Part 2: The paradox of surplus and shortage in cultural houses

Post-merger, while populations and land areas expanded, physical facilities remained unchanged, leaving many cultural houses unable to accommodate community members. Numerous village assemblies, Party cell gatherings, and mass organization sessions have had to be fractured into multiple clusters and multiple sittings. From serving the modest needs of small hamlets, cultural houses now confront a new dilemma: while physical structures have not decreased, their service capacity fails to keep pace with the scale of consolidated communities.

Straining to shoulder “super-villages”

Following mergers, numerous hamlets and villages have not only experienced surges in household and population counts, but also substantial expansions in residential territory. Newly consolidated units formed from two to three former hamlets, or even five to seven divisions, have transformed into “super-villages” with demographic footprints multiplied many times over. Meanwhile, cultural houses - originally erected to cater to small, localized communities - remain frozen in surface area, seating capacity, and material conditions. This mismatch generates considerable friction for holding assemblies, cultural gatherings, and grassroots communal activities.

In Keo Lôm village, Na Son commune, following the merger of three villages - Keo Lôm 1, Keo Lôm 3, and Xì Cơ - the newly consolidated community encompasses nearly 200 households and roughly 800 residents. Meanwhile, existing cultural houses were built with dimensions and seating capacities calibrated to household volumes when they operated as autonomous entities. For example, the former Keo Lôm 1 cultural house was designed to seat only about 90 people per assembly. Consequently, when repurposed as the focal assembly ground for the new village, the facility falls far short of practical requirements.

Thào A Chếnh, Head of Keo Lôm village, noted that the greatest bottleneck currently lies in convening large-scale meetings and gatherings. With nearly 800 residents, merely gathering household representatives far exceeds the capacity of the old cultural house. If a centralized meeting is organized, attendance can climb into the hundreds, whereas the hall seats only around 90 participants. The village has submitted petitions to the Commune People’s Committee, but a workable solution has yet to materialize.

Notably, the paradox of surplus and shortage can emerge within the very same hamlet or village post-merger. In Tam Vạn hamlet, Sam Mứn commune, the new entity was established by merging Hamlet 3, Hamlet 4, Hamlet 5, and portions of five other hamlets and villages. Prior to the merger, each hamlet counted around 100 households; today, Tam Vạn hamlet comprises 354 households with over 1,000 residents. The demographic scale has grown several-fold, while cultural infrastructure is predominantly inherited from old divisions, resulting in a reality where physical buildings exist, yet not a single space can adequately accommodate the new community.

After unification, the former Hamlet 3 cultural house was designated as the central meeting site, but with a capacity of only about 60 people, it struggles to meet the needs of a community exceeding 1,000 residents. The Hamlet 5 cultural house remains standing, but sits far from the center of the consolidated hamlet and proves inconvenient for gathering residents, leading to its current use as a storage depot. Thus, within a single merged hamlet, one venue exists but is far too cramped, another exists but is poorly located, and an entire quadrant lacks any facility at all.

Bản Tâu in Thanh Nưa commune was formed by merging three villages - Tâu 1, Tâu 2, and Tâu 3 - with 260 households. Before the merger, none of the three possessed a cultural house. Post-merger, the demand for a shared communal venue has grown all the more pressing, yet the problem remains unresolved. Whenever village meetings are convened, residents must gather beneath the stilt-house floorboards of a private residence. Lường Văn Thích, Head of Bản Tâu, stated that with 260 households, organizing large gatherings presents severe challenges without a communal facility. Convening under private home stilts constrains seating and amenities, causing many villagers to miss gatherings.

This reality prevails across most restructured hamlets, villages, and residential quarters throughout the province. According to statistics, the province currently counts 888 hamlets, villages, and residential quarters, of which approximately 700 possess cultural houses or community centers, while 188 completely lack such facilities. Among localities equipped with cultural houses, several structures were erected years ago with cramped footprints and degraded physical amenities, failing to satisfy communal needs. Following mergers, these deficiencies have become stark as aging cultural houses must serve far larger populations.

One policy, two paces of implementation

Insufficient capacity not only prevents full assemblies from gathering, but alters the organization of numerous grassroots operations. In expansive hamlets with dispersed demographics, when a cultural house lacks seating, a single agenda item meant for the entire village must often be divided into multiple sessions across different residential clusters. This approach addresses immediate bottlenecks, yet makes meetings, policy dissemination, and community gatherings far more labor-intensive.

Kê Nênh village, Điện Biên Phủ ward, was formed from Kê Nênh and Nà Nghè, comprising 157 households. Prior to consolidation, each village possessed its own cultural house aligned with its population. Today, the new jurisdiction stretches across 5 to 6km with a larger household tally, while the cultural houses retain their original surface areas and seating capacities. Convening the entire population has become inconvenient, forcing village cadres to organize two separate sessions at the former Kê Nênh and Nà Nghè facilities so residents from both sections can attend.

According to La Văn Phòng, Head of Kê Nênh village, this arrangement ensures meetings continue, yet cadres must expend additional time preparing, organizing, and delivering identical information across two venues. Previously, each village met in its own facility where smaller household numbers made assemblies straightforward. Post-merger, larger populations and wider boundaries mean joint assemblies cannot fit into a single hall, requiring two separate meetings. This increases hardships for cadres and prolongs the implementation timeline for public affairs.

Ta Pô village, Điện Biên Phủ ward, was formed by consolidating 10 hamlets and residential quarters, encompassing 535 households and 2,180 residents. An expansive territory and dense population drive up meeting demands, while facilities remain inherited from predecessor units. The village currently utilizes 4 cultural houses, yet none can accommodate the entire community. Large-scale meetings cannot assemble in a single location and must be divided into separate clusters across the old facilities.

Nguyễn Thị Xuyên, Head of Ta Pô village, stated that difficulties encompass both the limited capacity of each cultural house and the challenge of organizing unified community activities post-merger. Formerly, each small unit operated a facility that met daily needs. Now that 10 units have merged into one, the population is far larger, while each old structure serves only a localized zone. For major assemblies, cadres must divide residents into clusters and conduct multiple sessions, consuming extra time and complicating efforts to build unity across the entire village.

Field observations confirm that following mergers, the gap between redrawn administrative perimeters and communal governance demands ongoing resolution. Cultural houses represent merely one dimension of the challenge. When shared spaces fail to match demographic scales, grassroots cadres must fragment meetings, travel further, and invest more hours conducting outreach and gauging public sentiments. The broader the territory and the denser the population, the greater the expectations placed upon those maintaining a direct presence among the people.

This brings another issue to the fore: streamlining administrative points does not reduce grassroots responsibilities. A village head post-merger may oversee an expanded perimeter, larger household counts, and a diverse demographic mix, elevating the importance of community leadership. Yet during this transitional phase, many localities continue to operate with provisional village heads - individuals shouldering new jurisdictions, expanded workloads, and duties that are far from provisional. This leads directly to the next reality demanding scrutiny: how provisional village heads are navigating entirely transformed village structures.