One of the most notable points in the closing remarks of the second Party Central Committee meeting on March 25, 2026, delivered by Party General Secretary To Lam, is the way the issue of a two-tier local government model was framed.

What stands out is not merely the restructuring of administrative units or the streamlining of organizational layers, but a deeper requirement: the transformation of how local governance itself operates. The General Secretary made it clear that this is “not just a new administrative model,” but a “new method of local governance.” With that distinction, the scope of reform is elevated - from structural adjustment to governance reform.

This distinction is critical. Organizational structures are visible, but governance determines how those structures function, whom they serve, and what outcomes they produce. A system can appear leaner on paper, yet if processes remain unchanged, decentralization is unclear, data systems are fragmented, accountability is vague, and service delivery does not improve, the impact of reform will remain limited.

The message is clear: reducing intermediate layers and merging units is not enough. Reform must go further - redesigning workflows, strengthening decentralization and delegation, standardizing data systems, clarifying responsibilities, and shifting from administrative control to a service-oriented, development-driven approach.

In essence, the directive moves beyond the question of how many administrative levels exist, to a more fundamental one: what governing philosophy should guide the system? The answer is equally clear - governance must serve people and businesses more effectively, allocate resources more rationally, leverage technology and data more efficiently, and establish clearer accountability.

A reform of governance, not just organization

By defining the two-tier local government model as a governance reform, the leadership has also clarified how success should be measured. It cannot be judged solely by the number of units reduced or staff streamlined.

Instead, success must be reflected in tangible outcomes: better service quality, faster administrative processes, smoother coordination, and greater convenience experienced by citizens and businesses in everyday life.

This represents a modern understanding of governance. True reform is not about making an organizational chart more compact, but about delivering better results for society. It is only meaningful when people face fewer bureaucratic obstacles, procedures are handled more quickly, and public officials serve more effectively.

Placing citizen and business satisfaction as the ultimate benchmark underscores this shift. Administrative reform is not an end in itself - it is a means to improve lives and strengthen local development capacity.

Strategic provinces, operational communes

Another key directive highlights a clear division of roles: provincial authorities must focus on strategy, while commune-level authorities must focus on execution.

At the provincial level, responsibilities should center on planning, strategic direction, large-scale investment, resource coordination, risk management, and oversight. Provinces should not be burdened with routine administrative tasks that can be handled at lower levels.

Conversely, communes must be empowered with sufficient resources to address issues directly affecting residents and businesses in their daily lives.

This reflects a fundamental principle of modern governance. Provinces act as the “strategic brain,” while communes become the “execution hubs” closest to the people.

If provinces remain entangled in operational details and communes lack real authority, the system will remain inefficient regardless of structural adjustments. But when each level is aligned with its proper role, the system becomes both coherent and responsive.

Decentralization must come with resources and accountability

A notable strength of this directive lies in its pragmatic approach to decentralization. It is not treated as a slogan, but as a structured process that must be accompanied by resources, capacity-building, and effective oversight.

Authority cannot be transferred without corresponding mechanisms, staffing, budgets, data systems, and digital infrastructure. Nor can responsibilities increase without strengthening institutional capacity.

The principle is clear: authority must be matched with resources; decentralization must be accompanied by oversight; and delegation must go hand in hand with accountability.

This reflects a mature governance mindset. Many reforms falter not because their goals are flawed, but because authority, resources, personnel, and tools are not aligned. Without these elements working together, decentralization risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

Flexibility over uniformity

Another important aspect of the directive is its emphasis on flexibility and practical adaptation. A single model cannot be applied uniformly across all localities, given differences in population size, geography, urban-rural dynamics, and levels of socio-economic development.

Rigid implementation risks creating new inefficiencies at the grassroots level, undermining the very goal of streamlining.

Effective governance requires a balance between unified principles and local adaptability. Central authorities set the framework and maintain discipline, while local governments retain the flexibility to tailor implementation to their specific conditions.

This balance is essential for reform to be both consistent and responsive.

People and businesses as the ultimate measure

At the heart of this governance shift lies a clear and powerful benchmark: the satisfaction of citizens and businesses.

Reform must be reflected in concrete outcomes - fewer administrative burdens, faster processing through digital transformation, improved service attitudes among officials, and the ability of local authorities to resolve issues directly at the grassroots level.

By placing people and businesses at the center, the system is compelled to evolve toward greater efficiency, transparency, and service orientation.

Ultimately, what is being proposed is not merely a reorganization of local government structures, but a transformation in how local systems operate, serve, and drive development. It is a shift from organizational thinking to governance thinking; from reducing layers to ensuring seamless operation; from exercising authority to enabling development.

If implemented effectively, the two-tier local government model will not only streamline the system but also modernize governance, enhance efficiency, and bring administration closer to the people.

And in doing so, institutional reform will translate into a stronger foundation for national development.

Nguyen Si Dung