should have been openly allowed on the public press, in social associations, and within the Party itself. Unfortunately, there are now even more restriction on the freedom of expression than before. Many problems could have been avoided had the nation's affairs been discussed openly to utilize the collective intellectual power of the people.

Some individuals invoked the excuse that we would not let the enemies interfere with our domestic affairs, but in reality, most of the negative aspects of society today have been caused by "us". (It is ridiculous to hear officials of important positions announce that "the enemies generate corruption to destroy our country". Meanwhile, people that were charged to investigate the unrest in Thai Binh for example reported a total absence of enemies' hands behind the protest of the peasants ). We, nevertheless, continue to consider ourselves very democratic and "having solicited ideas" from many people. I am not naive to claim we have no enemy today, but would not be paranoid to see enemies everywhere, either. Our experiences have shown the enemies can only penetrate and injure us when we ourselves hide the truth, just like a patient that keeps his disease a secret. If we let the "enemy" hold the flag of "Truth", our situation can only get more and more serious. We simply hide our disease and refuse any prognosis.

Not to mention another problem of opportunists freely attacking everyone, arbitrarily calling anyone "enemy", and causing disarray among intellectuals and writers. Unfortunately, a newspaper published by the Public Security branch serves as the "launching pad" for these individuals.

Back to the question of what are the causes of the current grave condition of society. I would not claim to have a complete analysis of this matter, but would like to offer a number of opinions:

1- On one hand we announced the goals for the country as "economic development, prosperous people and strong nation, just and civilized society", on the other, we continue to emphasize "resoluteness in following the Socialist direction"; and there lies an irresolvable contradiction. In both theory and practice, the market economy - a must to develop the country - cannot coexist with the Socialist direction. Eventually, one must eliminate the other; otherwise, an economic chaos which resemblance neither is generated. The reality of the past several years indicated that our economy only showed colors for a short time and has gradually "slowed down", and even hit impasses and confusion. The categorization of the "five economic sectors" cannot be realized as long as we still insist on the LEADING ROLE FOR THE STATE-OWNED SECTOR.

Everyone knows the kind of losses the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) generate; the size of government subsidy for them every year; and how horrible a source of corruption and waste they have become. It is understandable this economic sector cannot be eliminated completely because some parts of it are still needed; but holding it in the leading position would mean eliminating or weakening other sectors, including the private sector. One hesitates to discuss the development of the private economic sector for that would be a "deviation from the Socialist direction". As a result, the state-owned sector has been a financial burden for the country while resources to develop other sectors are limited. The state-owned sector cannot generate additional capital while others are not encouraged to do so.

For many years, the government has tried to mobilize the source of capital "among the people" but to this day, such source remains "soundly asleep". People are too afraid to invest in the economic enterprises, due to the economic rectification campaigns in the past and the "Socialist direction" today. Another dangerous consequence of the "Socialist direction" is the government generously provides credits to the state-owned sector. Many of these credits could never be collected and the banking system is on the edge of insolvency.

How could the economy be developed when there are no domestic sources of capital to depend on ? Will the answer lie in foreign investors, foreign lenders, or international financial institutions ? Yes, we are doing just that; which is correct and necessary. However, on one hand, the amount of investment comes in not because of us but rather of the potential profitability of the market. As we have seen in other East Asian and Southeast Asian countries, foreign investors can quickly withdraw their investment when they cannot make profits. Such withdrawal left the host countries in extremely bad shape. On the other hand, we will not be able to attract foreign investment if a profitable environment is not created to the needs of foreign investors and international financial institutions. We all know these are the requirements of the free market economy in the world, and they are totally opposite to the "Socialist direction". The more we embrace this Direction, the more the inflow of investment shrinks to either an insignificant level or a complete dry-out.

We have to make a choice (indeed, it is a hard one for those that embrace the "Socialist direction") in order to provide the necessary condition to develop the economy. This must be a real choice and not the ambiguous "market economy in the Socialist direction". One or the other, but not both. The answer to the deliberation between the nation economic development or the Socialist direction is not that difficult if one can accept THE COUNTRY'S INTERESTS, NOT THE PARTY'S INTERESTS, ARE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY. In other words, the economic development requires the abandonment of the Party's ideology, which the Party itself imposed over the entire society. As long as we prolong the current double talk, the country will not be able to develop normally. All we have is chaos which benefit a number of hustlers, but not the vast majority of the people.

