EDITORIAL: New regime, same Diet

The first day of debate in the Lower House Budget Committee turned out to be intensive deliberations on scandals over the political funds of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and Democratic Party of Japan Secretary-General Ichiro Ozawa.

Sadakazu Tanigaki, president of the opposition Liberal Democratic Party, spent nearly half of his allotted 90 minutes questioning the prime minister on these problems.

Along with two others who followed Tanigaki, the LDP spent a half day demanding answers to the scandals.

Hatoyama explained that he knew nothing about the funds that were provided by his mother and became the source of false donations. Ozawa declared his determination to confront prosecutors head-on.

Public opinion polls conducted by media organizations invariably show the public is generally critical of the situation. All these factors are giving momentum to the LDP's condemnation of the government and ruling party.

It is natural for the opposition to demand a thorough explanation about any suspicions. We also urge the opposition to press harder about political and moral responsibilities.

But is it right for the Diet session to turn into a forum of debate between the government and the opposition exclusively on money scandals?

After a change of government, many subjects must be dealt with and debated in earnest. They include measures to stoke the economy and secure employment, plans to overhaul the social security system, and reviews of foreign and security policies.

We cannot help but feel disappointed at the exchange between Hatoyama and Tanigaki.

In effect, it was the first one-on-one debate between the party leaders in the four months since the government changed hands.

The allotted time was double that of ordinary one-on-one debates. We were expecting to hear a more substantial debate between the leaders of the two major parties.

However, more than half the time was spent on the political fund scandals and the controversial meeting between Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping and Emperor Akihito. The debates on all other issues were insufficient.

The DPJ and the LDP should take the opportunity in the Diet to present to the public, in an easy-to-understand way, their differences in political philosophy and national vision.

Tanigaki should have shown his mettle to further press Hatoyama on these issues, even if he had to spend all four hours allotted to the LDP.

Instead, our concerns became reality: Money scandals hindered policy debate on the first day of full-fledged Diet deliberations.

What we see is the same old picture of the Diet before the regime change, with the ruling and opposition parties switching sides.

The ruling and opposition parties must seriously think about changing the way they run Diet sessions so that they can engage in substantial policy debate and meet the expectations of voters.

One idea is to separate budget deliberations from debate on scandals. The ruling parties must not dodge the opposition's demands to hold intensive deliberations on money scandals and summon concerned parties, including Ozawa, to appear as unsworn witnesses.

Based on that premise, opposition parties should engage in profound debate centering on policy matters during budget deliberations.

Voters chose a change of government in hopes for a renewal of politics. If the ruling coalition uses its majority to railroad bills without full deliberations in the Diet, it would be a betrayal to voters. One-on-one debates between party leaders should also be held every week on specific subjects.

The Diet must part with its old ways.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 22