EDITORIAL: Political instability

Prime Minister Naoto Kan and Liberal Democratic Party President Sadakazu Tanigaki clashed in a Diet debate Wednesday over integrated tax and social security reform proposals.

The main bone of contention was whether reform proposals or elections should come first. Kan argues that the ruling and opposition parties should immediately start talks to work out a plan for reform. Tanigaki is demanding that Kan should first dissolve the Lower House for a snap election to seek a fresh public mandate to pursue his policy agenda.

Unfortunately, the first debate between the ruling and opposition party chiefs since Kan came to office offered no hope for a deal to end the partisan battle over this vital reform.

The government's social security spending automatically grows by 1 trillion yen ($12.2 billion) every year. The government's borrowing is expected to surpass its tax revenue for the second straight year. The nation is facing a fiscal crisis.

Kan and Tanigaki agree on the urgent need for integrated tax and social security reform, but there is little sign of any momentum toward bipartisan cooperation.

The inability of the ruling and opposition parties to stop their partisan bickering is disappointing.

While addressing questions to Kan about his policy speech in a previous session, Tanigaki raised the ante by saying an LDP agreement to hold talks with the ruling Democratic Party of Japan over the reform was conditional upon the Lower House being dissolved. He reiterated this position in Wednesday's debate.

The LDP chief argued the Kan administration is unable to push through such large-scale reform since it has lost the trust of the people. Tanigaki said Kan should first revise the ruling party's election manifesto and face a general election. He said this would be the "shortest path" to achieve the reform.

It is now obvious that the DPJ's manifesto has many questionable components, as Tanigaki and Natsuo Yamaguchi, chief of the smaller opposition party New Komeito, who also tussled with Kan, stressed in their attacks on the government.

But their argument that the problems with the party's manifesto require an immediate election is far from convincing.

Holding a Lower House election now would create more than just a political vacuum. If the election were to lead to prolonged political confusion over the formation of a government, the crucial reform would end up being postponed further, effectively ensuring that the next budget would become another stopgap spending plan.

In this new age for Japanese politics, when transfers of power between parties have become a real possibility, one of the basic principles of politics should be that the party that wins a mandate to govern in a general election should be allowed to pursue its policy agenda for the full four-year term of the newly elected Lower House members.

It should be in the next general election, four years later, that voters hand their verdict on the ruling party's performance in carrying out the promises in its manifesto.

Although the ruling and opposition camps are locked in political dispute, the party chiefs must try to find a compromise through exhaustive talks. It is important to ensure that Diet debates between party heads are held regularly and frequently. They should be central events in the parliamentary schedule.

When the Diet is divided, with the Upper House under opposition control, it is more important for the heads of the ruling and opposition parties to have constructive and wide-ranging debate in the Diet on key policy issues. The leaders share equal responsibility for the Diet's performance.

During Wednesday's debate, Kan addressed some questions to Tanigaki, as well as answering questions from the LDP chief.

Traditionally, Diet debates between party chiefs often turn out to be a simple question-and-answer session, with the opposition leader grilling the prime minister. That is no different from ordinary sessions of the budget and other Diet committees and doesn't qualify as a real debate between party chiefs. Debate cannot be meaningful if it degenerates into an exchange of invective.

The public is interested not only in the prime minister's thoughts but also in hearing the head of the main opposition party, who may become the nation's next leader, discuss his or her policy ideas and vision.

The opposition leader should offer concrete policy alternatives so that the debate becomes a constructive dialogue. We wanted to hear Tanigaki explain in detail the LDP's plan for integrated reform. He should understand that the Diet debates are also a test for the opposition leader.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 10