By: David Brown

A bitter and unprecedentedly public contest for leadership of Vietnam’s all-powerful Communist party ended in late January with two-term Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung’s forced retirement. The party’s 12th Congress awarded the man Dung aimed to unseat, Nguyen Phu Trong, another five years as the party’s general secretary. As the Congress adjourned, Trong was asked by a reporter if Vietnam would become more democratic.

“We favor collective leadership and individual responsibility,” Trong replied. “In some countries, top leaders call themselves democrats but decide everything in an arbitrary and despotic way,” but “we favor collective leadership and individual responsibility. I ask you – which system is more democratic?”

Though Trong located the “arbitrary and despotic top leaders” in other countries, most likely he was thinking of his vanquished rival. During Dung’s decade as prime minister (2006-16) the government side of the regime grew in relative power and status because it, and not the party institutions, had the experience and expertise that globalization demanded. To most reform-minded Vietnamese outside the party as well as in, the prime minister looked like the best hope of leading Vietnam into the world’s upper middle tier of nations. To party conservatives, however, Dung looked far too chummy with opportunists, far too dismissive of the Politburo’s views, and far too ready to compromise the party’s claim to rule.

Pushback was inevitable. An “anybody but Dung” movement coalesced behind Trong, and it prevailed. Confirming the resurgence of “party men,” the 12th Congress also approved a 19 member Politburo that’s stacked with Trong’s ideological allies, men who have made their careers in the party bureaucracy or the internal security agencies. This too augurs for more coherent party-state relations than in recent years.

Vietnam’s new government will be installed this month, following pro-forma votes by the National Assembly to confirm the party’s candidates for the top state positions. Nguyen Xuan Phuc will be Prime Minister. In Dung’s second term, Phuc first coordinated cabinet business and then served as one of five deputy prime ministers. He is regarded as a capable executive, and, apparently, as one not likely to buck the party line. The former Minister of National Security, police general Tran Dai Quang, will fill the largely ceremonial job of State President. Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan, the National Assembly’s new chair, regularly tops political popularity polls. She was an effective Minister of Social Welfare.

For most of 2015, smart money bet that Dung would succeed in his audacious bid to oust his rival and, some said, punch through overdue reforms that would put Vietnam squarely on the path to permanent prosperity. Trong, however, mounted an effective whispering campaign. Cataloguing the prime minister’s alliances with “opportunists,” Trong argued that the party’s integrity had been thoroughly compromised on Dung’s watch. In his pursuit of the top party job, Dung had courted reform advocates inside and outside the party.

Commentators on Vietnam’s lively cybersphere still debate whether he was the real thing or simply an opportunist in reformer clothing. Now that Dung has gone, party stalwarts no longer have to worry that he might have been a Vietnamese Gorbachev. As 2015 ended, Trong had planted serious doubts about Dung’s friends and his ethics, in particular his tolerance of his friends’ unsavory business dealings.

In 2012 and 2013, the party’s 200 member Central Committee had backed Dung when Trong tried to take him down. Now, in December 2015 and again on the eve of the Congress, the Central Committee tilted to Trong. In effect, the party’s senior members contemplated an uncertain future under Dung and, rejecting his bid to lead it, not only voted Trong another term as General Secretary but also restored the primacy of the party.

Virtue at the Helm

The General Secretary is tougher than his modest, grandfatherly public persona might suggest. For Trong, Marxism-Leninism is a living creed and guide to action. Just like his northern Communist neighbor Xi Jinping, he is intent on purging Vietnam’s Communist Party of “bad elements,” steeled by his belief that under proper leadership the party is uniquely able to steer Vietnam in the correct direction.

For Trong and many other idealists inside and outside the party, the über-issue is corruption.

“Vietnam is not alone in having influential vested interests,” say the authors of Vietnam 2035, a recent study co-produced by the World Bank and Vietnam’s Ministry of Planning and Investment, “but the degree to which relationships with the state are integral to economic success appears to be unusually high.”

Extra-legal collusion between party members and business interests is endemic. With Dung no longer able to protect them, his cronies’ days are numbered. By the end of the year, a slew of bankers and real estate promoters will likely be facing criminal charges. However, it is an open question whether the party-state under Nguyen Phu Trong will be any more capable of effecting systemic reforms.

Along with very considerable power to shape Vietnam as he sees fit in the years going forward, Trong has paradoxically inherited Dung’s reform agenda. It is a road map to upper middle income status for Vietnam by the time its “demographic dividend” (a large and young workforce) ages out circa 2035.

Shades of Xi but leaning westward

Armed with ideological clarity and the World Bank’s road map, can virtue manage the big issues that now confront Vietnam?

To put a real dent in corruption, the party must abandon its “socialist market economy” doctrine, the notion that state ownership of the “commanding heights” – that is, of the heavy industry, infrastructure and energy sectors – is superior to unalloyed capitalism.

Market socialism enables the state to ensure social justice or so the theory goes. In practice, the state enterprise sector remains a heavy burden on the economy, bloated, inefficient and rife with opportunity for public officials and enterprise managers to profit from collusion.

Again, according to the Vietnam 2035 report, “SOEs and state banks suck too much oxygen out of the business environment, undermining economy-wide efficiency and crowding out the productive parts of the private sector. The state also wields too much influence in allocating land and capital, giving rise [not only] to opportunities for corruption but also economy-wide inefficiencies.”

From the beginning of the doi moi era more than a quarter century ago, liberal economists have urged the regime to allow uncompetitive state enterprises to die. Like its predecessors, both Dung governments pledged to “equitize” state firms, but accomplished little in the face of passive resistance by both the SOEs and the ministries that supervise them.