In this section, I just use the source of capital to prove the incompatibility [of the directions]. One can use many other examples to verify this conclusion.

2- The economic development, particularly in today international environment and domestic chaotic condition, requires an appropriate strategy that is supported at least by a majority of the population. So far, we have not come up with such a strategy. Even though, the Party already announced the strategy of "economic development, industrialization, and modernization", but beside a number of sound-bites, it failed to provide a concrete and feasible plan that would benefit the whole population. In practice, those in power have brought our country to follow the models of the "tigers" and "dragons" in Asia (Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, etc.). In the past, the strategy of developing the economy the socialist way (the soviet model) handed the country a social and economic tragedy, and now the tiger and dragon models are not much more fruitful.

How we can modernize the economy in line with the common standards of our era and at the same time, suitable to our country's historical and cultural nature; and how we can make each citizen (in all areas, urban and rural, plain and plateau, north and south) enthusiastic about contributing to and benefiting from the result of such modernization is not an easy problem to solve. And that is why only the mobilization of the INTELLECTUAL POWER of all social levels and of all individuals can bring about a possible solution. There could be more than one ways to solve each problem.

Today, we almost always commit to just one measure for each problem, and that measure is supreme just because it is the Party's measure. Nobody is allowed to propose another. Nobody is allowed to debate freely about the announced measure. This practice applies to both general strategies and concrete implementation in separate areas. I believe our people, particularly our corps of intellectuals inside and outside the country, have many good ideas. If they are allowed to express those ideas, compare them against one another, and debate freely, they can break the current mental block and find an appropriate way out for the country. In other words, the restriction on the intellectuals, the yoke of supremacy over people's mind, and the labeling of opinions other than the official one as "rebellion" ARE AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT CAUSES OF THE CURRENT STALEMATE OF STRATEGY FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

3- As for [the right to hold] power, in all official documents the national political power is stated as "of the people, by the people, and for the people", and also "people know, people discuss, people do, and people inspect", but there is no such thing in reality. Everything is decided by the Party - actually, by party members in high positions. The election of people's representatives to government institutions, including the highest offices, continue to follow the good old "the Party assign [the candidates], people vote" practice with some "variations". And these institutions simply carry out the usual task of "institutionalizing Party's decisions for the government". The Party hierarchy, from the top down, has the absolute authority and is under the jurisdiction of no laws. The result is none other than a "Party rule" in a totalitarian regime. The Constitution stipulates the Party's exclusive leadership but does not mention the Party's responsibility to the people. The fate of the population totally depend on the Party's actions. The record of the last several decades showed the Party was not always right. That is the problem of the Party HOLDING EXCLUSIVE POWER WITHOUT ANY INSTITUTIONS OR GROUPS TO MONITOR ITS BEHAVIOR. That is the source of power abuses and corruption that no correction campaigns can stop.

In the past, a number of Party's documents mentioned the need to separate the Party from the governing task of country. Those solemn promises were quickly forgotten and things remain where they were. Other Party's documents also discussed the need of "political reform" in parallel with "economic reform". They later added "economic reform must start first" and then "political reform will follow". Still later, the second part was replaced with just "administrative reform". And even that did not go anywhere in all these years

In my opinion, THE CURRENT ECONOMIC REFORM DEMANDS A VIGOROUS POLITICAL REFORM. Without political reform, economic reform shall result in impasses and the country remains in the obsolete Party-rule regime. Both the Party's leadership and its creditability will be damaged beyond repair. It is the concentration of all power in the hands of the Party's leading organs that is causing the Party to deteriorate and Party-members holding power to become a new ruling class in society, working for their self-interests and against people's interests. We can assert that many Party-members with power have really become "new capitalists", hoarding on authority, turning power into private wealth, and causing ever more severe social tension. This condition can lead to social outburst as the incident in Thai Binh.

4- The last but most important cause is the Party itself. In our society and regime, the Party is the entity that leads, direct, and decide all matters. Every success or failure, therefore, finds its root in the Party. Indeed, many difficulties in developing the economy and society come from outside (the world, the surrounding area) and from our country's historical and cultural situation. But holding the leadership position, it is the Party's job to analyze the pro and con of the situation and come up with appropriate measures. Reality has shown in many cases, the Party could not do just that. Unable to operate pro-actively, the Party simply follow the situation passively.

