In the process of shaping a modern national governance model, administrative reform is increasingly becoming one of the pillars determining competitiveness, development effectiveness, and the quality of governance of our State. In that context, the thinking of General Secretary To Lam on the “service-oriented state” has shaped a new approach: the State is not merely a regulatory authority, but must become an enabling institution that ensures social welfare while promoting the development of society and the economy. This is not only a political–administrative directive, but also a governance philosophy with theoretical significance, inheriting and developing Ho Chi Minh Thought while at the same time absorbing the intellectual achievements of modern political science.
Statements by General Secretary To Lam at several major conferences in recent times demonstrate a resolute way of thinking: “Building our socialist rule-of-law state means building a strong state that does not abuse power, that has discipline but remains close to the people. Acting decisively, but in a humane, persuasive manner, with dialogue.” This line of thinking places Viet Nam within the trend of renewing governance models toward modernity and effectiveness, putting the people at the center - an orientation that is compatible with the global theoretical frameworks of “public value,” “state capacity,” and the “service-oriented state.”
In the course of modernizing the national administrative system, one of the most prominent intellectual imprints in recent years has been the orientation toward a “service-oriented state,” which General Secretary To Lam has repeatedly emphasized. This is not merely a requirement concerning the spirit and attitude of the civil service, but a foundational political–administrative philosophy capable of reshaping the operational model of the Vietnamese State apparatus in the new period.
The thought of “taking the people as the root” constitutes one of the pillars of Ho Chi Minh Thought in political thinking. He affirmed: “All benefits are for the people. All powers belong to the people.” He also emphasized: “The Government is the servant of the people.” In affirming that “all benefits are for the people,” Ho Chi Minh simultaneously set forth a criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of the operation of the state apparatus. A government is regarded as good not because it proclaims itself to be “of the people,” but because, in reality, its policies and decisions bring tangible benefits to the majority of the people. This line of thinking goes far beyond formalistic or command-based administrative approaches to evaluating the state, which were prevalent in traditional bureaucratic state models. It requires the state to constantly reflect upon its own activities in relation to the real lives of the people, to know how to listen, adjust, and assume responsibility before society. This constitutes the endogenous ideological foundation of the “service-oriented state” model that General Secretary To Lam inherits and develops under the modern conditions of institutional reform and digital transformation.
“The Service-oriented State” – a guiding principle from the Head of the Party
After assuming the heavy responsibility as General Secretary of the Communist Party of Viet Nam, General Secretary To Lam delivered a clear message: “I expect delegates to give concrete opinions on how the two-tier model should be designed so that the people are not distanced from the authorities and public services are not disrupted. Do not let declarations about streamlining the apparatus result in additional layers.”
This statement reflects the General Secretary’s consistent line of thinking regarding the fundamental mission of government: a shift from a mindset of control to a mindset of service; from administrative power to the capacity to enable development. In the context of far-reaching reforms of the state apparatus, this way of thinking serves as a correctly oriented compass, helping to avoid superficial reform errors and ensuring that the State remains on the side of the people - true to the spirit of the “service-oriented state” that we pursue.
At a recent session of the National Assembly, the General Secretary clearly raised the following questions: “Have we done enough to ensure that every power is bound within the framework of the law, exercised within the proper authority, for the proper purpose, and in the proper interests of the people? Are there still gaps that make people feel that ‘if they want, they can get it; if they do not want, then so be it’? Are there still situations in which people have to ask for things that they are rightfully entitled to? These three questions are not raised to create doubt, but to promote an institutional leap”.
The General Secretary seeks to underscore that building a rule-of-law state is not a condition that, once achieved, can be taken as complete, but rather a continuous process of self-improvement. As long as the people still feel that their rights depend on the will of others; as long as there remain gaps that allow the law to be “softened”; as long as power is not truly locked in by responsibility and sanctions, reform has not yet reached its core. Locking power in place is not meant to weaken the apparatus, but to strengthen social trust. And only when people no longer have to “ask” for what rightfully belongs to them will the rule-of-law state truly take root in social life - not as a slogan, but as a living reality.
These strong statements not only emphasize the need to change service attitudes, but also contain a profound philosophy concerning the nature of the State under contemporary conditions of development.
Core of the Philosophy: The State as an institution that creates public value
In the process of national reform, the State is truly strong only when it creates a large amount of public value, rather than when it holds extensive power. This constitutes the ideological foundation for building a modern rule-of-law state that enables development and earns social trust. The philosophy of the “service-oriented state” reflects the modern vision of General Secretary To Lam of the State as a provider of public value - a perspective consistent with the views of scholars such as Mark Moore, Francis Fukuyama, and Evans & Rauch. Accordingly, the State does not merely govern through traditional administrative methods, but must: ensure high-quality public services, promote governance effectiveness, create favorable conditions for socio-economic development, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the people and enterprises.
