United Nations Development Programme[1]
 |
| Group discussion on the role of persons with disabilities in local governance__Photo: UNDP |
Introduction
Political participation is a fundamental human right, essential to inclusive governance and sustainable development. It is enshrined in key international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 25) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, Article 29), both of which have been ratified by Vietnam. As such, the State is committed to ensuring that persons with disabilities enjoy their political rights and opportunities fully and equally with others. This commitment aligns with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, which calls for building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions and ensuring responsive, participatory decision-making at all levels.
For persons with disabilities, “meaningful participation means not only being present, but also being listened to, influencing decisions, and having their contributions recognized”[2]. Moving from symbolic presence to effective participation is therefore a critical step in advancing equality. Promoting the equal right of persons with disabilities to stand for election is not only a legal obligation but also a reaffirmation of Vietnam’s vision of “a socialist law-ruled state that is just, democratic and sustainably developed.”[3] However, the gap between legal guarantees and actual representation in elected bodies remains substantial.
This article provides policy makers with evidence-based recommendations to strengthen the rights of persons with disabilities to vote and to stand for election in Vietnam. It draws on international obligations, global good practices, and national evidence to identify practical measures that can close the gap between commitments and practice, ensuring that no citizen is left behind in the democratic process.
Contexts, opportunities and challenges in Vietnam
Vietnam has an estimated 6.23 million persons with disabilities,[4] yet their presence in elected bodies remains very limited. There is no official data on candidates or deputies with disabilities. An in-depth study by UNDP and the Center of Research and Inclusive Development Action (IDEA) with 54 representatives of organizations of and for persons with disabilities, the Vietnam Fatherland Front, NA deputies, ministries, People’s Councils (PCs) deputies, and voters in Hanoi, Hue and Can Tho, found that over 90 percent of respondents had never seen a person with disabilities serving as a deputy to the NA or PCs. Fewer than 10 percent recalled ever witnessing such representation, and those memories were mostly of persons with disabilities serving at commune or district level, and primarily veterans.[5] In the 15th NA (2021-26), there are only four members, who are veterans and are also legally recognized as persons with disabilities, accounting for 0.8 percent.[6] However, their presence is often perceived more in their capacity as veterans rather than as representatives of the broader community of persons with disabilities.[7]
Vietnam’s legal framework affirms the rights of all citizens to vote and to stand for election and contains no provisions excluding persons with disabilities from voter rolls, a progressive feature compared to some other countries.[8] The 2013 Constitution, the Law on Election of Deputies to the NA and Deputies to PCs, and the Law on Persons with Disabilities guarantee equal participation of persons with disabilities in political and public life, and include measures such as mobile ballot boxes, voter assistance, and accessible polling stations. However, a significant gap remains between these legal commitments and actual implementation.
Nonetheless, opportunities are emerging. Several developments facilitate the advancement of political participation of persons with disabilities in Vietnam. Recent elections have introduced measures such as home delivery of ballots for voters with severe disabilities and pilot provision of accessible information formats in some localities.[9] In addition, the current shift from a three-tier to a two-tier local government system will elevate the role and power of commune-level PCs by incorporating functions from district-level PCs. As the governance level closest to citizens, commune-level PCs offer the highest chance of electoral success for candidates with disabilities, enabling them to champion the rights of vulnerable groups in their communities. Moreover, there is increasing recognition of the value of diverse representation in elected bodies. Including persons with disabilities is a clear and measurable indicator of such diversity and strengthens the legitimacy of governance.[10]
Despite progressive legal provisions and emerging opportunities, significant barriers continue to limit the full political participation of persons with disabilities in Vietnam. These challenges span legal, procedural, infrastructural and socio-cultural domains, creating a persistent gap between rights in law and rights in practice.
