>>Village code and development of Vietnamese society
Prof. Dr. Dao Tri Uc
Director of the Institute of State and Law
In every society, ancient or modern, a comprehensive system of social norms and rules has been used as one of the key instruments to ensure the existence and development of a community. These rules exert their influence on and regulate the social relations as well as personal conducts. Such system consists of legal and ethical norms, traditional practices, religious dogmas and other provisions used as charters of socio-political organizations or mass organizations…, of which “huong uoc” was a type of social rules that have played a very important role in regulating social relations in villages and hamlets.
By its virtue, “huong uoc,” may be seen as a crucial component of rural management that helps to enhance the villages’ self-governance and autonomy. It represents a salient feature of the managerial culture that is popular in the South-Asian region, especially China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam… However, depending on each nation’s political, economic and social conditions, the role of “huong uoc” should be perceived and elaborated differently in management activities.
In Vietnam, “huong uoc”came into being fairly soon. According to many researchers, “huong uoc” as a form of documentalization of village rules appeared in mid-15th century. These were written convention jointly worked out and observed by inhabitants in Viet villages. “Huong uoc” was closely connected to village communities and considered “spiritual platform” or a “collection of living customs and practices” of Viet villages. On the one hand, “huong uoc” reflect customary norms and standards and, on the other hand, they also represent the population community’s will in managing various aspects of the social life, safeguarding public order and security, and regulating cultural and spiritual activities in daily life of the community. “Huong uoc” was rich in its clauses prescribing the rules of conducts in various aspects of the village life, from geographical characteristics, historical traditions to promotion of production, protection of public security and social order, surrounding environment, historical and cultural monuments, festivals and rituals, worships of ancestors, funerals, marriage, educational and trade promotion, organizational structure and operations of the communal autonomous organ. In practice, ancient “huong uoc” may be likened a “village’s code”. In that sense, “huong uoc” directly regulated almost every relation between individuals, between families, between family lines in the same village as well as such village’s relations with other village communities as well as with the State. From a positive perspective, ancient “huong uoc” helped to adhere all individual members of a village together into a well-organized community, helped to organize and manage in an effective manner various aspects of the village life; maintain social order and discipline, create a stable and safe living environment for the entire community; preserve and enrich good customs and cultural traditions, preserve and promote moral and humanitarian values. At the same time, ancient “huong uoc” also contributed to creating and nursing a democratic life that linked the human being to the nature and individuals to the community, establishing a communal and village sense and associate it with the national sense... In addition, ancient “huong uoc” also saw not a few limitations with negative provisions that maintain villages closeness and localism and hamper the enforcement of State law and the unified management by the State.
“Huong uoc” almost disappeared after the 1945 August Revolution, especially since 1954 when the structure of ancient villages - serving as a basis for the existence of “huong uoc” was abolished. The new regime and the socialist legal system were then reorganized in a way that disregarded the entire system of village rules in rural management. However, it should be recognized that “huong uoc” did not completely vanished but a substantial amount of their substance was still preserved by transforming itself into traditional cultures, community activities and good practices among population.
“Huong uoc” has been restored in Vietnam since the introduction of the Polibureau’s Resolution No. 10 on contractual assignment of land to households for their stable and permanent use. In line with significant improvements of agriculture and rural areas as a result of the Resolution’s implementation, villages as local communities having their own organizational institutions, customs, psychology and religious beliefs have gradually “regained” their position and role in social and economic management. Spontaneously, many villages in the Red River delta have formulated their own village rules as a “legal basis” for the management and regulations of the communal life. To date, “huong uoc” have been drafted and implemented on a large scale and have been officially recognized, promoted and instructed by the State. In fact, “huong uoc” have made a strong comeback and become an useful instrument among rural management institutions. The necessity or unnecessity to formulate “huong uoc” is no longer a topic for debate now. Instead, the question now is how clarify role and capability of “huong uoc” in regulating social relations. Thereby to determine their regulation scope and objects, maintain a reasonable correlation between “huong uoc” and state laws as well as between “huong uoc” and other social norms in order to satisfy the requirements or effective management as well as the requirements of rural democratization.
In order to find the answer for the above question, we should, first of all, study and identify the nature of “huong uoc,” answering a series of questions including the status of “huong uoc” and the perspective from which “huong uoc” may be seen, which has been so far viewed as an instrument that regulates social relations within a local community and has been used by village officials and notables to control villagers. Previous feudal dynasties and the French colonial regimes also considered “huong uoc” an effective tool to increase the efficiency of extending their ruling hands to ancient villages. Therefore, a research into the nature of “huong uoc” must first start from the view of social management and state administration of rural areas.
