Voting Rights for Non-Citizens in Japan
An article published last week in the Yomiuri Shinbun reports that the Democratic Party of Japan is attempting to pass a law that would grant voting rights to foreigners:
With New Komeito also strongly demanding local suffrage for permanent foreign residents, DPJ lawmakers hope in the upcoming Diet session “to split the ruling camp by submitting the bill to the House of Councillors and call on New Komeito to endorse it,” according to one of the sources.
But some conservative lawmakers in the party are determined to block the resubmission.
“Looking at this constitutionally and from the state of the nation, there’s no way we can approve this,” one party conservative said.
The DPJ previously submitted the bill to the House of Representatives on two occasions–in 1998 and 2002–but it was scrapped after failing to pass both times.
New Komeito also submitted to the lower house in 2005 a bill for granting permanent foreign residents voting rights in local elections, and discussions have spilled over into the current Diet session.
The passing of any bill of this nature has been stopped in its tracks mostly due to deep-rooted resistance mainly in the Liberal Democratic Party.
Yoshihiro Kawakami, a DPJ upper house member, plans to call on supporters in the party and establish a league of Diet members aimed at resubmitting the DPJ’s bill.
In the new bill, a “principle of reciprocity” will be introduced, in which local voting rights would only be granted to permanent residents who hold the nationality of a country that allows foreigners to vote in elections.
Would it be a good idea to allow non-citizens to vote? Quite a few Japanese websites don’t think so, including the one where I found the image I used in this post. There is an element of sensationalism in the cartoons included in their fliers, but a few of the concerns they bring up are not entirely unreasonable.
Some of the arguments used by those opposing the rule include:
- If foreigners want to vote, they naturalize and become Japanese citizens.
- The Japanese constitution applies to the “Japanese people” [国民], so it would be unconstitutional to allow foreigners to vote.
- The fact that foreigners pay taxes does not entitle them to voting rights, as the constitution does not link tax payment to voting rights.
- Local governments often carry out the instructions of the national government, so limiting foreign voting rights to local elections could still give them undue influence over what the national government can or cannot do.
- Most countries in the world do not extend voting rights to non-citizens.
- Non-citizens could vote in the interest of their own national group, forcing policies onto Japan that might not be best for the country.
- Zainichi Koreans make up the majority of Japan’s permanent residents. While relations between Zainichi Koreans and Japanese people have improved greatly in the last 30 years, some Japanese view Zainichi Koreans with suspicion because nearly a forth of them belong to pro-North Korean groups, and the Zainichi community is sometimes viewed as a source of crime.
- Those unwilling to give up their foreign citizenship and become Japanese nationals could simply flee Japan if it finds itself in a dangerous situation. (See picture below)
Immigrantvoting.org has a list of countries that currently have laws granting voting rights to non-citizens, and it’s not very big. Countries such as New Zealand, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Chile, and Belgium have laws similar to the one the DPJ wants, while countries such as Australia, France, and United States do not have national laws granting permanent residents voting rights.
The Yomiuri article was kind of vague about the “principle of reciprocity” in the law, but such a principle could disqualify the citizens of more than a few countries.
If foreigners want to vote they should obtain Japanese citizenship (and renounce any and all other citizenships or loyalties).
in germany foreigners can vote, but “only” for the city governement in which they live
voting for the “main governement” would be abit too much i think
I believe (heck, i HOPE!) that it’s the same way over here in Portugal.
This is what it’s about:
# Non-citizens could vote in the interest of their own national group, forcing policies onto Japan that might not be best for the country.
# Zainichi Koreans make up the majority of Japan’s permanent residents.
Fears of Japan being taken over by proxy by North Korea, basically. Or by South Korea and forced to rename the Sea of Japan….
Overthinker is right. The relationship between Korea and Japan will probably have the largest impact on this debate, and most likely for the negative. Even after living here quite a long time I still don’t really feel the need to vote, but just for the record, seeing that picture that James posted makes me sad.