Gaps in an enabling legal framework: While persons with disabilities are not legally hindered from candidacy, the absence of targeted measures - such as representation quotas, flexible eligibility criteria, or disability-sensitive health assessments, limits their opportunities. The Law on Organization of the NA requires candidates to have “sufficient health” to perform their duties,[11] a criterion that may indirectly disadvantage persons with disabilities due to the conflation of disability with ill health, despite evidence that these are distinct concepts.[12] Many disabilities are mistakenly classified into health categories C or D (requiring one to three months off work or full-time treatment),[13] which align with severe or extremely severe disabilities.[14] Unlike women and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities have no reserved candidate quotas.[15] Resolution 1185/NQ-UBTVQH14 (2021)[16] defines candidate composition around occupational and organizational groups without identifying persons with disabilities as a distinct category, reducing their visibility in elected bodies.
Procedural and institutional barriers: Voter and candidate registration processes remain largely inaccessible. Application periods are short, submission locations are often distant,[17] and accessible information on candidacy procedures is scarce. Many potential candidates with disabilities lack familiarity with the political system, electoral rules, and legal frameworks. Organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs) have limited capacity and formal channels to nominate candidates.[18] The expectation for high-profile candidates disadvantages persons with disabilities, who have had fewer opportunities to demonstrate their leadership potential.[19]
Physical, digital and communication inaccessibility: There is no consistent nationwide guidance on reasonable accommodation in electoral processes. Polling stations often remain physically inaccessible, with no ramps, tactile ballots, or assistive devices.[20] Accessible formats - such as Braille, large print, or sign language interpretation - are not systematically available. While mobile voting enables participation, it can compromise vote secrecy and independence.[21]
Limited candidate preparation and support: No dedicated public program exists to build the capacity of persons with disabilities to run for office.[22] As a result, potential candidates often lack the training, resources, and confidence to engage effectively in political competition. Self-nominated candidates face low success rates, partly due to challenges in gaining voter trust and mobilizing technical or institutional support during campaigns.[23]
Social prejudice and stigma: Deeply entrenched stereotypes portray persons with disabilities as recipients of protection rather than as capable political actors.[24] This prejudice is reinforced by low expectations from the public, charity-oriented perceptions,[25] and even discouragement from family members concerned about the perceived burdens of a political career.[26] These views erode self-confidence among persons with disabilities and limit their aspirations to seek elected office.
Addressing these persistent challenges requires not only legal and procedural reform but also a shift in institutional practice, Party engagement, and public attitudes. Without such comprehensive action, the gap between Vietnam’s progressive legal framework and the actual political representation of persons with disabilities will remain wide.
Key research findings show strong support for persons with disabilities’ political participation in Vietnam
UNDP’s studies consistently show that Vietnamese persons with disabilities have both the interest and potential to participate in elected bodies and are gradually receiving stronger support for their representative role.
Perceptions of persons with disabilities about running for office: A UNDP rapid survey (2021) with 111 respondents with disabilities found that 71.2 percent wished to serve as NA or PCs deputies, and 62 percent of them were ready to self-nominate.[27] This demonstrates considerable motivation to engage in political life if opportunities and support are available.
Public attitudes toward candidates with disabilities: Support for candidacy of persons with disabilities is generally high. In the afore-mentioned UNDP rapid assessment, 98.2 percent of respondents wanted to see representatives with disabilities in the NA and PCs to advocate for rights, promote equality, and reflect the nation’s diversity.[28] Also, the 2024 survey conducted by UNDP and the Mekong Development Research Institute (MDRI) with 2,310 persons with disabilities in 18 provinces found that 72.1 percent of respondents were ready to vote for a candidate with a disability.[29] Likewise, the joint UNDP-IDEA study cited above echoed strong support: 53 of 54 respondents agreed persons with disabilities should run for office if they meet criteria; 39 believed their presence would improve the responsiveness of policies to vulnerable groups’ needs more generally. Many stressed that “only persons with disabilities truly understand their own needs and challenges” and can effectively represent 7 percent of the population with disabilities.[30]
Cases with readiness to run for office: In the past, some outstanding individuals with disabilities have self-nominated, or served as a NA deputy without identifying themselves as a representative of the community of persons with disabilities. For instance, in 2011, Nguyen Cong Hung, an IT entrepreneur with a disability, self-nominated for the NA, focusing on healthcare and vocational training for persons with disabilities. He faced public skepticism over his ability to serve due to his health condition and was not elected. A more successful case was Thach Thi Dan, Vice President of Tra Vinh University. An ethnic Cham woman with a mild congenital physical disability, Thach Thi Dan served two NA terms (12th and 13th) and contributed to key legal instruments for persons with disabilities without publicly self-identifying as a representative of the disability community,[31] raising important questions about “descriptive” versus “substantive” representation.