Since ours is a state of the people, by the people and for the people, the tool for our social management is the working people’s mastery; hence, the nature of “huong uoc” should not go beyond that category. The social and political institutions relating to the people’s mastery is characterized by two sub-categories: mastery at units, organizations and State bodies and mastery at villages. Accompanying these two subcategories are two forms of mastery: mastery within and by State institutions and mastery outside the State’s domain. These forms of mastery are interacted. In reality, it may be impossible and unnecessary to bureaucratize all social affairs, especially those between individual members of local community at grassroots level. In this respect, “huong uoc” represent the actual mastery of the working people in rural areas. However, as a rural management instrument, “huong uoc” cannot be entirely free from State management. More importantly, the relationship between grassroots autonomy and state management should be properly handled in order to establish standards for grassroots mastery and new “huong uoc.” These standards are expected to have their own characteristics different from compulsory standards stated by laws and other general standards. “Huong uoc” must provide standards and norms for grassroots mastery. In other words, self-governance rules and principles in rural villages should be formulated on the basis of a broad mastery of the people. Such a mastery is, however, to be restricted to those not regulated by laws.
From the angle of the people’s mastery at the grassroots level, huong uoc’s identity may be embodied in the fact that it is jointly formulated and agreed upon by villagers. Villages differ in their geographical positions, modes of production, population structure and customs as well as practices. Such difference may be found even among villages of the same commune. It is also because of such difference that each village has its own needs and objectives. In order to achieve these objectives, villages are required to utilize all means available, first of all their internal resources. Therefore, villagers are collectively committed to joint their efforts and energy to attain these objectives through “huong uoc.” Thus, “huong uoc” may be defined as an expression of the village’s needs and a will of the entire village that was mutually agreed on a voluntary basis with a view to exercising the communal self-governance. In that sense, “huong uoc” may only be formulated on the basis of the village’s specific demands, but absolutely not on the basis of contents introduced from outside. In other words, a village code must be worked out by members of the same village. In sum, “huong uoc” may be seen as a series of self-governance standards established and recognized by local inhabitants.
Because of such a nature, “huong uoc” plays an essential role in the legal reform and rural democratization at present Vietnam. This role is clearly embodied in the interrelation between “huong uoc” and the law as well as between “huong uoc” and other social norms in managing the rural society.
It can be realized that, as an instrument of the local community’s self-governance, “huong uoc” may, to some extent, replace the law in governing those social relations that are peculiar to each village through a voluntary agreement and implementation by villagers. As far as the scope of application, is concerned, “huong uoc” is intended to regulate those matters not governed by the law or those that are enforced on a voluntary basis. In this regard, specific provisions of “huong uoc” may be different from legal ones in the degree and limits of regulation. Anyway, “huong uoc” can not go beyond the borderline imposed by the law or contravene the law. Furthermore, as a supporting device designed to facilitate the State management at the grassroots level, “huong uoc” also serve as an elaboration and concretion of law provisions and ensure the viability of the law in a variety of sections in the current rural society. Many law provisions are required to be penetrated and incorporated into specific village rules that are suitable to specific conditions of each village so that they may be brought into full play in terms of their effectiveness and values. Here emerges a need to deal dealing with the relation between “huong uoc” and the law in the management of rural society in such a manner that clearly delineate the scopes of application and degrees of interference of these important instruments.
In order to determine the position and role of “huong uoc,” it is necessary to identify the borderline between “huong uoc” and other social norms that are characterized by a great diversity in rural areas at present. The Vietnamese village in essence remains a relatively closed community with various overlapping relations and their corresponding institutions. Apart from State laws and “huong uoc,” there are other social norms that also regulate individual behaviors, including:
- “Tangible” norms that are reflected in the charter or internal regulations of social and mass organizations such as the Women’s Union, the Youth Union, the War Veterans Association, Elderly Association, Educational Promotion Society, Horticultural Association, and Fatherland Front etc.
- “Intangible” norms such as ethical norms, customs, religious norms and so on.
In comparison with these afore-listed social norms and within the boundaries of each village, “huong uoc” emerges as a document having the highest legal validity and the largest scope of application. However, “huong uoc” can not replace all other social norms nor adversely affect the legitimacy and positive features of other social norms. The increasing demands for exercising self-governance rights and diversifying management methods provide solid foundations for the inter-mingling existence of various types of norms that regulate individual behaviors. The problem is how to create a harmony and mutual supplements between “huong uoc” and other social norms. To date, however, this problem is left almost unanswered.
