Sign of the Times
Will Japan finally undergo a regime change?
In post-war Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has controlled the reins of government for 54 years -- with the exception of about a year under the Hosokawa and Hata cabinets -- since the Liberal Party and the Japan Democratic Party merged in 1955 to establish the LDP. It all began with the major 1949 victory of Shigeru Yoshida's conservative Democratic Liberal Party in the general election; exactly 60 years have passed since. Of those 60 years, the LDP has had an extremely long 59-year run in the government.
Everything in this world with a beginning must at some point come to an end. It is astounding that the LDP has maintained control of the government for as long as it has, an exceptional phenomenon for a democracy. The combination of a ruling party that expects to be in power as a matter of course and an opposition that does not understand the responsibility of taking the helm of government has provided the basis for this longtime rule, and also shows that the current set-up has reached its breaking point.
As the scandals involving the Social Insurance Agency have demonstrated, it is not easy to continue living up to the heavy responsibility that comes with exercising the potentially wicked force called power. As a general rule, a system that allows for regime change is desirable, both for its purifying the effects and in invigorating new political endeavors. The various democracies around world each have their own shortcomings, but a better system has yet to be discovered.
While it is widely predicted that the Aug. 30 general election will result in a regime change, this is not because of an overwhelming confidence in the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) but rather, largely due to the striking unpopularity of the ruling party. This is not something to be taken lightly. We must break with the precedent of victory that owes itself to the missteps of one's opponent, resulting in a new government more impotent than its predecessor.
There were two dramatic moments of political change in postwar Japanese history: the 1947 birth of the Katayama Cabinet and the birth of the 1993 Hosokawa Cabinet. They both failed within a year, and the public's disillusionment was proportionate to the high expectations that had been held for them. If the DPJ proves to be unsuccessful for the third time, the public is sure to fall into even deeper despair or grow more cynical towards politics.
So what caused the setbacks of the two previous "new governments"?
The Katayama Cabinet came into being with the emergence of the Socialist Party as the leading party in the Lower House after the 1947 general election. Because the Socialist Party was far from forming a single-party majority, however, it formed a coalition government with conservative and centrist parties. As a result, the government was formed on a weak political foundation and had a difficult time maintaining its influence. While Prime Minister Tetsu Katayama was a person of character, having advocated on behalf of disadvantaged members of society as a lawyer, he had had no governing experience, and shied away from political conflicts. Meanwhile, because as an opposition party the Socialist Party had always been busy scrambling to criticize the government, it was inexperienced when it came to administering the government. Faced with the unprecedented challenges of a country devastated by war, the Katayama government was unable to hammer out any effective policies and soon collapsed amid infighting.
The Hosokawa Cabinet was an anti-LDP coalition government of seven or eight parties that included the Socialist Party, which was assembled by several figures including Ichiro Ozawa, who had left the LDP. Having suddenly pushed the leading LDP into the opposition, the Hosokawa government possessed the ingenuity and fragility of sculpted glass. A noble man, Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa enjoyed overwhelming public support but was unskilled in political battles. While he did set a course for his biggest task of political reform, he made the ill-advised proposal for welfare taxes, and after being attacked by the LDP over a petty past personal scandal, all too easily stepped down.
How will the new government that may possibly come into power in September compare to the above-mentioned two?
Firstly, even if the DPJ is to step into the position of the leading party, the government's political footing will differ greatly based on whether or not it has won a single-party majority. In the Upper House, the DPJ is the leading party with just short of a working majority. If the same were to happen in the Lower House, the result will be a fragile coalition government. On the other hand, if it is able to achieve a single-party majority, it will be taking control of government with the public's support.
Public opinion is often thrown into a frenzy over a new government, applauding the new government's efforts to overturn the evil practices of its predecessor. Such initial excitement does not last long, however. A new government's capacity to endure will depend on whether it can appoint strong leaders in strategic ministerial positions, whether it will boldly develop attractive policies, and whether it can effectively present those policies to the public. Policies cannot be successfully implemented if the government continues to look upon the bureaucracy with hostility and keeps it at a safe distance; rather, effective use must be made of bureaucrats of vision. Scandals should not take place in the first place, but as we have seen in the past, governments being driven to collapse as a result of petty issues are also problematic. A party cannot be called a party without the spirit to fight for a broad national strategy, to unite and move forward.
The possibility that the new government will stumble over foreign diplomacy and security is not small. Thoughtlessly riding on a wave of anti-foreign sentiment and criticism of Japan as a blind follower of the U.S. is likely to create problems for Japan's journey through the 21st century. An economic power like Japan with few natural resources cannot carry on without trade, and good relationships with major countries are crucial to its survival. In terms of security, Japan lacks even the capacity to handle the violence of a small country like North Korea on its own. It is vital that Japan continues to acknowledge its alliance with the U.S. while it cultivates its capacity for self-reliance. If Japan makes a unilateral decision to withdraw from refueling missions in the Indian Ocean or revise the bilateral status-of-forces agreement, it will undermine the Japan-U.S. alliance, and we will be forced to relinquish our current way of life -- one in which our livelihood and security are guaranteed through international collaboration.
This year, whether Japanese politics can claim to be a system in which not one, but two political parties with the capacity to take the reins of government compete and alternately exercise their respective strengths will be put to the test. (By Makoto Iokibe, president of the National Defense Academy of Japan)
(Mainichi Japan) August 20, 2009