Such findings show a readiness among persons with disabilities and a notable degree of public acceptance for their candidacy. However, without structural reforms, capacity development, and sustained awareness campaigns, this potential will remain unrealized in actual representation within elected bodies.
International good practices and lessons for Vietnam
International experience demonstrates that strengthening the political participation of persons with disabilities requires a combination of legal reform, institutional commitment, practical accessibility measures, capacity building, and rigorous data collection and monitoring. The following thematic areas highlight key lessons for Vietnam.
 |
| Story sharing on how persons with disabilities participate in local governance__Photo: UNDP |
Legal and institutional reform: Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act (1992) requires reasonable accommodations in elections and holds the Electoral Commission accountable for accessibility.[32] In addition, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya and Afghanistan mandate a minimum number of legislators with disabilities, often complemented by rules allowing guide dogs, sign language interpretation, and other accommodations in legislative houses. Kenya links quota provisions to political party funding through the Political Parties Fund, incentivizing inclusion.[33] These practices align with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)’s guidance, which recommends mandatory quotas in candidate lists, reserved parliamentary seats, and preferential state funding for parties with candidates with disabilities.[34] The lessons learnt for Vietnam are to review the Law on Election to remove indirect barriers (e.g., “adequate health” criteria), to consider interim quotas or incentive mechanisms, and to establish an inter-sectoral framework linking election bodies, social protection agencies, and legal institutions to safeguard political rights of persons with disabilities.
Accessible electoral processes: Many countries, such as Australia, Norway, Canada, India, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates and the Philippines, provide multiple voting formats (early, postal, mobile, and remote electronic voting) via the iVote[35],[36] with accessibility features such as Braille, text-to-speech, and Auslan videos.[37] All materials are available in multiple formats, including Easy Read and audio. The lessons learnt for Vietnam are to standardize election materials in accessible formats, to diversify voting methods, and to pilot postal or secure digital voting for persons with disabilities in remote areas or with severe mobility limitations.[38]
Support for candidacy of persons with disabilities: The United States,[39],[40] Australia,[41] and Kenya[42] offer small grants to cover disability-related costs (such as sign language interpretation) for candidates with disabilities to have equal opportunities to run for office and include their voices in political processes. The lesson learnt for Vietnam is to consider waiving candidate registration fees for persons with disabilities, providing campaign communication support, and offering diversity incentive funds to local councils. Public campaigns should actively encourage candidacy of persons with disabilities.[43]
Capacity building for candidates and election officials: Australia mandates regular training for election staff on accessibility and inclusive attitudes, paired with public awareness campaigns led by OPDs.[44] The Croatian election law mandates that the National Election Committee conduct training for election officials on assisting voters with disabilities.[45] In Vietnam, UNDP and the Vietnam Federation on Disability (VFD) launched a 2023-25 political training program for 92 trainees with disabilities from diverse provinces. Forty-five participants have committed to running in 2026 and will receive continued training to complete nomination procedures.[46] The lesson learned for Vietnam is to institutionalize training for election officials, scale up political training for persons with disabilities, and strengthen civil society’s role in monitoring inclusive elections.
Data collection and monitoring: After each election in Australia, the Electoral Commission surveys voters with disabilities on accessibility and satisfaction, publishing disaggregated data by gender, ethnicity, and type of disability.[47] Similarly, The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), in partnership with Rutgers University, regularly surveys voting experience of persons with disabilities after general elections to guide improvements in election administration.[48] The lesson learned for Vietnam is to establish mechanisms for collecting and publishing disaggregated data on political participation of persons with disabilities to inform policy and monitor CRPD compliance.[49]
Overall implication for Vietnam: The most successful approaches combine binding legal guarantees, structural accommodations, active candidate support, public engagement, and continuous monitoring. For Vietnam, it is crucial to address the predicament of health conditions and qualifications criteria to facilitate potential candidates with disabilities to stand for the 2026 elections.