Currently, the following points apply to the leading role of the Party:

- The Party has no strategy to develop society (including the economy) appropriately, as discussed in part 1. For sure a majority of Party-members cannot tell what the Party's national development strategy is if asked, except for repeating the general phrases of "prosperous people, strong nation, just and civilized society", or "industrialization, modernization in the Socialist direction". As long as we have not made clear and properly implemented these concepts, we will not get out of this passive condition in leadership. For example, what do "prosperous people and strong nation" mean ? Who are "people" - the whole population or just a sub-section of it ? What is "prosperity" - only in terms of physical wealth or also including intellectual and cultural richness ? What is "strong nation" ? Will the economic development without a civil society, where each citizen truly is the owner of his/her own fate and the fate of the country, be enough ? And after all, could the economy be developed in such condition ? The more complicated concepts of "industrialization" and "modernization" are even more murky. People are crying meaningless slogans.

- To this day, the Party has maintained its exclusive role in holding supreme power over society and the country, holding back all democratic tendencies in society. I still agree with and support the political leading role of the Party. I think such role is necessary. But leading does not mean imposing. Party leadership does not mean Party rule. History of our country and others around the world proved that all absolute power led to degradation, deterioration, predicament not only in society but also in the body of the Party itself.

- A larger number of Party members, particularly those currently in power, have truly become the obstacle against the nation advancement in all spheres, including economic. Nothing is more painful and insulting for citizens to "suddenly" find sitting on their heads these stately big bosses without ethics, manners, knowledge, or skills. As long as such individuals continue to succeed one another in controlling the Party and the government systems, the life force within the Party and society cannot surface. Those life force remain in existence, however. It keeps growing along with the knowledge of the people. At certain time in the future, such force will explode and no one can extinguish it.

- Within the Party hierarchy, we continue to maintain the so-called "centralized democracy" which has been discarded by most communist parties in the world. In essence, concentrated power always terminates democracy. At best, that type of democracy can only be a forgery, good only as ornament for the concentration of power.

- In the realm of ideology, we maintain a supreme role for the Marxism-Leninism not only within the Party but also in the entire society. I recognize fully the role of Marxism-Leninism in the revolutionary history of our country. It did play important role. But today, beside Marxism-Leninism, there are many other schools of thought that deserve to be studied and implemented properly to the condition of our country. Holding on exclusively to Marxism-Leninism only leads to mental retardation.

There are many other causes but I must move on. The above-mentioned reasons alone are enough to explain how the country has fallen into the new crisis that is more severe and dangerous for society and the Party's legacy.

Part III
What to do ?

The oft-raised question at many discussions on the state of the country is "What to do ?". What should we do to lead the country out of the crisis and continue to develop steadily and quickly ? What should we do to have both an open society where people can join in the nation development and at the same time, an enhanced leadership of the Party in society ? To be exact, how must the Party change its leadership to carry out a successful social development and to ensure people's acceptance of its role ?

The answers to these questions are not simple and seem unknown even to leaders at the highest level. It is, therefore, a matter of life and death to MOBILIZE THE INTELLECT POWER OF THE ENTIRE PEOPLE. At times, we did hear the mentioning of this need in some leaders' speeches but afterwards, not only collective intellectual power was not mobilized, it has been further repressed.

Various Party's documents refer to THE NEED TO REFORM THE PARTY'S METHOD OF LEADERSHIP". I think this reform should include the abandonment of the Party's absolute and total control of everything. The Party should only keep the role of POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND LET THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE FATHERLAND FRONT HAVE THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITIES AND INDEPENDENT AUTHORITIES.

Everyone knows that people's collective intellectual power can only be developed in the environment of a democratic regime. Without such regime, we cannot keep intellectual power alive, much less develop it. I emphasize the words "democratic regime", where democratic rights are institutionalized fully into the laws and everyone must uphold them. All the talk about people's "democratic awareness" and "democratic ownership" is meaningless without a solid democratic regime.