It’s depressing to see how much fear of the “outside” Japan still has in terms of other countries. NJ living in Japan see the country falling apart internally and hope for a brighter future where everyone can live happily, but for a lot of Japanese people there is still a belief that the root of the problem is from external influences.
To give an analogy, all of us are on a submarine. The captain is carefully looking to make sure there are no leaks that might let in water while the crew stare on in horror as the engine gets ready to explode.
”for a lot of Japanese people there is still a belief that the root of the problem is from external influences.”
“A lot of” is a tricky word.
A lot of Japanese people do not think that way.
And a lot of of Japanese welcome gaikokujin who speak Japanese and work with the Japanese.
I was thinking of this when I wrote the sentence. I guess when I say “a lot of” I’m mostly referring to the government and the people who vote for the politicians in power. Like I said though, either way, the country needs to do some soul searching and decide definitively how to proceed.
Reciprocity makes sense. So, does Korea allow Japanese citizens living there to vote?
For the permanent residents, I think I like the concept of reciprocity. According to the link provided, this doesn’t include Korea. I only feel bad for people who are born and raised in Japan and can’t vote based on their status with Korea.
In the drawing of the foreigner fleeing Japan, there are Japanese characters on his face. What do they mean?
[and I think the character on the faces of the Japanese mean 'man' - ? is this right]
“gai外,” for “gaikokujin” or “foreigner.”
The Japanese have “nichi日,” for “Nihonjin” or “Japanese.”
What is interesting about that pic is that the Rascally Foreigner is carrying the same sort of curly-decoration furoshiki cloth that burglars are shown (in cartoons etc) as carrying. Now, this *may* just be the “leaving-home” cloth, but it’s still suggestive.
thanks for the insight and translation
And yes, he does look like some kind of burglar. That kind of hit me when I saw that, even though I didn’t know about the Japanese burglar bag. He does look like he’s sneaking away.
That image is also used for a moonlight flit. Moonlight flits were not uncommon when poverty was rampant in Japan.
The curly-decoration on the furoshiki cloth is called “Karakusa-moyou” that is a Japanese version of arabesque. Design of Karakusa-moyou was once popular for furoshiki cloth, but, after the design became out-of-fashion, it is often used to show a cheap old furoshiki.
I agree with the Japanese on this one. If you want to vote, get naturalized and then vote as a citizen. In the US, you must be a citizen to vote. I support the same principle in Japan. It just makes sense!
I’m against the idea since I think citizenship should be a prerequisite to be a voter, and Zainichi have that option open to them should they want to participate on the level of citizen.
At the same time, the last argument makes no real sense: “Those unwilling to give up their foreign citizenship and become Japanese nationals could simply flee Japan if it finds itself in a dangerous situation.”
This is also true of rich Japanese. They’ve moved their money overseas when it benefits them, and getting property outside Japan and relocating if “Japan becomes dangerous” would hardly be difficult.
I agree with everything you say, Ken.
I will add that tax payment is reciprocal between Japan and many countries. That is, for example, Japanese nationals residing in America pay American taxes and have the right to vote in Japan and Americans paying taxes in Japan have the right to vote in America. We’re essentially covering each other’s tabs on the tax front and maintaining our rights as citizens in our home countries. We don’t pay taxes to show we deserve a voice in Japanese government and legislation.
If permanent residents (I’m not one of them, btw) want to vote then they should become naturalized citizens (and that goes for any country, not just Japan). Otherwise, a situation is set up where folks have a vote in two different countries and I don’t think that’d be fair.
That last item on the list, about fleeing Japan when things go sour, is worded pretty poorly I think. What I think they were trying to say, is that without citizenship — meaning you are committed to that country — people do not have a strong a reason to make decisions taking into account the welfare of the country as a whole.
This issue raises a few interesting points and highlights the difficulty and futility of comparing countries. Equally interesting is what it shows about the nature of political debates and opinion journalism. To take a few of the listed points:
Fair enough, but Japan prohibits its citizens from holding any other citizenship, which is rare among industrialized countries.
