EDITORIAL: Debate in twisted Diet

Monday's Lower House Budget Committee session gave us pause to ponder anew what roles the ruling and opposition parties should play in the twisted Diet.

In the first session of the committee since Naoto Kan became prime minister in early June, Liberal Democratic Party President Sadakazu Tanigaki and the party's Policy Research Council chairman, Shigeru Ishiba, questioned Kan in a manner that breaks with tradition.

Referring to when the Democratic Party of Japan, as the main opposition party, rejected the government's nomination for a new Bank of Japan governor, causing the post to remain vacant for a while in 2008, Tanigaki said, "The LDP would never behave so outrageously and unreasonably." Tanigaki effectively declared that his party will not try to exact revenge for past attempts by the DPJ to torment the LDP-led government. At the time, the DPJ was led by Ichiro Ozawa and had the largest number of seats in the Upper House.

Tanigaki also said the LDP will "have no choice but to seriously study" the government's bill to issue deficit-covering bonds. A vote against the bill by the opposition-controlled Upper House would drive the Kan administration into a corner and make it impossible for the government to implement the budget. That would severely impact people's lives and leave the opposition camp open to harsh public criticism.

The ruling coalition has lost its majority in the Upper House. Also, it doesn't hold the necessary two-thirds majority in the Lower House to override the upper chamber's rejections. The situation demands that the opposition parties share power and responsibility with the ruling parties. Tanigaki's remarks indicated that the LDP is willing to do so.

When the LDP was in power, it also experienced the difficulties of a contorted Diet. This may be part of the process that will bring about more political maturity through frequent power transfers.

There was another impressive aspect to Monday's session. It was in the way Tanigaki and Ishiba gave Kan a pep talk. Ishiba noted that Kan was "full of spirit" when the DPJ was in opposition. He said, "It is a politician's duty to persuade the people with spirit and a sense of responsibility." Ishiba urged Kan to keep his spirits up.

Indeed, Kan has not spoken articulately since his party's defeat in the July 11 Upper House election. Kan was reviled by fellow party members, who say his utterances before the election about a possible increase in the consumption tax rate were to blame for the defeat. In response, Kan said he has no intention of promising to raise the tax rate during his campaign for the party leadership election in September.

Kan remained cautious in discussing the topic during Monday's session. Tanigaki accused Kan of being irresponsible for his decision not to discuss the tax hike he proposed before the Upper House poll in the party election. For his part, Kan stressed that he will not budge an inch on his efforts to achieve fiscal rehabilitation. We understand Kan's reticence to discuss delicate issues before the party election. But he can't possibly win support from anyone as long as he keeps his policy priorities unclear.

Consensus within the DPJ is not enough to secure the enactment of a bill. Kan needs to sell his policy proposals to the entire Diet and the voting public. He should discard his inward-looking thinking and make clear what he wants to achieve and try to win support. If he refuses to compromise on fiscal reform, he should take a more aggressive stance. He could, for instance, urge the LDP to submit its own bill for restoring fiscal health.

The kind of parliamentary debate we heard on Monday, if it becomes the norm, will improve the political climate for efforts to seek bipartisan consensus on specific policy initiatives. We would welcome such a trend.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Aug. 3