I would like to stress that TO ESCAPE THE CURRENT GRAVE CONDITION AND TO ENSURE A BRIGHT FUTURE FOR THE COUNTRY, THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL, CRITICAL, AND DECIDING FACTOR IS A TRUE DEMOCRACY, A REAL PROCESS TO GIVE PEOPLE REAL POWER TO CARRY OUT THEIR PRIVILEGES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

To do that, first we must change our perception of democracy, at least in the following aspects of it:

- One: In defining democracy, we should not mechanically divide the concept into "capitalist democracy" and "proletarian democracy" and insist one must eliminate the other. We must admit that, despite many shortcomings, the developed countries, which we customarily call the "Western capitalist" countries, have had lots of successes in building and refining their democracy. We should learn from them. Of course, we will not imitate everything they do; on the other hand, not everything they do is reactionary, decadent, and deceitful, either. Democracy in those countries was not a given. It is the fruit of the struggle of all levels of the population for several centuries. Rights to freedom and democracy, human rights, a law-binding government, etc. are what we have never implemented and don't even know how to. We need to learn and accept that HUMANITY TODAY HAS A NUMBER OF COMMON DEMOCRATIC VALUES, which we must uphold to ensure people's power and benefits that come with their responsibilities. We must remember to learn from Ho Chi Minh. Chairman Ho Chi Minh did respect the democratic value of humankind, did use the two important sentences on democracy and human rights from the declarations of the American and the French revolutions in the 18th century to open the Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. We must continue to think like uncle Ho did on the implementation of democracy in our country today. I can assert that during the first days of the revolution, if we had not emphasized the goal of democracy, we would not have gathered the entire people like that. Should we just talk about democracy instead of implement democracy as we promised ?

- Two: We usually claim proudly that "our regime's democracy is many times better than the capitalist democracy". Let us make that a clear reality. Let us end the current condition in which people continue to feel more restricted and less comfortable than [their counterparts] in other capitalist societies. Many of our leading cadres returned from their visits of capitalist countries with the observation that people's lives in those countries are more open, more free, and more compliant with the laws. Everyone there is protected by the laws. So are his/her rights to freedom and democracy. Meanwhile in our country, the laws are lacking and not enforced fairly. Many individuals charged with the responsibility to uphold the laws seriously violated the laws themselves. In recent years, facing the courts in the defendant chairs are more and more cadres of the Public Security branch, the Inspectorate branch, and even the court system. At times, we raised the issue of a "Legalistic Government" (with a few other socialist adjectives attached), but before anyone can understand what it is, the topic was "withdrawn" or just mentioned in a passing manner. We must rectify right here the mistaken view that democracy will bring disorder and chaos. Only the opposite is correct: the absence of democracy is the cause of disorder and chaos. DEMOCRACY WITH CLEAR AND JUST LAWS ARE THE CONDITIONS TO GUARANTEE STABILITY AND SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT. Our full implementation of democracy will take away the democratic and human rights flags from the hands of the "adversary forces". Those flags will belong to us.

- Three: During the decades of war, people were willing to accept orders from higher up in the spirit of "all for the victory". People voluntarily restricted and even sacrificed their rights to freedom and democracy. This is the over-due debt we have owed the people. We must now pay them fairly in this era of peace and national building. The regime that people have sacrificed to protect must now carry out the motto "of the people, by the people, and for the people". We cannot let this regime become "of a small group, by a small group, and for a small group". If we fail to do that, people will no longer consider this regime theirs.

- Four: Recently, some individuals suggested we improve the economy first and talk about democracy later. Reality demands the opposite order. Given a poor and backward nation like ours, to build the country, we must mobilize all of our domestic strength. Such strength cannot be mobilized when people don't have even the minimal democratic rights. People must have the rights to know and decide what they need to contribute, how much, how efficiently their contribution is used, and what the results are. (Despite foreign investment, the main accumulation of capital comes from people inside the country). We cannot allow society to be totally controlled by a few individuals. The current incurable problem of corruption comes directly from that domination. Still-warm lessons from various countries in East and Southeast Asia show us the financial dominance of a few (the closed alliance between government officials and major private banks) did bring down the seemingly solid economies. Those crises, as we can see, come from the absence of democracy or just semi-democracy. Without an adequate democratic structure, citizens cannot monitor the nation's financial and monetary activities.

Indeed, democracy cannot be built in one day. It takes decades, even centuries, to establish a solid democracy. But that should not be the excuse to postpone the building of a democracy and implementing democratic practices.

