POINT OF VIEW/ Yasunori Sone: Manifesto changes should be put to popular vote

The power shifted from a Liberal Democratic Party-led government to the one led by the Democratic Party of Japan in September. This is the first time in the history of Japanese constitutional politics that an opposition party realized a change of regime by winning a single-party majority in a parliamentary election.

The administration of Yukio Hatoyama is moving forward through a process of trial and error. The implementation of policies listed on its electoral manifesto is no exception.

The Congressional Forum for New Japan (21st Century Rincho) has been promoting elections and politics based on manifestoes. The LDP's defeat this time owes largely to its failure to effectively use a manifesto to its advantage. But that is not to say the DPJ's manifesto is perfect. It also has many flaws.

For one thing, since the DPJ was an opposition party, it had little access to government information. As a result, its manifesto lacks numerical and other data. The DPJ should have spent a year or so engaging in debate, soliciting opinions from the public and boiling down the discussion at party conventions to develop the manifesto.

Actually, however, the DPJ released its election manifesto just before the Lower House election campaign officially kicked off. Apparently, the DPJ was afraid that the LDP might copy it if it had publicized its manifesto earlier. But the process of compiling the manifesto somewhat lacked openness and transparency.

Since the DPJ came to power, its manifesto has taken root. However, it is still incomplete and has much room for improvement. Depending on the circumstances, it could be modified.

I can think of three cases for modification. First is a drastic change in social and economic conditions. It is a matter of course for the government to add new measures if the nation is met by a serious economic crisis comparable in magnitude with last year's bankruptcy of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers that sent shockwaves across the world.

Second is the case in which the administration finds out that its proposed policies are based on wrong data or grounds after examining now-accessible government documents. If that is the case, it could release a revised version of the manifesto in time for the Upper House election slated for next summer.

The third case has to do with the implementation of unprecedented policies. When such a new policy is put to practice, it could produce unexpected results. Then, the policy should be re-examined.

Take, for example, the planned abolition of expressway tolls. Only after the policy is implemented will the government know how the measure actually affects traffic volume, road congestion and local economies. The DPJ says in its manifesto that it would implement the policy while conducting "social experiments."

If the policy produces negative results, the government should not hesitate to modify it.

By the same token, if the child allowance program proves to be ineffective and expansion of day-care centers turns out to be more useful in shoring up declining birthrates, the government has the option of reducing the amount of handouts.

While the manifesto lists policies to be implemented in the next four years, it is unreasonable to firmly etch in stone individual policies without exception. The government should make clear the "landing site" targeted by the manifesto as a whole, but it is desirable for the government to flexibly apply individual policies to meet changing circumstances.

When modifying public pledges, the administration must provide a satisfactory explanation. Some key parts of the manifesto must not be changed. Drastic modifications that largely deviate from the targeted landing site are out of the question.

As far as the DPJ's manifesto is concerned, since the party promised to hand out money to the people under its motto, "Putting people's lives first," it must not completely abolish the child allowance program. It must also refrain from raising the consumption tax rate, which it did not spell out in the manifesto.

If the government needs to drastically change policies that overstep the basic framework of the manifesto, it should publish a new one and present it to the public to seek popular will through a Lower House election.

Seiji Maehara, the minister of land, infrastructure, transport and tourism, was criticized for saying he would halt the construction of the Yanba Dam in Gunma Prefecture in accordance with the manifesto. Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada is also exposed to criticism for following the manifesto by reviewing issues related to U.S. bases in Japan, including the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa Prefecture.

The LDP administration was blasted for "breaking public pledges." How things have changed.

Many of the promises that appear in the DPJ's manifesto are policies to "abolish" existing ones adopted by former administrations. No one would happily accept a change of policy that would deprive them of their vested interests. How can the administration win their understanding?

That is a problem unavoidable to the manifesto of the government that has achieved a regime change.

It is meaningless to simply evaluate a manifesto by its coherence and glossy contents. The important thing is to make plans to implement policies listed in the manifesto and check the results so that they may be applied for the preparation of the next manifesto.

I call this the manifesto cycle. We should view manifestoes within this cycle and take a long view in evaluating them.

* * *

The author is a Keio University professor specializing in political science and policy analysis. As an executive adviser to the Congressional Forum for New Japan, he has promoted use of election manifestos.(IHT/Asahi: December 19,2009)