The foregoing analyses show that any attempt to bring into full play the role of “huong uoc” in this period of time is interlined with challenging tasks of the legal reform and rural democratization. By contrast, the legal reform and the rural democratization should be viewed in their relation with the formulation and implementation of new “huong uoc” in local communities. In this regard, there are at least two issues worth further discussions. In particular:
First, the legal reform, especially in branches of law that are closely related to rural development should take into consideration the diversity, complexity and paradox of Vietnam’s rural areas in order to create a new legal environment as a premise for the “resurrection” of traditional values that have been tested through village conventions, categorically eliminate their negative effects and enable the Vietnamese countryside to embark on a new, modern and civilized socio-economic mechanism. In this spirit, the law needs to narrow its scope of direct regulation of village affairs. Since the law is expected to provide a set of general standards that govern social relations of all citizens, it should be limited to the most universal and popular social relations of the whole political, economic and social lives in all types of villages. The main focus of such a governance should be the relation between public powers and the local population. Each community’s internal affairs that are not common to other types of communities should be regulated by “huong uoc” and other social norms. More importantly, the law must create a supportive space for such a regulation by recognizing the self-governance rights of village communities. Realities show that villages are currently the smallest cell of a rural community where all components of a complete population unit are converged and where socio-economic tasks are directly implemented in rural areas. Many questions have also arisen from the daily life of villages and a substantial number of specific policies and obligations have been fulfilled in villages. Therefore, there must be a definitive perception and transparent laws under which villages represent a form of communal self-governance and hamlets are territorial units where conventions are to be formulated. The organizational structure and supporting institutions in hamlets must be entirely “unbureaucratized” so that they may become efficient forms of community gathering and preserving and enriching communal identity.
Second, “huong uoc” should ensure the volition and self-governance. In doing so, “huong uoc” must be first diversified. Its scope and contents cannot and should not be only limited to any certain category of works or activities but they should cover all specific issues necessary to the social and cultural development of the village. Furthermore, in order to meet develop-ment requirements of each village at each point of time, “huong uoc” must not be fixed or immutable but they must be changeable as the time passes by in line with the progress of fulfillment of tasks set out by villagers in their conventions. Such a flexibility may be varied from time to time and village to village. As far as their formality is concerned, in order to meet various management objectives, the state may introduce a model form of “huong uoc” that covers fundamental issues if “huong uoc” is viewed to be limited to certain contents. However, with a view to raising the self-governance efficiency of “huong uoc,” there may be different types of “huong uoc” provided that their contents must satisfy two requirements namely, first, the contents of “huong uoc” must be different from socio-economic develop-ment objectives of the locality, and second, the contents of “huong uoc” must be distinguished from the State laws. Instead, “huong uoc” should be rules mutually agreed upon by local residents to facilitate and leverage the implementation of socio-economic objectives of the locality and the scope of “huong uoc” needs to only be limited to those issues not regulated by the law. In that direction, the contents of “huong uoc” should cover both organizational structure and self-governance institutions in the villages to enable villagers to participate in the grassroots State management.
Concerning ways to ensure volition and self-governance principles of “huong uoc,” a series of other issues must also be decoded including procedures for drafting and issuing “huong uoc,” management of “huong uoc”; role of local authorities in drafting and controlling “huong uoc”; for example, how to harmonize democratic self-governance and guidance in drafting and issuing “huong uoc” in order to maximize the people’s mastery at the grassroots level, enhance the role of “huong uoc” as an effective tool to assist the State management bodies in regulating village affairs. The principle of democratic self-governance mentioned herein must be understood as a delegation of powers to determine general objectives of the village to villagers on the basis of State policy and laws in a way that is most effective and suitable to the village. On the other hand, it should also be understood as the most popular and democratic volition without any limits provided that the laws or ethical norms are not breached. This requires democratic and public procedures for drafting and issuing “huong uoc” so that most villagers may be prompted to participate in this process. However, the implementation of such a principle must be subject to further guidance and management boundaries. In other words, the self-governance must not be a completely free nor obligatory one. Therefore, the formulation, adoption and implementation of “huong uoc” must be closely monitored through specific guidelines consisting of orientations in terms of substance, formality and modes of operation; and development of an appropriate scheme in which substantive, drafting and implementing guidelines are given.-