The country is in desperate need of the democratization process. I am not saying democracy is a panacea. It will take many other factors to bring the country our of poverty and backwardness. But DEMOCRATIZATION IS A MUST AND THE FIRST CONDITION to ensure the success of national development. As long as people don't have freedom of thinking, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom to associate, and other fundamental freedoms of a democracy, all the talk about national development and modernization is useless.

The reason is, as presented above, only these freedoms can gather the collective intellectual power of the entire country, and only such strength can start the development of the country.

Everything I have said so far is totally in agreement with our nation's 1992 Constitution, which stipulates such freedoms. The issue now is the serious implementation of this constitution.

Part IV:

Summary and ConclusionI- Current condition:1- We need to have a wide-view look at the state of the nation. Our country, already among the poorest and most backward in the world, had endured 30 long years of devastating wars. By various causes, the country was further pushed to the edge of the cliff in the early 80's. It took a reform, started in 1986, to pull the country back from that cliff. Ten years later, we did achieve a number of successes and progress. However, fundamentally, OUR COUNTRY REMAINS POOR AND BACKWARD. Changes in a number of cities are the signs of just an initial step, but they are the good foundation to bring the country forward ! At the same time, we are growing in fits and starts with all sorts of risks and complications. Our society is facing dangerous problems and diseases. People's morale is full of apathy and self-centeredness. They don't have the kind of trust and patriotic spirit that could raise the country high. It takes an objective, macro, and calm view of the situation to evaluate and devise the appropriate next steps.

2- We are facing two cruel dangers:

a). If we [try but] cannot get out of the current cloud of sickness, [the regime] will collapse and nobody will be able to save it.

b). If we prolong the current state of confusion, society will be more and more unstable. The Party will then be forced to take harsh measures of suppression. That will eventually lead to the Party's DISINTEGRATION. The current danger is a lot more serious than the four "light" threats identified before.

- The threat of falling behind ? It is no longer a threat. We are actually falling behind.
- The threat of corruption ? It is no longer a threat. It has become a national disaster.
- The threat of external enemies ? That is not clear. We, however, are destroying ourselves.
- The threat of deviation ? From what direction ? The capitalist direction ? Would that be counter-revolutionary ? - The socialist direction ? That is the dead-end of failure ! How could we deviate when we don't even have a direction. WE ARE WANDERING AIMLESSLY.

3- It is appropriate for the Fourth Central Committee Conference to raise the need to "mobilize domestic strength". But that slogan needs to be heightened to the overall strategic level, not just an emergency tactic, and not just in the economic realm. We need to accept the following concepts:

- Domestic strength include the economy (people's capital reserves, business skills, natural resources, and the labor force), political structure, culture (real freedom and democracy), intellectual capability and talents (also based on freedom and democracy). Therefore, to mobilize domestic strength, we must vigorously advance the democratization effort. This process will ignite patriotism, the desire to rise from the insulting poverty and backwardness, and the blossom of talents. Domestic strength, as a result, will expand tremendously.
- We should not be afraid of a capitalist class. Instead, we should create all the favorable conditions to form a class of good business people. That is part of the domestic strength.

Based on those concepts and our constant adjustment to the trend and lessons from the world, we will advance quickly without the need for so many slogans.

To achieve such result, the Party is the deciding factor. It must organize discussions on the national problems and devise many projects.

We must define the highest and overall leading thought to be "Developing the country is the most sacred [mission], higher than anything else". The defense of the Party's leadership must also lie within that thought. The Party need to fulfill its deciding role by RESOLUTELY AND PRO-ACTIVELY REFORMING ITSELF. In so doing, the Party not only guarantee their existence but also heighten its position !!

Let me add a few more opinions on the Party here.

ABOUT THE PARTY

1- We can assert that the Vietnamese Communist Party had a fantastic role in the struggle for independence and reunification of the country. During this time, the Party was organized and operated according to the principle of building the Party for war. Such direction formed an invincible power for the Party. Along with people, the Party fought and achieved glorious victories.

Such principle was appropriate for the armed revolution and war. In the current peaceful era of national building, the automatic continuation of that principle has weakened the Party, pushed it away from the masses, and eroded people's trust [in the Party].

