Politics of Japans Constitutional Reform - Essay Example

Politics of Japan's Constitutional Reform Last November 2005 marked the 15th anniversary of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which is considered as the most powerful institution in postwar Japanese politics. The LDP marked the occasion the released of a detailed proposal for revising Japan's constitution. Even though constitutional revision has been a formal floorboard of the LDP platform since its establishment in 1955, and even if the party committees have generated recommendations for changing the constitution over the years, the LDP has never offered before the Japanese public an amendment proposal with full party backing. Meanwhile the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the leading opposition party, is also developing a constitutional revision proposal. While one considers that the postwar constitution has never been amended, the historical significance of these developments is inevitable. This progress among the country's leading parties comes from the fact of nearly a decade of public opinion surveys which shows that majority of the citizens of Japan are in favor in changing their constitution. Taking into consideration these recent developments, Watanabe Osamu, a Hitotsubashi University professor who closely follows constitutional politics, declares: "Constitutional revision has now been placed on the political calendar for the first time in the postwar era."1 Although the contemporary revision debate includes controversial issues such as the role of the emperor, the reorganization of local government, the separation of powers, and the basic rights of citizens, one passage in particular continues to cast a shadow over the entire enterprise: Article Nine, the famous "peace clause" renouncing the possession and use of force for settling international disputes which for the longest time had been the primary target of revisionist fervor. Article Nine was at the center of the first serious revision debate in the 1950s and controversies arising from its treatment helped to stir up the contemporary revision movement in the 1990s. There are numerous reasons why many constitutional reformists have long sought to change Article Nine. For some, it serves as an obstruction to the recognition of the nation's sovereignty. This idea comes from the fact that the postwar constitution was drafted under the U.S. occupation, and Article Nine, whatever its accurate origins are, was one of the three nonnegotiable demands by General Douglas Macarthur imposed on the Japanese after the wars. Thus, it is not a surprise that reformists frequently qualify Article Nine as an adjective of "U.S.-imposed." While for others on the other hand, the peace clause is a hindrance to national muscularity. As stated in the article, elucidations of the article's sweeping language have placed limitations on Japan's military and its capability to use force in foreign affairs. Every now and then these constraints have complicated Japan's relationship with its lone coalition partner, the United States, as well as efforts to increase Japanese influence in the United Nations. Lastly, there are some who favor revision because they see Article Nine as a barrier to the honesty of the nation as a whole. Following major reinterpretations in the early 1950s, Article Nine has been continuously parsed in ways both large and small as the domestic and international political landscapes have shifted. Consequently, it may be argued, Japanese security policy no longer mirrors a stern interpretation of the peace clause, and the constitution should thus be brought into line with reality. These arguments are not new. In fact, reformists have advanced various versions since the 1950s which raises two important questions. First, why has Article Nine survived so long without amendment Second, why has the Article Nine issue returned to the political agenda with such force in recent years Interpretation of Article Nine Article Nine is a political manifesto that serves as a declaration of general principle confining state action. In this sense, it is similar to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution-only, instead of limiting state power vis--vis the citizenry, it curtails state power vis--vis other countries by specifying the orientation of the Japanese state in world affairs. Though the language seems unequivocal, the precise boundaries of this principle have been the subject of continuing debate, beginning with the article's very origins. One widely accepted view traces its origins to General Douglas MacArthur and his staff in the Government Section (GS) of the General Headquarters of the U.S. occupation forces (McNelly 1987: 79-80). A second view however holds that the concept and perhaps even the text itself suggested to the general by Prime Minister Shidehara Kij-ur-o during a meeting in January 1946. Article Nine states that: "Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized." Thus, as stated in Article Nine, a problem therefore emerged in establishing original objective of the Article. Following the original internal disagreements, Macarthur and the GS officers accountable for drafting Article Nine reached a common understanding regarding the principle it preserved: nonaggression2. In other words, aggressive war and the possession of armaments for that specific purpose were abandoned, but Japan however, retained the right to possess and exercise military capabilities necessary to preserve its existence as a sovereign nation.3 Consequently, prospective war could only be maintained for both self-defense and collective self-defense requirements. Nevertheless, Shidehara's understanding of the principle held that the content instructed a principle of state passivity. In the guiding principle terms, Article Nine prohibits participation in any type of war; whether aggressive or defensive, as well as the preservation of whichever form of military capabilities at all. While advocating that Japan hand over its security to international society, Shidehara argued that this principle excluded Japanese partaking in cooperative self-defense arrangements since it expelled the military capabilities required to meet such obligations.4 During the majority of the postwar period, understandings have bounced between these established poles of nonaggression and nonviolence. Article Nine's Survival on the Modern Times With the advancement in the thinking of modern Japanese citizens, can Article Nine survive in this new modern time Current developments give the impression that change is in the works. First and foremost, as stated earlier, reformists are resolutely in control of the LDP. Recent polls conducted prior to the latest Diet elections constantly showed that nearly nine out of ten LDP candidates favored constitutional revision.5 Moreover, a poll of the candidates contesting the 2004 upper house election established