From the nature of a rule-of-law state to the unity between the socialist rule-of-law State and the practice of democracy in Vietnam

ASSOC. PROF., DR. TRINH DINH TUNG
Hanoi National University of Education
ASSOC. PROF., DR. NGUYEN MANH HUNG
Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics

1. The nature of the rule-of-law state

Along with the emergence of classes, the state was also formed. It is the political organization established by the ruling class to maintain the power and interests of its class. Since their inception, despite evolving into various forms, states have always served the interests of the ruling class.

A rule-of-law state is a state in which all political and social relations comply with the provisions of law. In such a state, all citizens are equal before the law and must respect the law. A rule-of-law state always upholds democracy, acknowledging the right of the people to participate in governance, manage state affairs, and enjoy other freedoms. However, the people’s democratic rights and freedoms depend on the attitudes and interests of the ruling class.

In ancient times, the political system of the Greek and Roman states, exemplified by the city-state of Athens, was a slave-owning democracy. During this period, all Athenian citizens aged 18 and over (male) had the right to participate in state management agencies, by election and lotteries. Although often considered a model of democracy in antiquity, this system primarily safeguarded the interests of aristocrats and slave owners, ensuring their dominance. State power was concentrated in the hands of the slave-owning aristocracy, the democratic rights of the people were limited, women did not have the right to vote, and slaves did not have citizenship rights and were considered “speaking tools” in society.

In the 18th century - the century of Enlightenment, many progressive thinkers such as Montesquieu (1689 - 1755), Voltaire (1694 - 1778), Rousseau (1712 - 1778), Diderot (1713 - 1784) emerged. They criticized and condemned the autocratic monarchy and the Catholic Church. They argued that monarchs and the Church perpetuated backwardness and disregarded human rights. These thinkers advocated for sovereignty belonging to the people, decentralized power, and equality under the law. In his famous work the Social Contract (1762), Rousseau denounced the autocratic feudal regime, and championed the rights of the people, especially the peasants and petty bourgeoisie. He criticized the private ownership system, arguing that this was the cause of social inequality. He advocated regulating private ownership rather than eliminating it (as that was impossible), moving from large ownership to small ownership. To help reduce inequality, he introduced a number of reforms such as limiting inheritance rights and imposing progressive taxes on property. Rousseau’s most notable political view regarded the issue of the state. Unlike Montesquieu, he did not support the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. Rather, he wanted to establish a republican state, which would fully guarantee the sovereignty of the people, the right to freedom, equality, and private property.

In July 1776, the victory of the American War of Independence led to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, marking the establishment of the United States . The Declaration affirmed that “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among there are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. The American Declaration of Independence also clearly stated that only the people have the right to establish governance and the right to stand up and fight when their rights are violated.

The American Declaration of Independence was a progressive document for its time, representing the first democratic proclamation inspired by Enlightenment philosophy from France and progressive ideas from England. However, it reflected the limitations of bourgeois democracy, as it did not address the abolition of slavery. The slave trade and the existence of the slave-owning class in the southern United States persisted for nearly 100 years, ending only after the Civil War (1861 - 1865).

Shortly after the United States of America was founded, the first Constitution of 1781 was compiled and supplemented, amended, culminating in the Constitution of 1787 (which is essentially still in effect today).

Although the 1787 Constitution of the United States was strictly regulated, with a presidential system and separation of powers, and was considered the most democratic rule-of-law state, it also revealed significant limitations. Only property-owning individuals had the right to vote. Women had citizenship rights but not the right to vote. Slaves and Native Americans did not have citizenship rights, and slavery remained institutionalized. Therefore, through its history, the American people often had to fight to force the American government to add many provisions the Constitution, regulating freedom of speech, freedom of association, and so on.

