EDITORIAL: Political interference

Although it barely attracted public attention amid the prime minister's sudden resignation and the inauguration of a new Cabinet, the actions of a Lower House member of the Democratic Party of Japan cannot be overlooked.

Megumu Tsuji, who was a DPJ vice secretary-general, called the secretariat of prosecution inquest committees to make inquiries, an act that completely lacks awareness of his position as an executive member of a ruling party.

Tsuji says he only asked for information on general procedures and did nothing that warrants criticism. But the DPJ needs to firmly recognize the gravity of the problem.

The timing of Tsuji's inquiry is dubious.

The inquest committee's deliberations on whether to indict former DPJ Secretary-General Ichiro Ozawa over the falsified reports of his political fund management organization are entering the final phase. And an Upper House election is just around the corner.

Tsuji, a lawmaker close to Ozawa, asked about the terms of the panel members, the procedures for replacing them, and the selection process for lawyers who give legal advice to the panel.

Tsuji's intentions were quite clear. If the committee had responded to Tsuji's inquiries, it could have raised suspicions that it gave in to political influence. It is only natural that the committee's secretariat refused to answer Tsuji's questions.

What distance should be maintained between the judicial branch, including the power to prosecute, and the government and ruling parties? This is a difficult problem that relates to the maturity of a democracy.

It is the duty of the judiciary to pass judgment based on the philosophy of the Constitution and law and evidence free from majority rule.

When such decisions are inconvenient to the administration, the possibility arises for political interference through the use of investigative powers and personnel appointments.

During the administrations of the Liberal Democratic Party, a number of tense situations arose, including criticism against judges for "biased rulings" and the appointment of a justice minister apparently to intervene in the Lockheed bribery trials.

However, under public scrutiny and criticism directed at both politics and the judiciary, the two sides managed to maintain a balanced relationship. The experiences and lessons of the LDP administrations must be passed down even after a change of government.

On his website, Tsuji criticized the power granted to prosecution inquest committees to forcibly indict individuals, saying it would "incite the public to witch-hunting and threaten functions to guarantee human rights."

This is a one-sided view that does not take into consideration the purpose of the legal revision.

However, if that is what Tsuji believes and he wants to arouse debate, that is all the more reason why he should have refrained from interfering in a specific case.

Tsuji's actions follow inappropriate words and behavior of DPJ lawmakers.

People with authority must exercise self-control. They bear a heavy responsibility to use such authority wisely. But it seems DPJ lawmakers have yet to share such awareness.

The confusion over policies was not the only reason behind the drop in public support during the last days of Yukio Hatoyama's Cabinet. There was also widespread skepticism and distrust toward the dubious nature of the party.

Unless all DPJ lawmakers recognize this point and act accordingly, the path toward "regeneration" advocated by the leadership of Prime Minister Naoto Kan and DPJ Secretary-General Yukio Edano will be a difficult one.

--The Asahi Shimbun, June 10