There is some controversy surrounding this. The official English version of the Constitution uses the word “people” in the same clause, which is the way most courts have interpreted the phrase in decisions, even though it does say “citizens.”
The Constitution doesn’t say that taxes are not linked to voting rights, either. Nor does the Constitution lay out visa types, say that Diet members should get free train rides, provide for a sales tax, or cover many other things that are now law.
This objection displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a Constitution is and does.
That sentence doesn’t even make sense. The national gov’t tells local gov’ts what to do, so one could influence the national gov’t by influencing the local gov’t? Stupid.
We’re talking about voting by permanent residents. Most permanent residents have family here. Most of them have been here for over a decade. They live here permanently. Why would they do something bad for the country?
This plays into the xenophobic assumption that foreigners are willing to go to any lengths to take from Japan and harm it, that they don’t care about their own communities, that they don’t like where they live, and that they are irrational enough to harm themselves in order to harm Japan.
Furthermore, Japan has very strong regional voting tendencies as is and it would be impossible to argue that, for example, the voting proclivities of powerful rural districts have not been extremely harmful to the country as a whole.
Most important is the fact that foreign permanent residents of Japan account for well under 1% of the population. Even if every single permanent resident were eligible to vote and actually voted (highly unlikely), they wouldn’t even be likely to sway a single district, much less vote all together against the interests of the country as a whole by cleverly swinging a certain local issue.
This one seems to say that because many Japanese are prejudiced towards Zainichi Koreans, Zainichi Koreans, who are Special Permanent Residents and have generally lived their entire lives in Japan, should not be able to vote. Nonsensical argument.
Any way you slice it, almost all of the arguments against this are desperate attempts to give rational explanations for xenophobic paranoia. This minuscule size of the permanent resident community alone should be enough to allay most fears.
Regarding the last point, note that the Chairman of the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan is a member of the Supreme People’s Assembly of North Korea that is the legislature of that country.
Garrett: “Fair enough, but Japan prohibits its citizens from holding any other citizenship, which is rare among industrialized countries.”
So what ? If you are not prepared to make that sacrifice then don’t become a Japanese citizen.
If you are a U.S. citizen you are not supposed to work as a civil servant or military personnel for a foreign power. The reason why dual citizenship isn’t a major issue in the US is most Americans don’t have it. But it’s really a problematic status to have , except for a few nationalities (Canadians, Israelis).
Sure, absolutely. Everyone knows what the deal is. My point there was that it is not really possible or valid to debate the issue by making comparisons with other countries.
If one of the arguments against allowing permanent residents to vote is going to be that other countries don’t do it, we have to look at the possibility of dual citizenship and the relative ease or difficulty of naturalizing.
The objection listed above was phrased in such a way as to suggest that if a permanent resident wanted to vote, all they’d have to do is take the simple step of becoming a citizen. For good or for bad (and I don’t think asing for undivided citizenship is unreasonable), naturalizing in Japan is both more difficult and involves a greater level of sacrifice than in other countries.
All in all, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to require citizenship to vote, either. The arguments presented above, though, are, as I said, desperate attempts to explain or justify xenophobic paranoia.
“naturalizing in Japan is both more difficult and involves a greater level of sacrifice than in other countries.”
In 2004 97% of applicants were accepted. It takes about 6 months to be finally accepted since applying.
There might be a lot of paper works to do.
http://www.gcnet.at/citizenship/kikakyokasuu.htm
How about other countries?
Ponta, I should have expected to mix it up with you sooner or later.
The difficulty is in the requirements. For good or ill, Japan (fairly enough, I think) has some unclear requirements, which can include decisions on whether or not one’s lifestyle is suitably “Japanese” or not, etc. I’ve talked to people who’ve had such arbitrary tests imposed and others who have not.
The sacrifice is mainly in that Japan prohibits dual citizenship (unless, perhaps, one is Alberto Fujimori.)
Thanks for the comment , Garrett
“The difficulty is in the requirements.”
Is 97% acceptance of the applicants make naturalization more difficult than other countries?