The French Revolution of the 18th century, culminating in the Jacobin revolutionary-democratic dictatorship, marked a monumental transition from absolutist monarchy to a republican rule-of-law state. This great bourgeois revolution dismantled the feudal absolutist monarchy and its centuries-old societal norms, paving the way for a new political order in Europe. This order brought about freedom, democracy, and organizational reforms. Farmers were liberated from feudal obligations and unjust taxes imposed by the Catholic Church. Land redistribution fostered the rise of a significant class of small-scale landowning farmers. Barriers to commerce and industry, such as internal tariffs, measurement systems, feudal guilds, and monarchical restrictions, were abolished, enabling the unification of the national market and facilitating the rapid growth of France’s capitalist economy. Additionally, , the abolition of provincial customs and local privileges expedited the formation of a unified French nation-a modern nation-state with a progressive bourgeois rule-of-law-based state, emerging as a new entity on Europe’s political map. This inspired democratic and progressive forces worldwide to rise against feudal absolutism.

The process of the formation and development of the rule-of-law state and democratic practice as outlined above gives us the basis and grounds to determine the relationship between these two categories as follows:

Firstly, the emergence of the rule-of-law state and democratic practices follows a natural and necessary trajectory in human societal evolution.

Humanity and human society, having appeared on the earth millions of years ago, have undergone many immense transformations, from a state of ignorance and barbarism gradually progressing to a state of civilization, conquering the natural world and society. This evolution involved two major struggles: against nature to harness resources for human life and among humans to continually reform and develop society. These struggles have driven humanity’s progress, albeit through a complex and winding path, from lower to higher states of existence, from the crude to the sophisticated, and from barbarity to civilization. The formation of rule-of-law states and democratic practices aligns with this trajectory, arising from human interactions and conflicts that propel society toward greater progress and civility.

Since the advent of states approximately 5,000 years ago, societies in both the East and West have advanced rapidly. While initially rudimentary, these states signified a shift from barbarism to civilization. Over time, states and democratic principles within societies have matured, evolving from being confined to single nations to being influenced by regional and international interactions. With the advent of modern communication technologies, these developments have increasingly acquired global dimensions, becoming more refined and progressive.

Secondly, the rule-of-law state has a close, dialectical relationship with democratic practice

The relationship between rule-of-law states and democratic practice is dialectical rather than linear or causa, with mutual impact and influence. The rule-of-law state is a concentrated expression of the democratic regime. Democracy is both the nature of the rule-of-law state and the condition and premise for implementing the state’s institutions and constitution. The more refined and progressive a rule-of-law state becomes, the more it reflects democratic principles, enabling effective democratic practice. The rule-of-law state reflects the interests of the ruling class, and the practice of democracy aligns with the interests of that class. Conversely, the higher and more progressive the practice of democracy, democratic thought, and spirit, the greater the impact, compelling the rule-of-law state to adjust and improve itself.

This dialectical relationship necessitates that the rule-of-law state upholds, prioritizes, and ensure the democratic rights of the people in all areas of state and social activities. Democratic rights serve as a benchmark for assessing the rule-of-law state. All activities of the rule-of-law state must begin with respecting and ensuring human rights, creating the conditions for citizens to exercise their rights in accordance with the provisions of law.

Thirdly, the rule-of-law state embodies the nature of a specific class, and therefore democracy is also the democracy of that class.

Since their inception, no state has been classless; every state inherently carries the nature of the ruling class, serving the interests of that class. The republics of ancient Greece and Rome were institutions controlled by the slave-owning class. All state power was concentrated in the Council of Elders (the Senate) consisting of wealthy and powerful nobles, holding high-ranking positions, with the right to approve laws, supervise state affairs, decide on the budget, taxes, foreign affairs, war, and elect state officials.

The United States of America, since its inception, is a prime example of a presidential system, with two parties taking turns in power: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Both parties, no matter when or whichever party is in power, serve the bourgeoisie.

Fourthly, the rule-of-law state is organized and operates within the framework of the constitution and law and is closely linked to the mechanism of protecting the constitution and law.

Regardless of its form - whether a presidential republic, parliamentary republic, or constitutional monarchy - a rule-of-law state, when governed by a constitution and laws, must operate within the framework of those legal documents. The constitution ensures the regulation of fundamental activities related to the actions of citizens, society, and the state apparatus, determining the constitutionality and legality of their structures and operations. However, not all constitutional regimes or legal systems can establish a rule-of-law state; only democratic and equitable constitutions and legal frameworks can form the basis for a lawful regime within a state and society.