General Secretary To Lam has emphasized: “Where lower-level authorities can resolve matters more quickly and in closer touch with the people, authority must be decisively delegated. But delegation of authority does not mean pushing tasks downward or shifting risks downward. Delegation must go hand in hand with resources, personnel, instruments, and even a zone of legal safety so that officials dare to act and dare to take responsibility for the common good, rather than bearing unjust and overly burdensome personal liability.” This statement embodies a highly modern approach to governance reform, directly addressing the long-standing “bottlenecks” in decentralization and devolution of powers within the state apparatus.
First of all, the statement affirms a sound principle of decentralization: matters that lower levels can handle more quickly and closer to the people should be delegated to those levels. This reflects the spirit of new public governance - bringing power closer to the people, shortening the distance between policy and real life, and limiting the situation of “asking – waiting – pushing upward.” Proper decentralization enhances efficiency, accountability, and service quality. However, the sharp insight lies in the latter part of the statement: delegation of authority is not synonymous with shifting tasks and risks downward.
Practice shows that if authority is delegated without the transfer of adequate resources, decentralization becomes merely formalistic. Lower levels may be given decision-making power, but without budgetary allocations, sufficient personnel, data, tools, or coordination mechanisms, such power exists only on paper and may even become a burden. More importantly, the statement touches upon the fear of responsibility among grassroots officials - a very real issue. When the legal framework is unclear and the boundary between “errors arising from policy risks” and “personal violations” becomes blurred, officials tend to avoid action and refrain from making decisions. Therefore, the requirement for a “zone of legal safety” is pivotal: officials who dare to act for the common good must be protected and must not be unjustly held liable when they have acted in accordance with procedures, within their authority, and under the conditions permitted by available information and the law.
This line of thinking is rooted in a fundamental proposition of modern governance theory: state effectiveness depends on implementation capacity, institutional quality, and public service ethics. “We must also more clearly define the national governance model for the coming period. Governance based on the rule of law, transparency, reliable data, modern digital infrastructure, a streamlined apparatus, integrity among officials, and discipline combined with service. Such governance is development-enabling governance, not ‘ask–give’ governance”, the General Secretary emphasized. “There must be new approaches to data governance to ensure compliance with the established roadmap; if necessary, improperly built databases must be discarded and rebuilt to avoid prolonged waste. Without digital transformation, the two-tier administrative model will not be able to operate effectively”.
These two statements demonstrate a resolute and pragmatic reform mindset regarding digital transformation in state governance, one that does not shy away from confronting the “legacy flaws” of earlier investment processes. First, the call for “new approaches to data governance” underscores that data is not merely a technical issue but the foundation of modern governance. The willingness to discard improperly developed databases and rebuild them reflects a readiness to accept short-term costs in order to avoid long-term waste. If poorly designed systems - lacking standardization and interoperability - continue to be patched up, maintenance costs will only increase while governance effectiveness remains low.
Second, the assertion that digital transformation is a prerequisite for the effective operation of the two-tier local government model highlights the direct relationship between technology and institutions. As intermediary layers are reduced, the apparatus can function smoothly only if data are shared in real time, procedures are digitized, and accountability is clearly traceable. Without a digital foundation, the two-tier model is prone to overload, disruption of public services, and heightened governance risks.
From political spirit to practical action, the superiority of vision: Linking the service-oriented State with the rule-of-law State
Building on that philosophical foundation, General Secretary To Lam has consistently maintained that the Party exercises absolute and comprehensive leadership, but does not replace, does not overstep, and does not relax its role. The Government governs and administers in accordance with the law and dares to assume personal responsibility. The Viet Nam Fatherland Front and socio-political organizations must truly become reliable bridges between the Party, the State, and the people. First and foremost, affirming the Party’s absolute and comprehensive leadership constitutes a foundational principle of the political system. However, the progressive aspect lies in the emphasis on “not replacing” and “not overstepping”.
This reflects a mindset that clearly delineates leadership through lines, orientations, and inspection and supervision, rather than through direct administrative intervention. At the same time, “not relaxing” underscores the Party’s ultimate political responsibility to ensure that the apparatus operates in accordance with set objectives and that power does not drift unchecked. Next, the requirement that the Government govern and administer according to law and dare to assume personal responsibility directly addresses a long-standing weakness of public administration: responsibility diluted within collectives. When personal responsibility is clearly established, authority can truly be matched with accountability, administrative discipline gains substance, and executive effectiveness is enhanced. Finally, positioning the Viet Nam Fatherland Front and socio-political organizations as “reliable bridges” demonstrates a clear recognition that power control cannot rely solely on mechanisms within the State. When these organizations genuinely represent the voice of the people, faithfully reflect public aspirations, and conduct substantive oversight, the linkage between the Party, the State, and the people becomes durable, and social trust is consolidated.