2- The question posed by multiple generations, especially the senior generation, is: Why the Party of today is so different from that of yesterday. Among the most conspicuous differences are:

a) In the past, THE PARTY AND THE PEOPLE WERE ONE. The aspiration and determination of each Party member were the same as those of each citizen. The Party lived among people and was part of the people. People provided for, protected, and shared their suffering, bullets, and blood with the Party. It was beautiful. Anyone that has lived through that time would regret the passing of such relationship.
b) In the present time, THE PARTY AND THE PEOPLE ARE TWO. Who is the Party ? It is the elite group of rulers over the people. As before, people remain the voiceless subjects.

Even inside the Party, there have been two layers. One includes Party members that are holding power at high positions; the other the majority of members that have to continue to live with the centralized democracy principle, to follow unconditionally all policies, directives, and orders. These members (including senior Party members) have no opportunities and cannot discuss their orders.

What has turned ONE INTO TWO like that ?

Some of the explanations are:

1- In the past, the common responsibility for everyone was to fight for independence and unification. Today, some have the responsibility to rule, and other to submit to such ruling.

2. After taking over power, on the PARTY-PEOPLE base, the Party should have switched to the transitional time of PARTY-GOVERNMENT. And when the government had gained enough strength, the Party should have separated itself and returned to the PARTY-PEOPLE base, holding just political leadership and leaving the professional management task to the government. There are a lot of Party members working in the government anyway. But we did not do that. We have held on to the PARTY-GOVERNMENT unity.

It would be a great blessing for the country and many Party members who have sacrificed their whole lives for the Party if it would recognize the situation and reform itself. We must be voluntary in this self-correction or else the result is unimaginable.

In addition, our Party members, especially those in top leading positions, have all been inflicted heavily (yet unconsciously) with the little peasant mentality (small-mindedness and jealousy) and the ugly habits of the feudal society (craving for fame and ranks). In their lives, they continue to "Party-ize" and "Lenin-ize" those mentality and bad habits into the "struggle". As a result, the "loss of solidarity" cannot be stopped and the campaigns of "Party building" have become miserable empty gestures. If we have so many "clean and strong Party branches", why has the current sickening condition of society continued to get worse instead of better.

3- In the days of PARTY-PEOPLE (Party and People are one), it was appropriate for the Party to lead in all aspects [of society] and with determination. Today, the Party must change the method of its leadership. The Party had talked about this need in many of its conference statements.

Unfortunately, today the Party is A RULER WITH EXCLUSIVE POWER, without any monitoring institution or organs, not even one manned by Party members. Exclusive power inevitably leads to abuses of power.

We need to implement the following measures:

THE PARTY SHOULD ONLY HOLD POLITICAL LEADERSHIP. Other institutions like the Government, the National Assembly, the Fatherland Front should have their own responsibilities and tasks. Those institutions must carry out their tasks independently. In the past Party's activities were mainly "listening and carrying out orders". Today, they should be discussions within the Party and with the people on the outside through the use of the freedom of expression, and freedom of the press and publication.

In so doing, the role of the Party will neither shrink nor disappear, but will be fortified and heightened. Maintaining the PARTY-GOVERNMENT unity will push people farther and farther away while the credibility and the role of the Party is sinking lower into oblivion.

Today, we can honestly say that no forces inside or outside the country can destroy the Vietnamese Communist Party. Only the Party can weaken itself through its failure to adapt.

To solve the above problems, the most essential task is the democratization effort. This process consists of the stepwise implementation of a number of "immediate tasks". I would like to attach in the appendix two of these immediate tasks.

End of 1997 and Start of 1998

Tran Do

Two Immediate Tasks [as Part] of the Democratization Process

To install a progressive democracy that could bring the country on par with the world, there is no need to start with complicated and time-consuming projects. There are two very simple, practical and feasible tasks that we can do right away. In fact, these tasks were already written in the Constitution, which we have not implemented.

1- Installing a regime, a set of laws on the freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and consequently, freedom of the press and publication.

- To do this, we just need to add or modify the existing Press Laws and Publication Laws. These two legal documents contain many articles violating the spirit and the letters of the 1992 Constitution and especially its predecessor, the 1946 Constitution. We now need new laws to allow private citizens to publish newspapers and to set up publishing houses. They only have to inform the government of their enterprises and obey all the laws of the land. They should not have to ask for permission from anyone [to do so]. That was the right our people enjoyed even during the French colonial era. In recent years, Mr. Nguyen Van Tran wrote a thick book, titled "Writing to the National Assembly and the Mother", to raise this point. He wish that our people could have JUST AS MUCH DEMOCRACY AS DURING THE FRENCH COLONIAL ERA ! How ironic.

