Editorial
'Final report' doesn't signal end to political donation scandal
A final report on a political donation scandal that the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) entrusted to a third-party committee levels a significant portion of criticism at public prosecutors and the media, while concluding that the party's response was a "failure in crisis management." As might have been expected, its content appears to pay consideration to former DPJ leader Ichiro Ozawa.
It is true that various debates have arisen over investigations into the scandal involving general contractor Nishimatsu Construction Co. But the essence of strong public criticism incurred by Ozawa is the fact that that he received a huge amount of donations from a dummy political group while failing to offer a convincing explanation. One can't help feeling there is something wrong with a report that emphatically criticizes public prosecutors and the media.
The third party committee, comprising scholars and other experts, was formed while the focus of attention remained on the issue of Ozawa's resignation. The line that stood out in the report was criticism of public prosecutors. The report said there were "doubts over many points" in the investigation that resulted in a case being formed against Ozawa's secretary. However, the facts concerning accusations that Ozawa's secretary violated the political funds control law, and the rights and wrongs of the case, should be judged in a judicial setting. Can the third party committee say its debate is neutral when raising questions over the very formation of a case?
Another point that cannot be ignored is the report's statement that "the justice minister had the option of invoking his authority out of a high level of political consideration." This is a line of reasoning that could actually promote arbitrary investigations, and lacks appropriateness.
Commenting on prosecutors' investigation, the report raised misgivings over fairness regarding the treatment of a lawmaker from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. On this point we also repeatedly request that prosecution authorities thoroughly carry out investigations, regardless of whether they involve the ruling or opposition parties. But in Ozawa's case, there remains a major problem in the fact that the then leader of the opposition party looking for a change of government received a large amount of donations but did not fulfill his responsibility to explain the issue, saying he would "not delve into" the details.
Even from within the DPJ there have been calls urging Ozawa to clearly explain how the donations were used. The third-party committee said that it would have been better for Ozawa to have made a more proactive appeal to the media, but it is hard to say there was any explanation that ventured into the questioning of Ozawa.
Commenting on news coverage, the report criticized NHK and the Sankei Shimbun newspaper in particular, saying that they were relying entirely on information from public prosecutors. Naturally the media should carefully back up reports, but it is clearly going too far to claim a "murky relationship between authorities and media organizations" as the background of the series of reports on the incident.
In light of the scandal, the DPJ agreed to step up regulations to implement a total ban on donations from firms and groups in three years' time. This deserves merit. But to sum up the case as a crisis management failure in which Ozawa as an individual politician was not separated from his position as leader of a political party, is to trivialize the issue. The DPJ's approach to its explanation of the Ozawa issue is a hurdle that it must clear. The curtains of the issue cannot be drawn yet.
(Mainichi Japan) June 12, 2009