that 88% of LDP candidates favored revising Article Nine, while 78% approved that Japan should be allowed to implement the right of collective self-defense.6 Koizumi may perhaps declared that constitutional amendment will not happen during his tenure as prime minister, but he has set his party on an openly reformist route. In 2004, he announced that the LDP would reveal an official constitutional reform proposal in time for the party's fiftieth anniversary last November 2005. In spite of long years of reformist demonstration, the LDP has never united behind a prcised amendment proposal. The abovementioned challenges are both institutional and political. Possibly the most serious impediment is the fact that the governing alliance is divided over the Article Nine question. K-omeit-o strongly supports maintaining Article Nine in its present form. The majority within the party (as expressed in its October 2004 action plan) opposes specific changes to Article Nine's two paragraphs and affirms the government interpretation that Japan cannot use force in collective self-defense.95 Accordingly, K-omeit-o itself is a hotbed of opposition to changing Article Nine. In a 2004 poll of candidates contesting the upper house election, 71% of K-omeit-o candidates overwhelmingly opposed revising Article Nine while 86% opposed the idea that Japan should be able to exercise the right of collective self-defense.7 Conclusion The proposed amendments of Japan's constitution, particularly Article Nine creates a big division on the nation as a whole. Different arguments were raised regarding their opinions on the said amendment. It is however important to note that these amendments plays as significant role in determining both domestic and international future of Japan. Article Nine signifies much more than simply a promise not to use force for the wrong purposes. It is part of the glue that holds international society in East Asia together. It has helped establish trust between Japan and the victims of its past aggression where no trust could otherwise exist. In short, Article Nine has made the region a safer place. Today, with Japanese military power at levels not seen since World War II, the principles set forth in Article Nine may be no more than a fiction. But they are a convenient fiction, accepted by Asians as a necessary fact of life. The constitutional reform movement underway looks set to shatter the illusion of Japanese pacifism. In the long run, perhaps this is for the best, as it will allow Japan to develop into a mature global power embraced by its erstwhile enemies, the "normal country" that Ozawa Ichiro envisions. Until that happens, however, the process of adjusting to life without Article Nine will be a long and painful one for Japan and the rest of East Asia. Constitutional reform is necessary for any nation for that matter since it is essential to be updated and to keep up with the modern times. Rules and laws created during the past years may seem to be unfit nowadays. These guidelines may not work for the advantage of a certain country if they continued to practice it. It is very important to consider what may seem best to work for that specific country at the moment. Leaders should carefully consider the present situation and evaluate if certain rules of law still applies. Japan's Article Nine in particular is deemed to be amended since it does not support the current interests of the whole. In view of the fact that the article was drafted by the Americans for America, is clearly a ground for its revisions. The article caters to the advantage of the United States and not of its people. Hence, retaining the article on its original form can endanger the progress of Japan. It can serve as a threat on the country's national security as well as economic growth. Moreover, the article clearly is a sign of the US' neo-colonialism throughout the world. It serves as an invisible control over Japan's national security and its decision-making strategy towards the said article. Japan has long established itself as one of the most powerful country in the world. Reforms on Article Nine will be a big step for them and will be a measure of the country's advancement in terms of their modern thinking and their gear towards complete independence on making drastic changes for their country. Political figures should set aside their hidden motives and should rather concentrate in formulating effective changes on the constitution. It is important that they should always keep in mind the welfare of their nation, after all, they are there to serve and protect the interests of their citizens and not of anyone else's. Change is the only permanent thing in this world. It is very important for nations in general to be change-adept for them to grow further and move forward as one country. Countless debates on constitutional reforms around the world will not settle the issue but will just aggravate the situation. Leaders should carefully evaluate the changes it will make since it will have a long-term effect on the whole nation. People should learn to adjust to these situations and understand that constitutional reforms, if properly and carefully done, will serve on their best interest. References: Akiyama, M. (March 15, 2000). "A Discussion of Current Security Issues in Japan: Security Guidelines, the Constitution, Legislative Reviews, and the Missile Threat." Retrieved on Jan. 2, 2007 at http://web.mit.edu/SSP/seminars/wed_archives_00spring/akiyama.htm Auer, James E. (1973) The Postwar Rearmament of Japanese Maritime Forces, 1945-71. New York: Praeger. Cazzaniga, P. (November 15, 2005) "Strengthening Japan's military" Asianews.it. Retrieved on Jan. 2, 2007 at http://www.asianews.it/view.phpl=en&art=4715 Chai, Sun-Ki. 1997. "Entrenching the Yoshida Doctrine: Three Techniques for Institutionalization." International Organization 51(3): 389-412. MacArthur, Douglas. (1964) Reminiscences: General of the Army. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nakayama, T. (Sept. 2, 2003) "The Japanese Constitution in the 21st Century" Retrieved on Jan. 1, 2007 at http://ieas.berkeley.edu/events/2003.09.02.html Parisi, L. (November 2002). "Lessons on the Japanese Constitution." Japan Digest. Retrieved on Jan. 2, 2007 at http://www.indiana.edu/japan/Digests/const.html. Richard J. Samuels (March 2004). "Politics, Security Policy, and Japan's Cabinet Legislation Bureau: Who Elected These Guys, Anyway", Japan Policy Research Institute Working Paper 99 Schlichtmann, Klaus. (1995) "The Ethics of Peace: Shidehara Kikujir-o and Article 9 of the Constitution." Japan Forum 7(1): 33-67. _______ (October 28, 2005) Japan charter reform proposed. (Online). Retrieved on Jan. 1, 2007 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4384806.stm _______ (April 7, 2005) "Japan commission backs constitutional reform." Retrieved on Jan. 1, 2007 at http://stygius.typepad.com/stygius/2005/04/japan_commissio.html Read More