The press must be allowed to operate independently from the government and is under no control or order from anyone. Our laws did emphasize the fact that [the press] "will not be censored before printing" as if that was some great democratic achievement. In reality, the Party and Government (mainly the Party command system and Party's organs) structures to "centrally manage" the press are a thousand times more severe than censorship. An outright censorship would be a lot more transparent and fair than the current invisible censorship.

- We also need to give "People a real voice", especially those of the intellectuals and experienced citizens. With these voices, there will form a large force to monitor and prevent corruption and other negative conducts, which hundreds of committees and councils cannot accomplish but just complicate the problems even more.

- Allowing these voices is to create a monitoring institution over the government and the Party organs, particularly those Party organs that are currently under no checking power and have shown signs of power abuses and setting arbitrary laws on the population. Only with this new monitoring means could we actually carry out the motto: By the People, Of the People, and For the People People know, People discuss, People implement, and People monitor.

The current National Assembly cannot carry out its duty of monitoring the Government. Neither can it do the duty of "deciding all important national matters". Instead, it is often bypassed by the Government. The National Assembly generates laws but what good do those laws do when many people consistently do the opposite to the laws. The National Assembly watches helplessly for it has no authority to intervene. The record of making new laws mean nothing.

- With freedom of expression and freedom of the press, people will excitedly offer their ideas to solve the country's problems. We can identify talents, and people can identify the good from the bad. All of these ideas will help the Party improve in both the number of solutions and the pool of talents.

Some individuals expressed concerns that a free press will lead to disorder (which is incited by bad people and taken advantage of by the enemies), and political unrest. Such fear is baseless. [Remember] the Thai Binh incident was basically rooted in rightful aspirations; and people's resentment was also justifiable.

If we continue to prevent democracy, our enemies can agitate and take advantage of the situation even more. If we implement democracy, we deal a strong blow at the adversary forces and win a lot of support from people around the world. The level of democracy around the world today includes fair and popular elections, people's right to oppose not only proposed laws but also laws that have already been passed but are harmful to their interests.

Given that trend, to implement democracy vigorously and widely is to join the world community.

Among the 400 existing periodicals published by [the Party's and government's] offices under the "centralized management", if we had just one or two independent papers, that would be enough to make society's intellectual life more lively and beautiful. Intellectuals and experienced citizens have a forum to express their ideas. The Party and the Government have a lot more contribution to study and [more warnings of problems] to prevent. Both the Party and the Government will be better without the need for infamous trials, such as those of Hoang Minh Chinh, Ha Sy Phu, and the current detainment of poet Bui Minh Quoc.

CLAIMING THAT DEMOCRACY WILL END POLITICAL STABILITY IS ILLOGICAL. Only the absence of democracy and expanding corruption can anger the population; and society is unstable as a result.

2- The second task: Election

Voting and running for offices are the essential mechanisms of a democracy. Even centralized democracy requires election and candidacy. The better and more accurate the election is the more solid the centralized democracy. The best evaluation is to look at the current procedure of our election and candidate selection. We have talked a lot about "direct democracy" and "representative democracy" without any result. Let us really look at the current condition to come up with a better system.

There are a few summarized features of our election system that all people know, disapprove of but have to comply with anyway:

- We emphasize the system rather than personnel. In such system, the higher priority is given to the balance between Party members, non-Party members, localities, ethnic, genders, ages. As we concentrate on the system, we pay very little attention to the qualification of the candidates.

- The specification of candidate qualifications is usually general, ambiguous, subjective to interpretation, and lacking of verification. This condition makes it difficult for voters to deliberate and choose. Everyone votes "just to have it done with". Despite the propaganda about these "festivals", no one feels much of the "festivity".

- All personnel allocation is arranged by one center. Voters just vote as told. People have a saying "Party recommends, People vote". We say "People are the owners", but reality shows only the Party is the owner.

- Despite the announcement to allow "self-appointed candidacy", none of these self-appointed candidates is allowed to be independent. In the end, these very few self-appointed candidates never got elected to anything.