Democracy is the fundamental criterion for assessing the rule-of-law status of the state regime. All activities of the state and the organizational structure of the rule-of-law state must start from respecting and ensuring the implementation of democracy, ensuring human rights, and the provision of conditions for citizens to voluntarily exercise their rights in accordance with the law.

Fifthly, the rule-of-law state and democratic practice are not “one-size-fits-all”; nor are they immutable, but are a process of constant supplementation, improvement, and development.

The development of the rule-of-law state and the practice of democracy are determined by a series of factors. These factors are inherently diverse, rich, and complex, determined by the historical conditions, cultural traditions, social psychology, political regimes, economic regimes, culture, and geographical environment of each nation. These factors not only create the unique characteristics and individuality of each nation in the process of nation-building, preservation, and development but also determine the extent to which they adopt and integrate the universal values of the rule-of-law state.

Recognizing the ongoing development and perfection of the rule-of-law state holds important epistemological significance. In this sense, the rule-of-law state is a category that is both universal and specific. The rule-of-law state has both universal values of humanity and the unique values of each nation.

There cannot be a common rule-of-law state as a unified model for all countries and ethnic groups. Each country and ethnic group, depending on its historical, political, socio-economic characteristics and level of development, builds for itself a suitable rule-of-law state model.

2. The unity between the socialist rule-of-law state and the practice of socialist democracy in Vietnam

The determination of the nature of the rule-of-law state and the practice of democracy, as outlined above, serves as the foundation for our Party to determine the relationship between building a socialist rule-of-law state and practicing socialist democracy in Vietnam. A key question arises: Why is the socialist rule-of-law state characterized by the working-class nature while deeply embodying national and people-centered characteristics, as a democratic state of the people, by the people, and for the people?

Firstly, the necessity of building a socialist rule-of-law state and practicing socialist democracy in Vietnam.

In the early 20th century, after suppressing the Can Vuong movement - a fervent anti-colonial nationalist movement in late 19th-century Vietnam—they initiated their first colonial exploitation (1897 - 1914). Vietnam transitioned from an independent feudal country to a colony; a semi-feudal colonial society with two basic contradictions that needed to be handled: the contradiction between the Vietnamese people and the French colonialists and the contradiction between peasants and feudal landlords.

A pressing, objective requirement at that time was determining how and through what path to save the nation and its people—how to expel French colonists to achieve national independence while simultaneously liberating society and humanity. This objective requirement led to the fierce, continuous, and fierce struggle across all classes of people. The Dong Du movement initiated and led by Phan Boi Chau from 1904 to 1908, the Duy Tan movement of Phan Chau Trinh from 1906 to 1908, the Dong Kinh Nghia Thuc movement in 1907 by Tran Quy Cap, Huynh Thuc Khang, the anti-tax demonstration of the people of Central Vietnam in 1908, etc., all fiercely demonstrated the indomitable patriotic spirit of the Vietnamese people.

Unfortunately, all of these struggles were ultimately brutally suppressed by the French colonialists. There were many reasons for the failure of these struggles, but the most fundamental was that these movements lacked a correct revolutionary direction. The patriotic movements at that time “seemed to be in the dark with no way out”.

In that context, with political sensitivity, the ability to analyze Vietnamese social reality, with ardent patriotism, responsibility to salvage the country and save the people, Nguyen Tat Thanh, later known as Nguyen Ai Quoc and Ho Chi Minh, went to the West to seek a way to salvage the country for the people. In 1920, after 10 years of traveling around the world, participating in the struggles of the peoples, and the movements of the working class, and studying many different trends and theories, Nguyen Ai Quoc came to Marxism-Leninism, discovering the correct revolutionary path for Vietnam’s salvation.

The revolutionary proletarian path intertwined national liberation with socialism. Early on, Nguyen Ai Quoc tirelessly worked to lead Vietnam toward the path he had traversed-uniting genuine patriotism with Marxism-Leninism, intertwining national independence with socialism, and aligning the interests of the nation with those of the working class and all patriotic Vietnamese people.

Secondly, Ho Chi Minh - The pioneer who laid the foundation for building the Socialist rule-of-law state in Vietnam.

