Vietnamese traffic police [Cảnh Sát Giao Thông, or CSGT] are renowned for their venality. Anyone who drives in Vietnam will have at least one and quite probably dozens of stories of paying a bribe after being stopped for a minor or even non-existent infraction. The fact that the expression phạt tại chỗ, or “fined on the spot,” is part of everyday language illustrates just how widespread the practice is. In recent years, however, the proliferation of mobile phones with cameras has given ordinary Vietnamese a means of contesting this abuse of authority, and embarrassing footage of officers carrying out their “duty” has become a mainstay of print and online media over the past few years. While it may not be corruption, I find this amateur footage of a chase during which a traffic cop shoots two unarmed motorcyclists particularly compelling; before you get too appalled, though, note he was using rubber bullets.

In early August, its officers having been caught in the act one too many times, the CSGT issued a decree making it illegal to film an on-duty officer without first asking permission. Public reaction was immediate and fierce, even if the underlying issue of endemic corruption remained largely coded in the language of “inadequacies” and “negative behavior” (see for example article “What’s the CSGT doing that’s such a big secret?”. Even more interesting, by the end of the month, the Judicial Ministry (sorry if that sounds unwieldy, but it’s the literal translation of Bộ tư pháp, and one which avoids any reference to justice, or công lý) had weighed in to say the decree was unconstitutional. Thanks to this unexpected intervention, Vietnamese today are still free to film officers of the CSGT, whatever duties they may be carrying out.

On one level, this is simply another amusing episode in an epic story of administrative incompetence and corruption. Yet it might also tell us something about where we should locate Vietnam on the spectrum between “rule by law” and “rule of law.”  In a country where “rule by law” prevails, laws are simply a convenient means of governing. This sort of rule can be either principled, where the state drafts laws in the interests of its citizens, or despotic, where the laws simply serve the needs of the state and its officials. In contrast, “rule of law” is one where the state itself serves a prior law, whether of “natural” or historic origin, enshrined in documents like a Bill of Rights or a constitution, or some combination of the above. In this system, neither a branch of government nor its public officials are above the law.

Critics of Vietnam typically see it as a clear example of “rule by law.” But this little episode may show that Vietnam isn’t quite as far to one side of the spectrum as these critics would have it, just as recent revelations about American surveillance programs might raise similar questions about the American government. And at the very least, it shows that we need to be very careful about making generalizations about the Vietnamese state, and instead ask which branch of the Vietnamese state is doing what, where, when and how. Or maybe I’m overanalyzing. Maybe at the end of the day, somebody in the Judicial Ministry just got pissed after paying one too many bribes to traffic cops.