EDITORIAL: DPJ leadership election

With the Democratic Party of Japan's leadership election only weeks away, it seems germane to consider what is at stake in choosing a party leader.

We imagine that a good number of people have misgivings about the leadership election to be held in September. There are two main issues.

First, if Prime Minister Naoto Kan loses, then the new party leader will automatically become prime minister. Since 2007, every prime minister has stepped down every year. Is the country now to lose yet another one after just three months? Is it really OK for Japan to have such a succession of short-lived governments?

Second, Kan did not resign as prime minister even after losing to the Liberal Democratic Party in the recent Upper House election. Why then must he resign as a result of what is, effectively, merely the DPJ's internal party process?

Of course, the September leadership election should be carried out in a fair and square manner. But that aside, it should be relevant to start discussing at this point what party leadership elections should entail. Being prime minister is a tough job. There are so many obstacles to clear to maintain the government. There is the Lower House election which determines the governing party. Then there is the Upper House election, which is like a mid-term report card. Plus, there is the party leadership election. If the prime minister fails any one of these make-or-break trials, he or she may have to go.

Conflict in Nagatacho, the political heartland of Tokyo, is a constant thorn in the side of any prime minister. This makes it impossible for the prime minister to delve deeply when dealing with major domestic and foreign policy issues. Kan has lost his luster as he tries not to antagonize anyone in the party ahead of the leadership election.

With so many obstacles facing the prime minister, it should come as no surprise that there has been a succession of short-lived governments. This is a problem that must be sorted out as soon as possible.

In the days when the Liberal Democratic Party's rule was rock-solid, the prime minister was effectively chosen by the party leadership election. A change of government as a result of a Lower House election was unthinkable, so things proceeded smoothly.

Nowadays, voters can initiate a change of government by effectively choosing a new prime minister through a Lower House election. The former norm of allowing internal party procedures to take precedent over Lower House election results has lost its legitimacy. Political parties cannot change a prime minister just for the sake of the party. A prime minister thrust upon voters, rather than chosen by them, is not politically fit as prime minister to begin with.

After the Koizumi administration, the three governments and prime ministers that the public did not choose, started with approval ratings of 63 percent, 53 percent and 48 percent, respectively. Each time the buck was passed, the ratings fell. The initial approval rating of the Hatoyama government that came to power after last year's Lower House election was 71 percent, but the Kan administration's rate was 60 percent.

It is clear which direction reforms must take. Although party leaders' terms of office are determined irrespective of Lower House election schedules, this must change. The National Congress for the 21st Century Japan (21st century rincho), which is made up of experts from the private sector, has proposed matching the party leaders' terms of office to that of the general election cycle. This means basically that a party leader, who is a prime-ministerial candidate, would be chosen within the party before the next Lower House election. This seems to be a realistic idea.

--The Asahi Shimbun Aug. 16