Through the vibrant realities of his pre-Western journey and his exposure to rule-of-law states in Western capitalist countries, Ho Chi Minh keenly perceived the injustices of the semi-feudal colonial society and the nature of bourgeois rule-of-law states: “Although the United States succeeded in its revolution over 150 years ago, workers and peasants there still endure hardship and are still contemplating a second revolution”⁽¹⁾. From then on, he always nurtured the aspiration to regain national independence, to build a people’s democratic rule-of-law state of Vietnam. A state of the people, by the people, for the people became a central thread in Ho Chi Minh’s thought on the socialist rule-of-law state.

Ho Chi Minh consistently emphasized that all state power and authority within society must belong to the people. This principle is expressed in the first Constitution of 1946 and the Constitution of 1959. The Constitution of 1946 clearly states: All power in the country belongs to the entire Vietnamese people, regardless of race, gender, rich or poor, class, or religion; matters related to the fate of the nation will be submitted to a national referendum. The people were recognized as the masters of political, economic, cultural, and social spheres, empowered to elect the National Assembly-the highest state authority that embodies the people’s supreme power.

When the working people are the masters of the state, it naturally follows that they must have the right to supervise the State. Citizens elect representatives, authorizing those representatives to discuss and decide on national and public issues. This is representative democracy, alongside direct democracy. The people’s right to mastery and at the same time the right to control is shown in that the people have the right to dismiss any National Assembly representative or People’s Council representative if those representatives prove unworthy of the people’s trust.

Ho Chi Minh articulated the concepts of “the people are the masters” and “the people act as masters”. “The people are the masters” defines their status, while “the people act as masters” determines their rights and responsibilities. In such a state, the people enjoy all democratic rights. The State, through democratic institutions, must guarantee the people’s mastery, enabling them to exercise their rights within the social power system. People’s power is placed at the highest position, serving as a reminder to leaders and representatives that their role is to serve the people, not to stand above or disdain them, and never to exploit their position to oppress the people. A progressive state is one that adheres to these principles. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam founded by Ho Chi Minh on September 2, 1945 was a groundbreaking state in the nation’s millennia-long history because it was a state of the people, where the people decided the country’s affairs.

The new Vietnamese State was established by the people, supported by the people, and mastered by the people. Thus, Ho Chi Minh often emphasized that the task of revolutionaries was to enlighten the people to enhance their responsibility as masters, to enhance their sense of responsibility for taking care of and building their State. Ho Chi Minh affirmed: National affairs are common affairs, and each person must have the responsibility to “shoulder a part”. Rights and powers always go hand in hand with responsibilities and obligations.

In Ho Chi Minh’s philosophy on building a new Vietnamese State, the people are empowered, both legally and practically, to participate in state management.

A state for the people prioritizes their legitimate interests, serving solely for their benefit without pursuing any other interests.. It is a clean state, without any privileges or benefits. In that spirit, Ho Chi Minh emphasized: all guidelines and policies are only aimed at bringing benefits to the people; whatever is beneficial to the people, no matter how small it is, we must try to do, whatever is harmful to the people, no matter how small it is, we must try to avoid. The people are the root of the country. Ho Chi Minh consistently held: We must make sure that the people have food, that the people have clothes, that the people have a place to live, and that people have access to education.

Ho Chi Minh’s vision for a state for the people, committed entirely to their happiness was unwavering. His life served as a shining example of devotion to the people and the nation. Upon assuming the position of President, Ho Chi Minh told journalists: “I absolutely do not desire fame and fortune. Now I have to assume the position of President because my compatriots have entrusted me with the position, so I must try my best, just like a soldier obeying the nation’s orders to go to the front, and so on”⁽²⁾.

The rule-of-law state is inherently democratic; however, democracy within a rule-of-law state is not universally synonymous with people-centered democracy. Thus, there exists bourgeois democratic rule-of-law states and socialist rule-of-law states. Only a socialist rule-of-law state such as in Vietnam, truly embodies people-centered democracy or socialist democracy.

_________________

Received: August 05, 2024; Revised: August 12, 2024; Approved for publication: September 05, 2024.

Endnotes:

(1) Ho Chi Minh: Complete Works, vol.2, National Political Publishing House, Hanoi, 2011, p.291.

(2) Ho Chi Minh: Complete Works, vol.4, ibid., p.187.