Vietnam - new impressions

Few countries have grown so rapidly as Vietnam has in the last two decades - the average economic growth rate has been over 8 % per annum. Fewer countries have faced down not one but three dominant powers of the day, in war - China, France and US- and emerged triumphant. Yet in my visit over the past two weeks, I found an undercurrent of anxiety in the mood of the country reflected in its leadership and in the media. It was vague and unformed and very rarely explicitly discussed but to me it was an ever present ghost at the party. The very success of the country seemed to leave many puzzled and sometime confused as if the success had come too easily and the future seemed undefined when there seemed no more mountains left to climb.

I had first come to Vietnam over 20 years, lived here for over 8 years during the nineties and was now returning after an absence of five years. It was a completely different world that I encountered. Streets were filled with the latest model of cars, there were gleaming shopping malls everywhere, restaurants were packed not with expatriates but locals. There were signs of prosperity everywhere with multi storied buildings and five star hotels coming up at every corner of the two cities I visited- Hanoi and HCMC. When I first came here twenty years ago, there were no taxis, no hotels and certainly no cars on the streets. Perhaps all that provided me some perspective and some ability to decipher the vague issues that existed but were left undiscussed.

The dominant ones were- the feeling of rapid development without values. It recalled for me the dilemna that Gandhiji had illuminated over a half a century ago: that there could be no " politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice." And that every nation must enshrine some core values in their national life and character. The passionate nationalism of the past few decades had yet to find a new definition in the new era of economic development.

All recent politics and policies seemed without a clear vision. Where was the country headed? Did they want to be another China, Korea or did they want to emulate the US? What were the choices and which ones did the leadership seek? What were the trade offs that needed to be made and could the country get by without calling for any sacrifice from their citizens? The absence of clarity of vision underlay an anxiety about the future that their present prosperity belied.

While the future vision was blurred, the path to advancement required choices that few in leadership seemed to relish making. Thus the recognition that the system needed much greater efficiency in governance was matched by an equal reluctance to tackle the "culture of entitlement" in the bureaucracy. Administration grew in size even as there was increased recognition that the civil services were the key constraints to change and any growth.

Agressive organizational changes were designed and implemented but unmatched by any effort to bring in new blood. So the organizational blocks became ever more complicated, helped along by international donors and consultants, yet the chairs were still occupied by the old guard, the very ones whose whose lack of expertise and initiative had created the problems in the first place. The young were reluctant to enter public service except for the careerists but the government was reluctant to trust the open market system for its recruitment of the talent it sorely needed for the new challenges that lay ahead.

There was a desire to grow globally and become a global player, yet an extreme reluctance to permit open competititon of any kind in the system, except under very controlled circumstances and except for the low level business retail efforts. There was a growing facade of competitive frameworks but without development of the key ingredients- meaningful competitors functioning under an independent regulatory system.

Despite the almost universal education the country enjoyed and relatively open access to internet and TV, there was still a degree of insularity that seemed to persist. There were few attempts to inculcate public service - domestically or overseas- as the intelligensia still struggled with the fact that they were "developed" but still felt "developing".

There were signs of enthusiastic consumption everywhere- but with the older generation that had lived through the war, there was only cautious hedonism, while the younger generation pursued pleasure and money in a Gekko like greed with the creed that " money was good".

Many had, however, started to recognize that Armani and Dunhill shops in hotel arcades and ever growing new shopping malls- however unoccupied they may be- were really not an accurate measure of the country's growth or development. The issue that bedevilled them was what should be a truer measure of their forward progress. Should it be the US constitutional guarantee of " right to happiness" for all its citizens or should it be the European quest for universal equality? Should they set their sights on the Indian version of democracy and secular governance or the Chinese version of a modern day " big brother" government ? How should the transition from the authoritarian leadership to a greater measure of local democracy take place? Was the national parliament an adequate measure of popular participation in public life?

These were all questions that will need to be answered as Vietnam moves forward-- as it surely will. And their answers will be of immense interest to the world and not the least to me as well. That Vietnam will emerge from its latest travails triumphant, I have no doubt. What I am really curious about is the path they will finally take.