- The "negotiation" policy of the Fatherland Front is a very effective filter to eliminate self-appointed candidates from the voting list. We all know that procedure. Many individuals who wish to serve the country and other citizens have lost their hearts and shrunk from the race as a result. The new quota of just 80% Party members in the National Assembly is a sign of the Party's good will. But in the eyes of the world, [it is strange to see] 70 million people holding 20% of the National Assembly while 2, 3 million Party members 80%. Such criticism bears no ill will [toward us]. It just addresses the truth. We can disagree with it but we cannot deny that truth.

That is what happened in elections for the National Assembly. Other elections inside or outside the Party at any levels are quite similar. Such elective procedure can absolutely not be considered democratic.

I propose a new elective system. Let us call it a multi-rounds election for now. It can be carried out at any levels, and for any branches:

1- The sponsorship of candidates should not be limited to a few offices of authority. We should have more than one rounds of sponsorship:

Round 1: Announcing the [minimum] requirements of candidates, instead of setting standards. I will return to this point later. We then ask people involved to introduce their list of recommended candidates. Of course such introduction will result in a large number. For example, the lists can contain thousands of names for maybe ten seats.

Round 2: Based on these introduction lists, another announcement is made openly to the sponsoring groups to choose from those thousands of names a list of about 30 candidates. This new lists are resubmitted.

If the lists are still too long, say about 80 to 100 candidates, we will call for round 3 and ask sponsors to try to choose from the second round a list of 10 names. If the number left after this round is about 20 - 30, or even 40-50, it is acceptable and turned into the official list of candidates for the election. All of these steps are carried out in the open. Everyone can follow the whole procedure.

With this method, all voters can participate in the formation of the list of candidates without the need for any negotiations in any government offices. The organizers of the elections only need to carry out a limited investigation to verify the conducts and requirements of the candidates. They no longer have to pull their hair to come up with candidates for the list. Only in that way could we drop the over-emphasis on the "system", in which voters had to vote for totally unworthy candidates. After round 3 or 4 in the new process, the resulting final list of candidates is what the voters themselves have deliberated on and chosen. 2- About the st

andards set for the candidates, I suggest we abandon this concept. Standards require the ability to measure; but when applied to a particular person, these standards can be expressed in different ways and become ambiguous, inaccurate, and subjective to the decision of those individuals in power: "Once in love, everything looks fine". We need to replace these standards with a set of [minimum] "requirements", outlined as follows:

Ethics requirements:

- No criminal conviction, particularly for treason; or conviction was over-turned.
- Dedication to duties.
- Willingness to learn and constantly seek improvement.
- Humility, compassion, and respect for people.
- Proper conducts in family and surrounding neighborhood.
- Full understanding and respect for human morality.

Capability requirements:

- Adequate education, knowledge, expertise, and experiences for the position.
- Humility and responsible attitude toward his/her duties.
- Ability to convince and inspire others in the common tasks.
- Proper political views of his/her tasks.

Of the age of the candidates, we should set the requirement for candidates of national elections to be above 40 years old, and lower or local elections to be above 30. We should drop the effort to "install" candidates in the 20s. That is a robotic way to implement rejuvenation.

The above requirements are not necessarily divided into ethics and talents. After all, they all indicate the qualification of an official to lead and manage. However, these qualifications must be proved concretely in the daily tasks the candidates are performing and by pinions of his/her colleagues and subordinates. They absolutely must not be just the whimsical observation of a single person or some government organ !

The self-appointed candidates should be allowed to run independently from the structure of the authorities. These candidates, however, need to secure the required number of signatures of support, depending on the offices they are running for. Their names are then added to the list of candidates to be circulated through the rounds of selection.

Only in this way, "people's ownership" [of the country] can be truly carried out. People actually participate in the introduction of candidates, vote freely, and fully own the process. This procedure only requires more preparation time. It, otherwise, will not cause any other inconveniences or deceptions.

The democratization process requires many other tasks. Above are just two tasks that can be done right away and carry no risk whatsoever. If we truly believe in the people, we would not fear that they might agree to a wrong idea or they might not recognize the enemies' plots in words or with saboteurs.

Of course, there are still many things to do to improve the new democracy, the socialist democracy. But these are the two tasks that need and can be done immediately. At the minimum, they can prevent those thinking and conducts that can injure further our democracy, which uncle Ho and the people have sacrificed so much to build to this day. We need to reflect deeply Chairman Ho Chi Minh's words:

Freedom and happiness require democracy !