It is imaginable that the questions would cover many subjects in the process, the point is, is the rate of being rejected arbitrarily so high? What percentage out of 3 % , for instance in 2004, were rejected in that way?
“The sacrifice is mainly in that Japan prohibits dual citizenship (unless, perhaps, one is Alberto Fujimori.)”
So what percentage of the countries accept dual citizenship?
“All in all, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to require citizenship to vote, either. The arguments presented above, though, are, as I said, desperate attempts to explain or justify xenophobic paranoia.”
Is the U.S. trying to justify xenophobic paranoia by
requiring citizenship to vote? What is American people’s argument against the non-citizen to vote?
the site you linked to shows data about japanese who gave up their passport and later applied to get it back. hardly surprising that the success rate is high.
Non citizen do not have the right to Vote .Voting is a privilege not a right.
You’re half-right, Morningstar. Non-citizens do not have the right to vote. That’s the point. The DPJ and New Komeito are considering proposing a bill that would change that, partially. They’re proposing allowing permanent residents to vote.
However, voting most certainly is a right, and not a privilege, for citizens. In other words, as long as a citizen is law-abiding, that right cannot be taken away. Voting is clearly defined as a right in the Constitution. Were it not, Japan would not be a democracy.
Whether or not permanent residents should be granted suffrage is another matter.
“as long as a citizen is law-abiding”
Anyone else find this very disturbing?
Not really, after all it’s your right to have freedom of movement and travel, however you break the law and that right is removed, and later restricted and monitered.
You have a right to gather, however try to protest without a permit and it get’s you broken up pretty fast, encite a riot and it gets you in trouble.
Rights are essentially in a way “Given privliges” they’re only your “Right” in so far as those in power are willing to give them so long as you obay their rules.
You have the right not to be assaulted, at least until someone punches you.
Exactly – these aren’t really anything like “inalienable” rights, they are merely temporary privileges that the government can revoke.
Permanent residents should neither expect nor ever be granted the right to vote (in any country).
Overthinker, that was a statement of reality, not of an ideal or anything like that. In most cases, committing a crime is the only way one can legally be deprived of any right, including voting. I’m not sure what, if any sort of conviction would be legal grounds for denying someone the right to vote in Japan. The main point of that statement, I think you’ll see if you take another look, is that voting is a right, not a privilege.
___________
Bruce, why not? What about countries in which such a right has already been granted? And what’s so special about the word “citizenship.” I would agree that every right, including the right to vote, is accompanied by the acceptance of responsibilities and obligations, but “citizenship” can be a nebulous status.
Think of the AMC. Many countries grant citizenship to the descendents of citizens, even if they’ve never lived in that country. Let’s take Zainichi Koreans as an example. Some of them have no tie to Korea other than a passport and family history. Imagine a Zainichi Korean who has never been to Korea and thus never paid taxes there, never fulfilled his service obligations there, never worked there, etc. What is the inherent reason that he’d be better able to decide on what’s best for the country than a non-citizen who lives, works, and contributes there?
In an age when people can and do move from country to country and one’s ties to birthplace or nationality are weaker than ever before, why keep tying rights and responsibilities to blood or a piece of paper?
I haven’t lived in my hometown for over a decade. I’m sure there are many immigrants who have lived there over that same time period and intend to continue living and working there. Why shouldn’t they be eligible to decide what happens there if I am?
Perhaps giving permanent residents the vote is a bad idea. Perhaps, as in Japan, it doesn’t matter as it isn’t likely to impact any election in the next few decades. Perhaps it’s a catastrophic idea. Whatever the case, why argue that permanent residents should never be given the vote in any country? Who benefits from that? And really, if the goal is democracy, isn’t it best to try to bring as many people in an area, with a stake in it, as possible to the polls?
“Overthinker, that was a statement of reality”
My comment about “disturbing” was not meant as a comment on your opinion – I know this is reality: it was shown clearly in the 2000 elections in Florida etc. My point was that how “guaranteed” can a right be if it can be removed so easily? So much for “rights” – voting is clearly a privilege, awarded to the good, rather than a genuine right.