Conclusions and recommendations
Ensuring the equal political participation of persons with disabilities is both a constitutional obligation under Article 28 of the 2013 Constitution and a binding commitment under the CRPD. It is also central to achieving SDG 16 on inclusive, effective and accountable institutions. The 2026 national elections present a critical opportunity for Vietnam to translate these commitments into action.
First, legal and procedural reforms are required. The Government should remove indirect barriers, such as the “adequate health” criterion, and explicitly prohibit discrimination against candidates with disabilities. Accessibility standards must be mandated for all electoral stages - venues, materials, and procedures - while alternative voting methods, including postal and secure digital options, should be piloted to expand participation for those in remote areas.
Second, enabling measures must be introduced. Candidate registration fees should be waived or reduced and tailored communication and campaign support provided. Political training programs for aspiring candidates with disabilities should be scaled up, drawing on the UNDP-VFD model, while election officials should receive mandatory training on disability rights and accessible election management.
Third, systemic change is needed. A national awareness campaign should highlight the political leadership of persons with disabilities to reduce stigma. Disaggregated data on political participation must be systematically collected, and an inter-sectoral coordination mechanism linking electoral, social protection and legal bodies established to safeguard rights.
The NA has a decisive role: legislating to remove discriminatory provisions, mandating accessibility, overseeing implementation, and championing inclusive representation. Doing so will not only strengthen democracy but also affirm Vietnam’s commitment to valuing the voices and rights of all citizens.-
[1] This article is commissioned by Dao Thu Huong, Disability Inclusion Officer, UNDP in Vietnam. She can be reached at dao.thu.huong@undp.org.
[2] Vu, C. G., & Trinh, T. T. M. (2025). The rights of persons with disabilities in international human rights treaties. The Journal on Law and Development. P.116.
[3] Nguyen, M. C., & Dao, T. H. (2025). Ensuring the electoral rights of persons with disabilities in Vietnam: An analysis of structural barriers and social biases in the electoral process. The Journal of Law and Development. P.99.
[4] General Statistics Office of Vietnam. (2019, March). Data and statistical figures. https://www.gso.gov.vn/du-lieu-va-so-lieu-thong-ke/2019/03/__trashed-4/
[5] UNDP) in Vietnam and IDEA. (2025). Stakeholders’ perspectives on the participation of persons with disabilities in elected bodies. Policy Discussion Papers on Governance and Participation. P.8.
[6] Dân Việt. (2021, July 27). The National Assembly includes four deputies who are invalids and 17 deputies who are children of martyrs [News article]. Dân Việt. Retrieved from https://danviet.vn/quoc-hoi-co-4-dai-bieu-la-thuong-binh-17-dai-bieu-la-con-liet-si-2021072708443599-d823822.html.
[7] See Nguyen, M. C., & Dao, T. H., op. cit.
[8] Vu, T. T. Q. (2025). Ensuring the rights to vote and to stand for election of persons with disabilities in Australia and reference values for Vietnam. The Journal of Law and Development. P.165.
[9] National Election Council. (2021). Summary report on the election of the 15th National Assembly and People’s Councils at all levels for the 2021-26 term.
[10] See UNDP in Vietnam and IDEA, op. cit. P.29.
[11] Article 22.2 of the Law on Organization of the National Assembly, 2014.
[12] UNDP in Vietnam. (2021). Rapid assessment of willingness of persons with disabilities to run for the National Assembly and People’s Councils at all levels. https://www.undp.org/vietnam/publications/willingness-of-persons-with-disabilities-to-stand-for-election.
