EDITORIAL: Censure motions

Prime Minister Naoto Kan is considering a reshuffle of his Cabinet as a response to the censure motions against Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku and transport minister Sumio Mabuchi adopted by the Upper House during the autumn Diet session.

The motions have, of course, great importance as manifestations of the Upper House's intention to make clear it believes the ministers should take political responsibility for their performance. In today's political environment, where the Diet is divided due to opposition control of the Upper House, the question of how to deal with a censure motion needs to be carefully thought out.

The Cabinet depends primarily on the support of the Lower House for its survival. The prime minister is elected by the Diet, but if the two houses disagree on their choices, the decision of the Lower House prevails. The Lower House has the power to pass a vote of no-confidence in the Cabinet and thereby demand its resignation en masse. But the prime minister is allowed to reject the demand and dissolve the Lower House instead.

The Upper House is not given these constitutional powers. Its censure motions against the prime minister or other Cabinet members are not legally binding.

But a censure motion can serve as a powerful tool for opposition parties. They can employ it as an excuse for boycotting Diet deliberations or otherwise trying to drive the government into a corner if a censured member is not replaced.

The opposition parties, though, risk becoming a target of public criticism by employing these tactics. Whether a censure motion yields political gains for the opposition depends on the political situation and public opinion at the time.

There was some justification for the opposition tactics of boycotting Diet deliberations while the Liberal Democratic Party's monopoly on power remained firmly entrenched, with the opposition parties having few effective means to fight against the powerful ruling party.

Now, however, we are in a new era when a power transfer is an actual possibility. In addition, the opposition camp holds a majority in the Upper House, and the ruling parties don't have the two-thirds majority in the Lower House needed to override the Upper House's rejection of bills.

Instead of boycotting sessions, the opposition parties should use their bargaining power for pressing the ruling bloc to accept their demands, such as revisions to the budget and other bills, through deliberations.

It's unlikely, however, that the opposition parties will readily switch to this approach. That's because it is the ruling Democratic Party of Japan that set the precedent for using censure motions to force a minister to resign.

When Keizo Obuchi was prime minister, the DPJ, together with New Komeito and the Liberal Party, introduced a censure motion against then Defense Agency Director-General Fukushiro Nukaga, successfully pressuring him into resignation. The DPJ then continued making the most of the Upper House's powers for its political gains.

The DPJ could claim that its Diet tactics were designed to advance the cause of pushing Japanese politics toward a situation where changes of government could actually happen. The DPJ could also argue that its maneuvering was meant to punish the LDP for changing prime ministers in its successive governments without seeking a fresh public mandate. It was to this end that it pressured the ruling party to dissolve the Lower House and hold a general election.

This approach also furnished some bitter lessons by showing how the Upper House could paralyze the Diet and deepen political confusion by exerting far stronger powers than assumed by the Constitution.

Both the ruling and opposition parties should learn from these experiences. During his New Year's news conference, Kan expressed regret over his party's past behaviors.

A number of parties have experienced belonging to the ruling camp and learned firsthand how weighty and difficult a job it is to govern the nation.

Political progress must be ensured in this new era, when changes of government are a reality while a divided Diet threatens to cause a legislative gridlock.

Each party must ponder the possibility that whatever happens to its political enemy today may happen to itself tomorrow and exercise the necessary self-control. Futile political tit for tat must be avoided.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 7