I apologize if I saw a challenge where there wasn’t one.
I don’t share your bleak view, although I can see where you’re coming from. I look at a revocation of voting rights due to incarceration as but one of many rights one loses when in prison. I agree with you, though, that Florida is a troubling case in that some felony convictions carry with them the permanent revocation of voting rights, even after a sentence has ended, which seems unjust. If some felony convictions carry with them the revocation of voting rights for the duration of a sentence (including probation), I see no great problem with it.
Are we to say that all rights are mere privileges because they can be limited or revoked as part of a criminal sentence?
“Are we to say that all rights are mere privileges because they can be limited or revoked as part of a criminal sentence?”
I tend to think so. A right, to me, is something you possess innately. A privilege is something you are permitted to do. So if it can be removed so simply as being in prison, it’s not a very strong right. (Note that many rights are still valid in prison: these are stronger. But are there any truly inalienable right?)
I believe that you should have the right to affect the government in whatever place it is that you choose to live. After all, these laws apply to YOU. Having no say in them is a violation of basic human rights.
You don’t have any rights in a country that you haven’t pledged your allegiance to, just some priveleges.
Who governs these “basic human rights” that you speak of? I was under the impression that “basic human rights” covered only the decent treatment of other human beings, not that you get to choose who the alpha leader of the pack is.
I don’t recall ever pledging my allegiance to the land of my birth either. They just took it, without asking.
Incidentally, does that mean that non-citizen immigrant children in the US don’t have to say the Pledge of Allegiance?
As an unaffected party I feel superfluous commenting, except in the one instance of seeming racial debate. The use of “Japanese people” is, we are to assume, supposed to be a reference to citizenship? As I understand from skimming these posts, it is. Yet–and this is nothing you can argue legally yet; it’s just speculation–I imagine no few of those opposed to this bill consider “Japanese people” to imply a race. Which is a problem. Japan has got to get over race. Obviously no one country is “over” race in the sense that there is no racism there, but you can at least make the legal effort to discourage it. Which I do not think is all a goal espoused or even held in warm regard by the opponents of this bill.
To Finn Race has nothing to do with Voting! Their are still Countries that do not Let their citizens VOTE. That is why VOTING is a privilege not a right.
“Their are still Countries that do not Let their citizens VOTE”
Please, name at least FIVE (5) countries which are democracies and still don’t allow their citizens vote.
I guess my thing here is what does it take to be a permanant resident in Japan?
What does it take to be a permanent resident in say the USA? Canada? France? Russia?
What does it take to become a citizen in Japan?
“” Canada? Russia? Other democracies?
I know in Canada and the USA if you marry someone from that country, you become a citizen. (Or at least have the option quite easily so long as your marrage is valid) If you have a child you are a citizen. In Canada so long as your native country will alow it you can hold a duel citizenship.
And yet as far as I’ve seen there are people… no. Gaijin here that have lived here for 10, 20, 30 years. They have children, homes, lives here and maybe they don’t want to vote, maybe they don’t care. But they certainly should, after all this time have the right to do so.
But I don’t know, Politics pisses me off and I tend to waste my vote on parties I know would never win.
I’m not sure it’s so easy in Canada – I know a Japanese-Canadian couple and the Japanese half is still using a visitor’s visa as the paperwork is so annoying (and expensive I believe, too). Having a child in the US gives that child citizenship, not the parent. The parent can however claim humanitarian reasons to be allowed to remain with their ‘anchor baby’.
You can actually have dual citizenship in Japan. Sort of. The Japanese government has no right to relieve you of your original citizenship: you must agree to give it up, and they may revoke your new Japanese citizenship if they find you’ve kept your old, but they can’t directly remove it.
PR in Japan is, I gather, basically a matter of how much they like you. Some people get it very easily, others are repeatedly turned down. Why? No idea.
Gaijin who have been here for 30 years and want the right to vote in general elections should have no worries getting citizenship. I would like to see some form of suffrage for PR in local-body elections, and a few rules loosened, but of all the rules and restrictions, voting is the least of them – get rid of the carrying rule for the gaijin card before anything, frankly.