[13] Decision 1266/QD-BYT of 2020 on health classification standards for officials and the health examination form for officials. https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/The-thao-Y-te/Quyet-dinh-1266-QD-BYT-2020-tieu-chuan-phan-loai-suc-khoe-can-bo-Mau-phieu-kham-suc-khoe-can-bo-437950.aspx.
[14] Circular 01/2019/TT-BLDTBXH on the assessment of disability severity conducted by the Disability Determination Council. https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/The-thao-Y-te/Thong-tu-01-2019-TT-BLDTBXH-xac-dinh-muc-do-khuyet-tat-do-Hoi-dong-thuc-hien-325488.
[15] See UNDP in Vietnam and IDEA, op. cit.
[16] National Assembly Standing Committee. (2021). Resolution 1185/NQ-UBTVQH14: Expected quantity, structure, and composition of deputies to the 15th National Assembly. National Assembly Office. https://datafiles.chinhphu.vn/cpp/files/vbpq/2021/02/1185.signed.pdf.
[17] See Nguyen, A. D., op. cit.
[18] See UNDP in Vietnam and IDEA, op. cit.
[19] See Nguyen, A. D., op. cit.
[20] See Vu, T. T. Q., op. cit.
[21] See Vu, T. T. Q., op. cit.
[22] See Vu, T. T. Q., op. cit.
[23] See Nguyen, M. C., & Dao, T. H., op. cit.
[24] See UNDP in Vietnam and IDEA, op. cit.
[25] Nguyen, N. L. (2025). Removing barriers for political participation of persons with disabilities. The Journal on Law and Development.
[26] See UNDP in Vietnam and IDEA, op. cit.
[27] See UNDP in Vietnam (2021), op. cit.
[28] See UNDP in Vietnam (2021), op. cit.
[29] MDRI, and UNDP in Vietnam. (2024). Annual assessment of disability inclusion in local governance in 2024. Policy Discussion Papers on Governance and Participation.
[30] See UNDP in Vietnam and IDEA, op. cit.
[31] See UNDP in Vietnam (2021), op. cit.
[32] Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 24, 29.
[33] Westminster Foundation for Democracy. (2020). The state of political inclusion of persons with disability within political parties in Kenya.
[34] OHCHR. (2020). Human rights indicators on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.ohchr.org/en/disabilities/sdg-crpd-resource-package.
[35] Nguyen, T. H. (2023). Forms of support for persons with disabilities to participate in elections in Vietnam - An evaluation from practice. Journal of Democracy and Law, 10, 55-61.
[36] Simply Voting. (2025, July 7). Countries and U.S. states using online voting. Simply Voting. https://www.simplyvoting.com/countries-and-us-states-using-online-voting.
[37] NSW Electoral Commission. iVote: A guide to voting remotely. https://elections.nsw.gov.au/Voting/iVote.
[38] See Vu. T. T. Q., op. cit.
[39] Abrams, A. (2019, June 11). People with disabilities face challenges campaigning for office. This group wants to change that. Time. https://time.com/5604185/disabled-candidates-training/.
[40] American Association of People with Disabilities. (n.d.). REV UP (Register, Educate, Vote, Use Your Power!). Retrieved 06 Sep 2025, from https://www.aapd.com/2025-rev-up-small-grants/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[41] NSW Electoral Commission.
[42] Demo Finland. (n.d.). Kenya. Political Parties of Finland for Democracy - Demo Finland. Retrieved September 9, 2025, from https://demofinland.org/en/our-work/kenya/.
[43] See Vu, T. T. Q., op. cit.
[44] See NSW Electoral Commission, op. cit.
[45] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). Training of election authorities and officials required by law. FRA. https://fra.europa.eu/hr/content/training-election-authorities-and-officials-required-law.
[46] See Nguyen, M. C., & Dao, T. H., op. cit.
[47] See NSW Electoral Commission, op. cit.
[48] U.S. Election Assistance Commission. (n.d.). Voting Accessibility. U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Retrieved 06 Sep 2025, from https://www.eac.gov/voting-accessibility.
[49] See Vu, T. T. Q., op. cit.
