Vote of confidence must be substantive

As planned, the 6th Session of the 14th National Assembly, opening on October 22, will spend a day conducting a vote of confidence for the positions held by the National Assembly. After the Session, at the 9th Conference, the 12th Central Committee will also conduct a mid-term vote of confidence for members of the Politburo and Secretariat.

The mid-term “scoring” of members is an opportunity to see how that trust is demonstrated? What is the responsibility of each person holding a position in the Party, Government and National Assembly? What issues are raised about the monitoring mechanism and implementation of monitoring so that the vote of confidence is always objective and substantive?

Trinh Xuan Thanh also won more than 75% of the votes to be elected as a National Assembly delegate?

Aren't there leaders of party committees and units who were rewarded one day and disciplined the next, but before that, their vote of confidence had a high percentage, unmatched by anyone else?

There are also cases where, based on individual capacity and internal situation, one can foresee how low the confidence vote rate will be, but when it is announced, promoted, and arranged, the person who is voted for into a leadership position, that number is so different from reality that even the person who directly signed the vote cannot understand why it is so.

It is a reality and sadly, it still exists in many places and at many levels. Even though it is not public, the phenomenon of running for confidence votes does exist.

Why does this happen?

It is easy to see that a number of cadres and party members seem to lack the spirit of struggle, self-criticism and criticism. They are indifferent to everything, turn a blind eye, and easily overlook the shortcomings and limitations of the person being voted on for confidence.

Another group deliberately avoids and flatters leaders with beneficial relationships.

So how can we hope to get a truly objective vote?

Furthermore, the abuse of power and the use of positions and authority as a cover to commit wrongdoings have been talked about for a long time, but it has not been controlled.

Therefore, some people, although not qualified, use their power as leaders to put pressure on their subordinates, the Party committees and organizations.

So how can we say that the vote of confidence is truly democratic!

The supervision of organizations, unions, and citizens over people in positions of power and authority seems very clear and easy to implement, but regulations and requirements are one thing. Reality is another.

And the question of what mechanism, how organizations, groups, and people can monitor power and those with power, is still a difficult question.

When power is not monitored, when people with wrongdoings and public opinions are still promoted, when votes of confidence are not measured by effectiveness, when people with positions and powers allow themselves to be above everything, including the law, then votes of confidence have little meaning.

Therefore, when asked "was the vote of confidence truly objective and transparent? Did the people truly trust the substance of the vote and the vote of confidence in the positions?", the answer would be straightforward: not yet?

That is why, after the vote of confidence, only people with integrity move. And that is why, the people expect that those who represent the people need to speak the voice of the people, need to demonstrate honesty, impartiality, and objectivity with their votes.

Only then will the person being “scored” see clearly the responsibility to improve himself, to set an example, to strive. And only then will the people believe that the vote of confidence for the person holding the position elected by the National Assembly is real./.

Dam Hoa