"Our Party is the ruling Party; to rule means to bear responsibility before the people for the country’s development and for the daily lives of the people. Ruling is not only about setting out lines and orientations, but also about organizing implementation, overseeing implementation, and assuming responsibility for the outcomes"
First, “ruling” is placed in a direct relationship with the people. Power is not exercised to assert status, but to bear responsibility for national development and the daily lives of the people. This defines ruling in terms of responsibility rather than privilege. Second, the statement rejects a mindset of “leadership by slogans.” Ruling does not stop at formulating lines and orientations; it must encompass organizing implementation and overseeing implementation. This demonstrates that leadership must run through the entire policy cycle - from decision-making to final outcomes in social life. Finally, the core point lies in assuming responsibility for results. When outcomes fall short, responsibility cannot be shifted to mechanisms, subordinate levels, or circumstances. Political responsibility rests with the ruling Party - this is the highest measure of leadership capacity and credibility.
A distinctive feature of General Secretary To Lam’s thinking is that the service-oriented state is not separated from the rule-of-law state, but is grounded in a foundation of: transparency of power, standardization of procedures, control of discretionary power exercised by officials, and ensuring that the law serves as an instrument of service rather than an instrument of obstruction.
“The rule-of-law state is not merely a matter of having a comprehensive legal system. First and foremost, a rule-of-law state is about the supremacy of the Constitution and the law; about the control of power; about openness and transparency; and about accountability to the people".
The General Secretary stated that we have promulgated laws to govern society by law and to build a socialist rule-of-law state of the people, by the people, and for the people. However, in practice, there remain situations where “the law is correct but difficult to implement,” or “it is approved in the legislature, yet becomes entangled at the grassroots level”. This argument affirms that the core standard of a rule-of-law state does not lie in the number of laws enacted, but in the quality of compliance: the Constitution and the law must genuinely stand above all power. When power has not been effectively controlled, and when openness, transparency, and accountability remain merely formal, even a comprehensive legal system is still insufficient to ensure the rule of law.
A noteworthy point is the identification of a practical paradox: laws are properly designed at the policy level, yet become “stuck” at the stage of implementation. “Smooth passage” in the legislature reflects legislative thinking, while “obstacles” at the grassroots level reveal bottlenecks in the implementation framework - overlapping procedures, inconsistent guidance, a fear of personal responsibility, or vested interests that hinder the application of the law. Accordingly, the statement calls for a shift in the focus of reform from lawmaking to ensuring the smooth operation of the law. A rule-of-law state truly exists only when people can feel that the law is easy to understand, easy to apply, and effective in protecting their rights - rather than a system that is correct in principle but difficult to translate into real life. This is precisely the spirit of a progressive rule-of-law state: law for human beings, not for the apparatus.
A philosophy for a new era - an era of the nation's advancement
The philosophy of a “service-oriented state” articulated in the directives of General Secretary To Lam not only demonstrates political resolve and reform-oriented vision, but also reflects a keen awareness of global trends in the development of modern state governance models.
From the General Secretary’s speeches and decisive policy directions, three layers of value can be clearly identified: the State as a servant of the people – the ethical foundation of state power; the State as a developmental and enabling institution – the institutional foundation of state power; the State as a service-providing organization – the operational foundation of state power. When implemented in a consistent and coherent manner, this philosophy will generate new momentum for administrative reform, enhance state capacity, and orient governance toward a modern, transparent, and effective model – a State that is governed by the rule of law, developmental in orientation, and above all, committed to serving the people.
Looking back at the directives of General Secretary To Lam, it is evident that the philosophy of a "service-oriented state" is not a slogan, but a new operational model of the Vietnamese State, grounded in key pillars: institutional effectiveness, public service ethics, digital transformation, and substantive reform. This vision aligns with prevailing trends in advanced governance models worldwide and also corresponds to the public’s expectations of a modern, transparent, and dedicated State. If implemented decisively and in a coordinated manner, the philosophy advanced by General Secretary To Lam will bring about a new institutional breakthrough, ushering Viet Nam’s administrative system into a new stage of development – for the people, close to the people, and serving the people.
The philosophy of a "service-oriented state" promoted by General Secretary To Lam is not merely a change in terminology, but a fundamental transformation in the conception of power, the organization of the state apparatus, and the mode of state operation. It represents a harmonious integration of the traditional values of Ho Chi Minh Thought, modern governance theory, Viet Nam’s practical reform needs, and constructive political leadership. This philosophy will lay the foundation for a clean and modern administration, an effective and efficient rule-of-law state, an advanced national governance model centered on the people, and a sustainably developing Viet Nam in the digital era. The transition from “a State of the people, by the people, for the people” to “a service-oriented, integrity-based, and action-oriented State” constitutes a process of ideological development, rather than mere inheritance.
