EDITORIAL: Reforming the Diet

The government of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is trying to overhaul the policymaking process by changing the way political tasks are carried out; for example, the development of budgets.

The Diet should also be transformed so that it operates in a radically different way from the era when the Liberal Democratic Party enjoyed an effective monopoly on power. In those days, no opposition party was strong enough to pose a serious challenge to the LDP's perennial grip on rule.

Debate has already begun on how the Diet should operate under a two-party system in which power changes hands regularly. Ichiro Ozawa, secretary-general of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan, is partly responsible for this. He has taken some high-profile steps toward reforming the Diet by omitting his party's questions at the Lower House to the policy speech delivered by the prime minister and seeking advice from a large group of political scientists and opinion leaders dedicated to political reform.

New thinking

We can't welcome rash, haphazard changes without being offered a proper explanation. But we commend efforts to start serious debate on this issue.

During the half century following the end of World War II, the LDP's effective one-party rule produced an established formula for politics based on wheeling and dealing among the Diet affairs arms of the ruling and opposition parties.

This system resulted in the emasculation of the legislative body. It is meaningful to take a fresh and hard look at the reality of the Diet as it operates today.

Let us first listen to what two top DPJ lawmakers have to say about this issue.

Deputy Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who is in charge of the development of national strategies, has proposed what he calls a "Diet Cabinet system."

It is wrong to think the nation's power structure defined by the Constitution is a simple system of checks and balances among the three branches of government, according to Kan.

The majority party that has won a public mandate to govern the nation makes its chief the prime minister, who forms the Cabinet. In other words, the majority party controls both the legislative and administrative branches.

So the Cabinet is an institution that operates within the Diet rather than an independent body that is outside the legislature. Ministries, agencies and other administrative organizations are created under the Cabinet.

Ozawa is also calling for new thinking about the Diet.

As Kan points out, the majority party forms the government. So the government is actually one with the ruling party, Ozawa argues.

Traditionally, the government and the Diet have been regarded as separate and mutually independent sources of power working under a checks-and-balances system. But it would be more accurate to describe the system as designed to pit the government-ruling party combination against the opposition camp.

Debate among politicians needed

The arguments of the two DPJ leaders are motivated by their desire to radically change the approach to policymaking that became entrenched during decades-long rule under the LDP. Their main target is what is often referred to as the "bureaucratic Cabinet system."

For many years, budgets and bills have effectively been drafted by bureaucrats at ministries and agencies.

Under this system, bureaucrats defined national interests and made policy decisions. The ministers did little more than rubber- stamp the policy proposals made by bureaucrats, while the ruling party enacted bills drawn up by them.

But from time to time, the ruling party disagreed with bureaucrats in trying to harmonize conflicting interests of industries and interest groups. Basically, however, the process of policymaking began with bureaucrats and then went through the Cabinet to be finished at the Diet.

Kan and Ozawa are apparently trying to reverse the process to establish a policymaking flow that begins with the Diet and then goes through the Cabinet to reach the bureaucracy.

They seem to think this approach echoes the party's pledge to develop policies under political leadership without depending on bureaucrats.

We understand the general direction of the political reform the DPJ is pushing, even though a detailed blueprint has yet to be worked out.

That's why we want to propose some key guiding principles for debate on this issue.

First, all legislators should be allowed to express their views and opinions freely at the Diet. It would be wrong to create rules forcing ruling party lawmakers to refrain from posing questions to the government or voicing what they think about the government's policies and bills. The priority should be placed on revitalizing debates at the Diet.

Some DPJ heavyweights are urging the large number of the party's first-term lawmakers elected in the Aug. 30 Lower House poll to focus on efforts for re-election, which is their most important task according to these veterans.

This may make political sense for a party seeking to preserve its ruling mandate. But trying to be returned in the next national election must not be the only job of these rookie lawmakers.

Voters cast their ballots for these candidates hoping to see them voice their opinions and get involved in policymaking.

It might be a good idea to revive the system of free discussions among lawmakers that used to be provided for by the Diet law.

The DPJ is also considering a proposal to ban bureaucrats from answering questions at the Diet. But the party should be cautious about adopting this idea. The purpose of the proposed ban could be achieved by other measures, for example, by creating a new system to monitor the bureaucracy within the Diet.

Secondly, a system should be set up to allow flexible revisions to bills based on deliberations at the Diet.

There should be an effective mechanism to prevent the government-ruling party from using its majority to railroad all its bills through the Diet.

Diet should be open all year

Thirdly, regular power transfers mean frequent changes of the ruling party. Such a situation would require a system for fair, bipartisan policymaking to keep the incumbent ruling party from simply laying down rules to its advantage.

The opposition parties at the moment, for their part, should try to make a constructive contribution to policymaking by not focusing only on how to resist proposals from the government.

Many of the rules and conventions concerning the legislative process established during the era of the LDP's rule need to be reviewed for possible changes.

One is the tradition of setting specific timeframes for Diet sessions. The familiar political haggling between the ruling and opposition parties in the days toward the end of a Diet session should end.

It is clearly time for the Diet to take steps toward making the annual regular session one that lasts all year, in principle.

Another convention that should be reconsidered is compelling party members to adhere to the party's decisions.

The DPJ plans to scrap the system of advance screenings of bills by the party before they are submitted to the Diet. The party should also ease its requirement that party members vote for its bills. Members should be allowed to express their opposition to bills freely. That would make it easier for the government and the ruling party to revise proposed legislation.

Since the LDP won an overwhelming majority in the Lower House election four years ago which centered on the single issue of postal privatization, there have been growing concerns about a ruling party with a dominant majority running roughshod over the legislative process.

The most effective antidote to such behavior by the ruling party is undoubtedly the possibility of a power transfer. That means the ruling party's performance should be kept under close public scrutiny. Voters share the responsibility to lay down a new vision of the Diet fit for the new era.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 2(IHT/Asahi: November 3,2009)