Brian Jeffrey
The General Secretary To Lam and the Party Central Committee are focused on significantly transforming the political structure. VietNamNet features a series of expert discussions that provide insight into this transformative process.
When discussing a revolution, it sends a strong and impactful message. The aim to streamline the political structure is revolutionary, distinguished from mere reform.
A revolution implies profound change, while reform typically addresses minor issues. General Secretary To Lam’s use of ‘revolution’ encourages complete participation from the political structure, society, and citizens in achieving substantial objectives. All parties involved must fully adopt this mindset.
By merging various components, the structure will become more cohesive rather than fragmented and separated as it currently operates.
In my opinion, the phrase “The Party does not overreach” suggests not a shift in the model but rather cementing and enhancing the socialist framework. This encapsulates its essence.
The Party delineates the main developmental paths. The National Assembly is responsible for enacting laws based on these directions, and the Government carries out the implementation.
This model necessitates technical expertise. While it may not be purely democratic, it has been instrumental in China’s rapid progress.
Therefore, talented leaders who can formulate effective development strategies should be centralized within the Party.
To streamline the structure, we first need to pinpoint what causes its unwieldiness. Solutions need to be founded on a deep understanding of these causes, supported by evidence of their potential effectiveness.
Additionally, evaluating the consequences of proposed solutions—such as socio-economic impacts, expenses, and results—is essential. This represents the initial phase of the policy creation process.
From a conceptual standpoint, merging the two ministries makes sense, as both transportation and construction pertain to infrastructure development.
The merger would consolidate the structure into a more unified system instead of the current fragmented model.
In developed nations, creating metro systems and roadways is a systematic process where transportation infrastructure precedes urban development. Once infrastructure is established, land value significantly increases, generating the necessary funds for construction projects.
Conversely, in our country, the development process has been inverted, leading to challenges. Construction often occurs before transportation is addressed, creating obstacles when trying to integrate metro systems due to rising land costs and compensation challenges.
While the merger seems logical, it presents complexities. Historically, the planning and investment sector has overseen public projects without direct control over financial resources. Meanwhile, the finance sector manages both revenue generation and allocation for public investments, which depend on budget funds.
Effective management of investments can only happen when all resources are fully controlled. The current framework between these two ministries has resulted in lengthy, unfinished projects because each must separately approve investment and funding availability. Merging them would enable a unified entity that understands resource availability, preventing an excess of proposed projects with inadequate funding.
Nonetheless, I am concerned about strategic planning and national visioning, crucial functions of the Ministry of Planning and Investment that may conflict with the new ministry’s roles.
This matter must be addressed. I believe that responsibilities for forecasting, policy creation, and sector development—like high-tech industries—should be transferred to the Central Economic Commission.
It’s clear that the Party intends to bolster the Central Economic Commission rather than dissolve or merge it. Current circumstances dictate that forecasting, planning, and oversight capabilities should reside within the Party’s purview. However, wherever power is situated, the necessary capabilities should follow.
Traditionally, ministers have been viewed as leaders of their specific sectors. This means they manage everything from planning to execution, a reality that is widely acknowledged as unmanageable for a single individual.
Furthermore, management is a technical task, and as sectors grow increasingly interdisciplinary, the responsibilities have expanded, making it unfeasible for a minister to oversee all aspects.
Thus, a clear distinction must be made between political executive roles and administrative responsibilities. A minister operates as a political leader, which differs from those engaging in public administration.
For example, someone with exceedingly high public approval (100%) might struggle to efficiently manage traffic systems. While they possess popular support, they may lack the required technical skills for such roles, which do not constitute political tasks.
When the head of a transportation bureau also serves as a Party Secretary, it leads to a scenario where only politically adept individuals can qualify for the position, while those with technical skills without political acumen are left at a disadvantage.
Securing approval necessitates political prowess, while resolving transportation issues demands technical knowledge. These are separate areas of expertise. At present, our system prioritizes political skills over technical competencies.
The absence of technocrats and skilled professionals in the government makes achieving efficiency and effectiveness exceedingly difficult.
In many countries, ministries feature a “minister of state” role to handle technical responsibilities. This position does not typically require public visibility, as it is not politically driven.
As we proceed with ministry mergers, I advocate for considering such a role and associated structures to ensure these candidates retain significant power in managing technical functions, independent of political duties.
