In any nation that aspires to develop rapidly and sustainably, the key question is not how many resolutions are issued, how many action programs are formulated, or how many implementation conferences are convened. The core question is always: who bears ultimate responsibility when policies fail to materialize in practice, when the apparatus operates inefficiently, when development opportunities are missed, and when public trust is eroded?Years of practice have shown that the greatest bottleneck in public governance does not lie in a lack of policy direction, but in the ambiguity of individual accountability. When success is achieved, credit is collectively shared; when failure occurs, responsibility is diluted into the notion of the “collective.” Such a mechanism of shared dilution inadvertently creates “safe zones of power,” where stagnation, avoidance, and short-term, tenure-based thinking can persist. It is precisely in this context that the remarks of General Secretary To Lam at the National Conference on studying, disseminating, and implementing the Resolution of the 14th Party Congress (February 7, 2026) directly addressed the core of national governance: “If a collective fails to fulfill its tasks, the head must take responsibility and must not hide behind the collective to obscure individual accountability. Any individual who fails to meet task requirements must know to step down voluntarily. Anyone who makes promises but does not act, or acts without achieving results, must be considered for replacement or reassignment.” This is not merely a directive on cadre discipline; it is an affirmation of a new philosophy of governance: power is no longer a privilege shielded by collective mechanisms, but a commitment to responsibility measured by practical effectiveness. Leadership positions are no longer associated with the “safety of tenure,” but with the capacity to create public value; political credibility is built not on promises, but on measurable outcomes. From this perspective, the General Secretary’s message is not only intended to rectify the cadre system, but also to reestablish the cultural foundation of power, to build standards of political self-respect, and to shape a governance model centered on responsibility and effectiveness. This marks an important starting point for the transition from an administrative system of “management” to one of “developmental and service-oriented governance,” where every leader is held fully accountable before the Party, before the people, and before the nation’s development.
From “Collective Responsibility” to Personalized Accountability
In the history of state apparatus organization, the principle of collective responsibility once played a certain role in ensuring unity of will and action, limiting individualism, and maintaining organizational discipline. In particular periods, when governance conditions were limited, information was not transparent, and power-control mechanisms were not yet fully developed, emphasizing collectivity contributed to maintaining stability and consensus. However, as the country enters a new stage of development, with governance requirements becoming increasingly complex, multidimensional, and subject to global competitive pressures, a model relying primarily on collective responsibility has revealed fundamental limitations. In many cases, it has inadvertently become a “shield” protecting individual weaknesses, blurring the line between the decision-maker and the implementer, between authority and consequence. When all mistakes are “evenly shared,” no one truly bears responsibility. When failure is not attached to a specific individual, it does not become a lesson. When risk is collectivized, creativity and commitment are also stifled. This is fertile ground for a psychology of safety, for tenure-based thinking, and for systemic stagnation. Therefore, the requirement “not to use the collective to obscure individual responsibility” articulated by General Secretary To Lam carries the significance of a qualitative shift in governance thinking. This is not a denial of the role of the collective, but a restructuring of the relationship between the collective and the individual in a modern direction: the collective is a space for coordination, while the individual is the subject who bears responsibility.
At the same time, under this model, the head is no longer merely a “representative,” but the “ultimate responsible person.” Every strategic decision, every personnel choice, and every operational outcome is directly linked to his or her credibility and political standing. Power therefore no longer remains nominal, but becomes a personal commitment before the organization and society. At a deeper level, the process of personalizing responsibility is a prerequisite for forming competence-based governance. When responsibility is clear, each official is compelled to invest in knowledge, skills, and strategic thinking. When results are personalized, the motivation for self-learning, self-renewal, and self-improvement is activated. Conversely, in an environment where responsibility is “diluted,” individual competence has no opportunity to become a competitive advantage. Notably, personalizing responsibility does not equate to individualism or authoritarianism. On the contrary, in advanced governance systems, the clearer the individual responsibility, the greater the requirement to respect procedures, listen to feedback, and rely on collective intelligence. When consequences are directly tied to the individual, leaders have a strong incentive to make decisions that are prudent, transparent, and grounded in evidence.
From an institutional perspective, the shift from collective responsibility to personalized accountability is also a necessary step to enhance the quality of power control. Only when it is clearly determined “who decides and who bears responsibility” can supervision, evaluation, and accountability mechanisms have a specific point of reference. In such circumstances, inspection, oversight, and cadre evaluation will no longer fall into formalism or undue leniency. More importantly, personalizing responsibility contributes to building a political culture grounded in honor and credibility. In such an environment, a position is no longer an “asset” to be retained at all costs, but a conditional mandate. When one no longer meets the requirements, stepping aside becomes an act of self-respect rather than a failure. In the long-term vision, this transformation reflects the effort to build a State operating according to a development logic, where power is allocated based on competence, controlled through responsibility, and assessed by results. This is the foundation for Vietnam to move closer to modern standards of national governance, with high adaptability in a volatile world. The transition from “collective responsibility” to personalized accountability is therefore not merely a technical adjustment in management, but a transformation in governing mindset: from concealment to transparency, from safety to commitment, from formality to substance, from static power to dynamic responsibility.
A Culture of Voluntary Resignation and the Standard of “Political Self-Respect”
Particularly noteworthy is the requirement: “Any individual who does not meet task requirements must know to step aside voluntarily.” This is a profound message about the culture of power and public service ethics. In many cases, leaving a position occurs only when there is serious misconduct. Meanwhile, in advanced governance systems, resignation due to failure to fulfill duties is regarded as an expression of honor and responsibility. The General Secretary is laying the foundation for a new standard: building a leadership contingent with political self-respect, aware of their own limits, and willing to yield their position to a more suitable person when they no longer meet the requirements. When such a culture takes shape, the apparatus will not need to rely excessively on coercive measures, but will be capable of self-adjustment from within. The General Secretary’s message reflects a profound awareness: one cannot rely solely on personal spirit without an appropriate institutional design. For the responsibility of the head to become substantive, three elements must operate in sync: First, a transparent evaluation system tied to clear output indicators. Second, a multidimensional supervision mechanism combining Party organizations, state agencies, society, and the media. Third, a flexible personnel mechanism that allows for timely replacement of those who fail to meet requirements. Only when these three elements function effectively will the message of responsibility move beyond a slogan and become an operational principle of the system. At a deeper level, the General Secretary’s statement is not intended to create psychological pressure on officials, but to restructure the system’s incentives. When positions are no longer “safe,” leaders are compelled to learn, innovate, and commit. When results are prioritized, creativity and the courage to take responsibility are encouraged. When weaknesses are no longer shielded, talent has the opportunity to rise. In other words, discipline here is not meant to tighten the apparatus, but to make it operate more flexibly and effectively.
The remarks of General Secretary To Lam on the responsibility of the head constitute a strategic message about the method of governance in the new stage of development—namely, a vision of governance that takes effectiveness as the standard, responsibility as the foundation, self-respect as the essential quality, and results as the measure of credibility. When individual accountability becomes an “unwritten law” within the public apparatus, social trust will be strengthened, national capacity will be enhanced, and the path toward sustainable development will truly open. It can be said that the General Secretary’s statement has laid an important brick for that process. It is not only a reminder to today’s officials, but a political commitment to the country’s future development: building a State where power is inseparable from responsibility, position is inseparable from effectiveness, and political honor is firmly tied to substantive contributions to the nation and the people.
