How Is the Japanese Constitution Still an Issue in Contemporary Japan - Essay Example

Japanese Culture How is the Japanese constitution still an issue in contemporary Japan, and howhas it played a role in recent developments of contemporary Japanese culture? The Japanese constitution is believed to have some very serious translation errors; yes, rendition errors are part of this constitution since its origin. Article 9 of this Constitution relinquishes war or forbids the traditional warfare in Japan. Article 9 says. “Japanese people desire to renounce war and refer to international peace as a system of order and justice. They consider it an autonomous national right of the people of Japan and also abandon use of force as a means of settling international disagreements.” In order to come in compliance with this rule, sea, land, and air forces as well as other war related forces will never be sustained. The supreme right of bellicosity of the state will never be documented. (Wallace, 2011) The Japanese version and English version of Japanese Constitution differs to such an extent that most people are unable to comprehend that these two are just a translation of one another! As we all know that Americans wrote the Constitution of Japan after World War II, weight of English version should be more than Japanese one but Japanese version is considered as the original, source document and what is written in it matters most to the Japanese than English one. The Constitution of Japan was written by U.S Occupation Authority and MacArthur in the wake of World War II. And then it was converted into Japanese. The Constitution bears keen interest among Japanese linguists and translators as it looks peculiar when translated into Japanese. (Wallace, 2011) The Constitution sounds very aberrant in Japanese, as if it wasn’t meant for this language. It looks very unnatural and peculiar. In English, the later paragraph says, “sea, land, and air forces as well as other war related forces will never be sustained”. However, the Japanese take it differently; instead of ‘will never be sustained’, they say ‘will not be sustained’ or ‘shall not be sustained’. The Japanese have not used the word “never” anywhere in the text. Neither had they expressed it in a written form or implied it anywhere. During the course of time, English version had become the accepted one and Japanese one had been rejected. Strategists and scholars outside of Japan rely on the English version when considering Japanese policy and politics. (Wallace, 2011) The English version is found in modern Japanese politics and history, in college textbooks, in media reports, and is used as a model for all other countries of the world in relation to pacifistic propensities and anti-war strategies. Bilingual experts have seen the dispute between the Japanese version and English version long ago. But, until recently it wasn’t seen that a modification to Japanese constitution was likely to take place, so this impediment of translation was not given a second thought. Now, if the Japanese alter their Constitution or not, it does not genuinely matter as Article 9 doesn’t say anything permanent. (Language Realm) This translation error in the Constitution does imply to the fact that Japan has one of the best equipped and third biggest military in the entire world. Japan uses its self defense forces in military action. This is a clear contradiction to its Article 9 of the Constitution as of the English version of the Constitution. The translation issue is regarded as less important due to the truth that Japan is keeping fast breeder reactors and is likely to become a nuclear country within twelve months of actually deciding to be one. But, this is reality is also important that the words in Japanese Constitution are not only taken gravely by people around the globe, but by Japanese themselves as well. (Language Realm) In 2009, an annual poll conducted by Yomiuri on revising the Constitution of Japan once again found out that a clear majority-51.6 is in favor of the revision. The result of this poll was 9% more in favor than that of 2008. This clearly indicates that even in today’s contemporary Japan, people are not yet satisfied with the way their Constitution is formulated. Of all the people who support revision, 49% of them believe that the current constitution of Japan is a threat to potential challenges and does not take into account new and potential dangers. When asked specifically about Article 9, 38% of respondents answered against it; they said that there is no limit now for interpreting or manipulating Article 9 and either it should be revised or eradicated from the Constitution. However, 33% said that there is still some space for manipulation and explanation of Article 9, and 21% strongly condemn the idea of exploiting Article 9. (Harris, 2009) Yomiuri also investigated about revision that might make the Diet unicameral. Twenty eight percent people supported merger of the two houses while thirty nine supported keeping the upper house and adjusting the powers and roles of the two houses. In Japan, the power of bureaucracy is obtained from the cabinet and giving power back to the cabinet. This is a unanimously accepted fact used as the key to handle Japanese institutions- it depends not only on revising the Constitution of Japan but enforcing what the Constitution really says. (Harris, 2009) In the 2011 version of Asahi Shimbun, an ongoing survey is been conducted on revision of the Constitution. The recent natural disasters have affected people’s answers to a large extent but results are capable of commenting. People of Japan have voted for a non-American Constitution and that an amendment should be made for its ratification. Present day Japan wish to free itself from the penitentiary of Article 9 and wants to “reestablish its sovereignty”. Japan wants to establish as a nationalist economy and wants a political reform for its people. A new political and economic structure is what the need of time is and so changes in Constitution are required. (Shimbun, 2011) In my opinion, Article 9 is not only a buffer against the militarism but it is also against visionary thinking and foggy strategies on the security of Japan. It is highly possible that if an amendment has to be brought in Article 9, it should be changed in a way that it does not go along with the mainstream expectations of the analysts relied on the factors of “realism”, “pacifism” or “conservatism”. Japanese are concerned about he discrepancy of votes between different voters in different regions of Japan. (Teslik, 2006) It can be predicted from all our findings that the Constitution of Japan will go through a modification within a period of five years. But some experts do disagree on this conclusion; they say that any unforeseen circumstances can change the ultimate view of Japan. An entrenched ideology, as it is seen, pacifism even though weakening will go through a slow change rather than a rapid one. It is alienated to fast changes in the Constitution. If Constitution has to be altered, American military faces a challenge but if it does not, it is in interests of the Americans. Even today, Japanses dislike the idea of “tumble-and-rough power of international politics.”(Teslik, 2006) References Wallace, Corey. Article 9: Japan Security Watch. New Pacific Institute. May 3, 2011 [ONLINE] Available at: http://newpacificinstitute.org/jsw/?attachment_id=5985 Translation Error in Japan’s Constitution. Language Realm. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.languagerealm.com/japanese/translation_error_japan_constitution.php Harris, Tobias. Revision of Japan’s Constitution back on the agenda. East Asia Forum, Economics, Politics, and Public Policy in East Asia and Europe. 2009. [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/04/04/revision-of-japans-constitution-back-on-the-agenda/ Teslik, H. Lee. Japan and its military: Japan. Council on Foreign Relations. 2006 [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.cfr.org/japan/japan-its-military/p10439 Read More