Japan Notebook: What happened to the DPJ's lofty ideals?

Given the mountain of domestic and international problems that Japan faces, readers must be fed up with all the talk about politics and money. Still, at the risk of readers deserting me, I am devoting my column to this issue.

First, allow me to focus on Kenji Yamaoka, the Diet Affairs Committee chief of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan. He is regarded as being eloquent, smart and elusive.

He refused calls for DPJ Secretary-General Ichiro Ozawa and others involved in a political fund scandal to testify in the Diet as sworn witnesses, saying, "We flatly refuse requests to appear on 'a wide show theater,'" likening the Diet testimony to television gossip shows. "Talk about politics and money has nothing to do with the everyday life of the people," he declared.

As soon as the Liberal Democratic Party stopped boycotting Diet deliberations and agreed to vote in the Lower House on the budget bill for fiscal 2010, Yamaoka, apparently bursting with pride, said, "I let them think it was useless to put up meaningless resistance."

Now, he appears convinced that the DPJ will manage to tide over the situation in the Diet. But Mr. Yamaoka, a word of caution here; In November 2007, you and your colleagues decided by a majority vote without the presence of the ruling parties to summon Fukushiro Nukaga, then finance minister, to testify in the Upper House as a sworn witness to clarify his suspected links with Takemasa Moriya, the former defense vice minister. Moriya was arrested the following day on suspicion of accepting bribes.

Earlier that year, in July, the DPJ scored a landslide victory in the Upper House election.

It is customary for the Diet to unanimously approve decisions to summon witnesses. If that custom is broken, it could lead to autocracy by any party that holds a majority.

As a Cabinet minister, Nukaga repeatedly answered questions in the Diet. The grounds for the suspicions against him were weak. Calling a witness of his caliber to testify could have created a political sideshow aimed at winning over the public. Certainly, that was our impression. In an editorial, we called it an abusive use of the Diet's investigative powers in national politics.

As soon as the editorial was published, Yamaoka telephoned the newspaper to complain. As the director of the editorial board, I dealt with him personally. I recall how he indignantly criticized The Asahi Shimbun. Later, partly because the Japanese Communist Party had engaged in self-criticism over its decision to join the majority vote, the summons for Nukaga's testimony as a sworn witness did not materialize.

Looking back, I miss the way Yamaoka that adamantly insisted that the Diet should first clarify Nukaga's suspicions.

Suspicions about Ozawa

Looking at the situation facing Nukaga at the time with that confronting Ichiro Ozawa today, which politician deserves to be more urgently summoned to testify in the Diet?

In Ozawa's case, three persons, including Tomohiro Ishikawa, a former aide who became a Lower House member, and a state-paid secretary, were arrested and indicted. Ozawa was questioned by prosecutors. But they eventually decided there was insufficient evidence to charge him with wrongdoing.

Given the circumstances, Ozawa should surely be required to testify in the Diet. As Ozawa is not a Cabinet member, he has no opportunity to answer questions in the Diet. That explains public opinion polls, where the bulk of respondents say Ozawa should give his side of the story in the Diet.

Compared with Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who was accused of receiving huge sums of cash from his mother without paying tax on the amounts, there seems to be a lack of balance. At least, Hatoyama, dubbed the "king of tax evasion of the Heisei Era (1989 to present)," cannot avoid being questioned in the Diet day after day. In actual fact, prosecutors regarded Ozawa's actions as more malicious, noting that Hatoyama only received money from his family. In Ozawa's case, the origin of the money remains unclear.

There are also suspicions about the use of government subsidies distributed to political parties. For example, a portion of the subsidies paid to the now-defunct Liberal Party that Ozawa headed allegedly found their way to Ozawa after the party was disbanded. Thus, there are many points that need to be clarified in the Diet.

Lawyer Tsutomu Hotta agreed with my outlook on political shenanigans when I recently met with him. He is a former prosecutor who played a key role in unraveling the Lockheed bribery scandal in the 1970s. Hotta said that as long as prosecutors could not find irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing, they had no choice but to drop charges against Ozawa.

But now that Ozawa has escaped indictment, Hotta says that is all the more reason for him to face questioning in the Diet. That, he says, offers the best opportunity to put various suspicions to rest, identify problems with the current political fund system and improve it.

I want to hear from Ozawa himself about his thoughts on the investigation into his affairs by prosecutors. When Ishikawa and the others were arrested, Ozawa expressed outrage and stated his determination to fight. But once charges against him were dropped, he called it "the result of a fair and just investigation." What did he mean? I urge him to make himself clear on this point, too.

Hatoyama must show his mettle. Last month, he contacted Ozawa by phone and told him they should both make an effort to explain themselves. But Ozawa apparently turned a deaf ear to his entreaty.

The prime minister should grab Ozawa and tell him something along the lines of: Almost every day, I am bearing the brunt of money scandals for both of us. For once, why don't you also stand on the firing line and explain yourself before the Diet?

But Mr. Hatoyama, you have shown that you are incapable of taking a strong stand. It can't be helped that the public thinks you are little more than Ozawa's puppet.

DPJ's 3-pronged problem

Aside from the issues involving the prime minister and Ozawa, another money scandal involving a DPJ member recently came to light. Two individuals were indicted over illegal donations provided by the Hokkaido teachers' union to Lower House member Chiyomi Kobayashi's election campaign. As a result, the DPJ faces a three-pronged problem concerning politics and money. Still, the DPJ leadership has been reluctant to push Kobayashi to take responsibility in the matter. This is apparently because Hatoyama, the president of the party, and his secretary-general have guilty consciences. The DPJ has shown no intention of taking a vote on an opposition-sponsored resolution demanding Ishikawa's resignation. At this rate, the DPJ's political morality will collapse like dominoes.

Incidentally, among Ozawa's supporters is Lower House member Muneo Suzuki, who is appealing a guilty ruling in a bribery case. He has been accused of accepting bribes in return for exerting political influence. He has twice been found guilty and sentenced to a prison term. The DPJ took the amazing step of appointing him chairman of the Lower House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Given Suzuki's legal problems, this appointment casts serious doubts on the DPJ's judgment.

Mr. Hatoyama, when influential members of the LDP were indicted one after another in the Recruit stock-for-favors scandal, you created the Utopia Seiji-kenkyukai, a study group, to tackle political ethics issues. I'm sure you haven't forgotten. It was from there that you started to climb the political ladder.

I also wish to address Naoto Kan, the deputy prime minister. Have you forgotten that you decided to enter politics as a citizen activist determined to fight political corruption when the Lockheed bribery scandal raged?

Real politics is neither utopian nor a grass-roots citizens movement. While Ozawa feigns innocence, all I notice when I look at the DPJ is influence-peddling politics aimed at winning elections. Surely that was not the lofty ideal that you people had in mind when you formed the DPJ, was it?

Apparently, the DPJ wants to tide over the situation by advocating a ban on donations by companies and organizations. But there is no way it will recover public trust with that tactic alone. No doubt many people see through it and believe the party will keep looking for loopholes to justify its existence.

* * *

Yoshibumi Wakamiya is an Asahi Shimbun columnist.