Despite being a socialist country, the Vietnamese state recognizes twelve religions: Buddhism (Mahayana & Theravada), Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Cao Dai, Hoa Hao, Baha’i, Mennonite, Confucianism, Daoism, animism and spirit cults, and ancestor worship. Buddhism and Catholicism are the two largest world religions practiced in Vietnam, however they are not necessarily the religions practiced by the majority of the Vietnamese people. Kristin Pelzer states, “The core religion of most Vietnamese, from villagers to government officials, is the veneration of ancestors—family, village, local, and national.”[1] Pelzer argues that the majority of Vietnamese, including party officials, venerate their personal (family) and collective (national) ancestors through ceremonies performed in communal halls, temples, and at family altars. Ancestor worship was one of the few religious and ritual practices that the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) remained ambivalent about, as we shall see later on, whereas the CPV set out certain regulations for other religious belief systems.
In 1946, the first constitution of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) presented freedom of religion (tu do tin nguong) as a fundamental right for all Vietnamese. While such an attitude appears liberal, the reality was the state created a much more restrictive atmosphere regarding religious and ritual activities. The most important concern of the state was that religious organizations could provide fertile breeding grounds for anti-state activity. Beginning in the mid-1950s, aggressive state policies were implemented in an attempt to control religious life and eliminate superstitions throughout the northern region. This was possible through the creation of standardized administrative structures throughout northern Vietnam in which members of the Communist Party played a large role in monitoring and controlling society, including the disbanding of certain social organizations.
While socialist thought rejects the belief in the existence of a divine or supernatural entity (-ies) and officially the government opposed religion, Vietnamese officials were concerned with the social consequences of enforcing such a policy. What evolved from this tension between societal beliefs and official policy was the acceptance of ‘legitimate’ religion but the rejection of superstitions (e.g., fate, geomancy, astrology, divination, and spirit mediumship). However, the government remained ambivalent about one key concept of Vietnamese ritual life—the existence of the souls of ancestors. “Reverence for the dead, particularly officially approved heroes, was an important component in the government’s efforts to legitimize its rule, thus the state never asserted that ancestral souls did not exist.”[2] While the line between legitimate religious belief and superstitions was not clearly defined, the state was clear about its right to set and/or amend the definition as necessary.
Aside from disbanding religious and ritual organizations and replacing them with government sanctioned cultural organizations, the state also asserted control over religion and ritual by appropriating land and buildings associated with such practices. The government focused primarily on either confiscating or destroying places associated with ‘superstitious’ ritual practices (e.g., spirit shrines) and the former elite and politically influential local lineages (e.g., village communal halls and lineage halls), whereas places associated with ‘legitimate’ religious practices (e.g., churches and Buddhist temples) were typically left untouched.[3] By the early 1960s the government had succeeded in bringing all aspects of religious and ritual life under their control.
Alongside campaigns to rein in religion and ritual, the government sought to reform life-cycle rituals performed by families. Such life-cycle rituals are performed for weddings, funerals, and death anniversaries. “Although each of these individual rites had its own specific characteristics, they shared the common features of ritual engagement with family ancestors, the conduct of a feast, and the participation of friends, kin, and others.”[4] The revolutionary government objected to several aspects of these rites because they contributed to excess waste of staple foods such as rice and productive working hours were lost due to the timing of many of these rites. Other elements of these rites were regarded as superstitious (e.g., astrological auspicious dates, burning votive paper objects) or feudal (e.g., daughters lying on the ground to delay funeral processions). The government reforms sought to shorten the rites to one day only, preferably to be held at night; smaller feasts; all feudal elements were purged and the rites were to be egalitarian; all elements of the supernatural were to be eliminated. Another means of controlling and/or reforming life-cycle rites was by inserting government officials into the rites themselves; local officials would assume critical roles in weddings and funerals. Malarney states, “The insertion of local officials into these rites, and particularly their assumption of control over the speeches, played a critical role in the realization of the government’s agenda to transform the rites into vehicles for official propaganda.”[5]
The new revolutionary policies toward religion and ritual changed the cultural landscape in northern Vietnam. As the implementation of these revolutionary policies occurred in the north prior to reunification, the southern areas of Vietnam were not affected until much later. However, as Malarney points out, despite this new level of control by the government there were numerous people throughout the country that still resisted the new policies—the state continuously competed with this popular resistance. Many families were creative in their means of resistance—wedding ceremonies did become shorter, simpler, and more egalitarian, however families insisted on “maintaining the propitiation of family ancestors in their rites in order to demonstrate their continued devotion to the ancestors.”[6] Items such as paper votives for burning at funerary rites were outlawed and for the most part disappeared from public life, however secret production and trade within people’s homes allowed usage to continue.
Following reunification in 1975, the government began to implement many of the same cultural reforms in the southern regions of Vietnam. The government was fairly severe in their treatment of religious groups that had opposed the Communists prior—Cao Dai and Hoa Hao being two in particular. Sacred and secular sites under the control of either the Cao Dai or Hoa Hao were seized by the state and many leaders were arrested and placed in detention. One major difference between the implementation of reforms in the north and south was that the government proceeded more slowly and cautiously in the south than had been done in the north. In the south, not only were people resisting religious and ritual reforms but also the establishment of cooperatives—the government was up against a great deal more of resistance on several fronts for them to proceed more rapidly.
In December 1986 the Sixth Party Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam was held in which the government adopted a general policy of renewal or “renovation” (doi moi). Economically, this meant a move away from a centrally planned economy towards a market-oriented model. Socially, this meant a loosening of state controls on religious and ritual practices. While the state would continue to release directives and regulations periodically, “coercion by local officials largely disappeared and a level of freedom to organize rites and conduct religious activities appeared that was previously absent. In this more favorable political climate a resurgence of ritual practice began that continues to this day.”[7] Malarney categorizes this resurgence in two stages, (1) families began organizing large-scale weddings, funerals, and death anniversary ceremonies again and (2) ‘superstitious’ and magical practices re-emerged as local groups began practicing public rites at sacred sites again.
One point that Malarney makes clear is that while the state has relaxed some restrictions on religious and ritual practices, the government has continued to maintain control over the institutional life of organized religions.[8] This is done through the creation of the Office of Religious Affairs, the Fatherland Front, the Buddhist Association of Vietnam, and the Catholic Patriotic Association—all of which are under either state-sponsored or under the control of the CPV. There are a number of ways in which the state has asserted control over these organizations, including government censorship and control over the printing of religious literature, restrictions on the number of seminaries or training schools and the number of students studying in them, the registration of all religious groups, and so on. Through the number of restrictions on these groups it becomes clear that the state still finds organized religion a threat to state power.
[1] Kristin Pelzer, “On Defining ‘Vietnamese Religion’: Reflections on Bruce Matthews’ Article” Buddhist-Christian Studies 12 (1992): 75-79.
[2] Shaun Kingsley Malarney, “Return to the Past? Dynamics of Contemporary Religious and Ritual Transformations,” in Postwar Vietnam: Dynamics of a Transforming Society, Hy Van Luong, ed., pp. 225-256, Singapore: ISEAS; Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, p. 227.
[3] Ibid, 228.
[4] Shaun Kingsley Malarney, “Return to the Past?”, 229.
[5] Ibid, 230.
[6] Ibid, 231.
[7] Ibid, 235.
[8] Ibid, 248.