EDITORIAL: Punishing Ozawa

If former Democratic Party of Japan President Ichiro Ozawa is unwilling to personally hold himself accountable, the party needs to urge him to do so. Prime Minister Naoto Kan and the party's executive board must show their determination.

Kan and Ozawa held their second meeting Thursday over Ozawa's questionable political fund reports.

After Ozawa was served a mandatory indictment, Kan asked him to voluntarily secede until his trial ends, but Ozawa refused. Nor did he change his passive stance toward requests to appear at the Lower House Deliberative Council on Political Ethics.

We have no choice but to express skepticism toward the reasons he has cited during this time. First is Ozawa's argument that the mandatory indictment by a prosecution inquest committee comprising citizens is "essentially different" from indictment by public prosecutors who boast an extremely high ratio of convictions.

To begin with, the two have exactly the same legal effectiveness. The principle of innocent until proven guilty is also equally applied.

Up to now, most arrested and indicted politicians had drawn a clear line by seceding from their parties or giving up their Diet seats before their guilty verdicts were finalized. This was apparently because they were aware of their heavy political and ethical responsibility, which is different from legal responsibility.

Furthermore, Ozawa has repeatedly stressed that the facts would become clear in court. However, clarifying what really happened in a court of law and holding oneself accountable as a Diet member are completely different things.

In Thursday's news conference, Ozawa went so far as to insist that his departure from the party and disciplinary measures by the DPJ are "inappropriate for the development of sound party politics and democracy." We think Ozawa's insincere attitude to refuse providing an explanation to the Diet for more than a year is the very factor responsible for growing public distrust in politics.

DPJ Secretary-General Katsuya Okada early next week is expected to propose disciplinary action against Ozawa. The party should come up with a conclusion as soon as possible.

According to sources, punishment currently under consideration centers on suspension of qualifications as a party member, which is the lightest penalty. To begin with, since Ozawa was urged to voluntarily secede, a reasonable measure would be to at least admonish him to quit the party.

In his New Year news conference, Kan clearly stated, "I want to make this a year to draw a clear line on the problem of politics and money."

Didn't Kan tell Ozawa that he should clarify whether he would resign and demand he show accountability, including resignation from the Diet? Kan gives the impression that he has flinched.

Observers point out that behind the light punishment is the ulterior motive to prevent a "rebellion" by Ozawa and lawmakers who support him. The DPJ needs all the support it can get to reapprove budget-related bills in the Lower House in the divided Diet, in which the two houses are controlled by ruling and opposition parties, respectively.

If that is the DPJ's motive, we have no choice but to say the idea is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse.

In the New Year news conference, Kan said it is impossible to advance reform requiring the public to share pain without dispelling public distrust over the politics-money problem. That recognition is correct.

This is the time to truly test the prime minister's seriousness to act on his words in dealing with difficult policy issues, such as reforming the tax and social security systems as a set and opening up Japanese markets with trade liberalization in the Heisei Era (1989-present).

--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 11