“get rid of the carrying rule for the gaijin card before anything, frankly.”
I sympathize.
I guess to change the rule for the gaijin card, you need the right to vote in general election the rule is the law covering every gaijin all over Japan. （I guess
it is 法律、not 条令）
Giving voting rights to foreigners is the same as Japanese citizens abduction by Koreans.
Koreans are trying to abduct Japanese citizen again.
Supporters have been ignoring the Constitution intentionally.
They are trying to violate the sovereignty of Japan and human rights of the ppl under the name of human rights etc.
Well this doesn’t make much sense. Voting is the same as abduction?
If foreigner has changed result of the election, it’s not already Japanese election.
And it’s the same as Japanese not exist.
So, we have to say that Koreans are trying to abduct Japanese citizens again.
We can’t allow hijack of Japanese election by Koreans.
Japan is not colony settlement of Korea.
And I believe it’s a violation of the Constitution.
Well, this will be interesting, since Koreans in Japan are less than 1%. I’d be impressed if that 1% could change anything…. Unlike North Koreans kidnapping people, which actually DID work….
Democracy is majority decision.
Every person can change result of the election regardless of its nationality.
So, we are not able to give even one foreign resident voting rights regardless of its population.
Let me know when less than 1% is a threat to the majority then….
If some candidates got the same number of votes we have to hold a draw.
But if we have given one foreigner voting rights the result would change.
Then Japanese disappear.
You’re assuming a hell of a lot here. Especially that a foreigner voting would automatically change the results. It’s not as if the foreigner, even if a North Korean, can vote for Kim Jong Il or someone. The choice is only between the current parties.
There are various reasons why foreigners are not given the right to vote in national elections, but your paranoia does not reflect a realistic situation.
If you were politician you have to assume every situation whenever you make a law.
Important thing is who should be the chooser.
This is a matter of the legal standing of the citizen of this country including the local.
In a word, it’s a matter of the sovereignty.
The voting rights is a sovereign right.
Koreans are not our citizens.
If the voting rights was given the foreign residents, we lose that rights.
“If the voting rights was given the foreign residents, we lose that rights”
How could you “lose those rights” if you’d still be the huge majority?
Now you are using a different argument: that voting is a sovereign right of the citizens. At present, it certainly is. And I tend to agree, though I can see the POV that anyone in a country is affected by the laws of that country – at its extreme, this would end up getting tourists to vote (or, perhaps, letting half the world vote in the US Presidential elections, since Americans are so fond of saying that he’s the “leader of the free world”).
You are also correct in a way in that if voting right are extended to permanent residents, then the right to vote no longer becomes a DEFINING right of citizenship. Which opens up an interesting question: what IS the defining right of citizenship? Multiple answers possible, of course. My first one is the obvious “right to live” in a country, which, unlike PR, cannot be taken away (save perhaps in extreme situations). “Right to vote” cannot be the sole definer, since many citizens do not have that right (either too young, or live in countries with no voting).
However, to go from this to feeling threatened by the political clout of no more than 1% is paranoid and xenophobic. You have more reason to worry about, say, the political clout of major religious groups (Soka Gakkai, for a start) than minor national ones.
That’s a very liberal way to interpret this. Some might even consider it a conspiracy theory. And we all know how seriously conspiracy theorists are taken.
I think this voting rights thing is actually a plot by the whales, those mischievous beasts.
“And we all know how seriously conspiracy theorists are taken”
Hey, don’t you be knocking it – wearing a tinfoil hat has worked for me: not once have I ever been abducted by aliens. Or North Koreans….
It sounds just like a step to intrusion from N/S Korea.
voting is a privilege a right and a duty
These cartoons are turely fake,this would not happen.
All long tern overseas residents should vote in japan
overseas people living in japan should vote
Dear lord…I see the beautiful Japan going down with the go-ahead of this decision..This is a very obvious NONO!..It’s their country, HELL GO MESS WITH YOUR OWN!