As Japan greeted the 70th anniversary of its defeat in World War II in the midst
of growing opposition to the government-proposed security legislation, Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe must have realized that he has to run his administration
under a variety of constraints.
One of such
constraints is international opinion. Initially, Prime Minister Abe appeared to
be resolved to issue a war anniversary statement that reflects his own
perception of Japan’s modern history. However, it was obvious that a right-wing
viewpoint of history, which tends to deny Japan’s responsibility for its
aggression and colonial rule, was not to be acceptable not just to Asian
countries but also to Western nations. For Japan to live as a member of the
international community, the prime minister could not choose to publicize a
self-righteous perception of history. As a result, the statement that Abe made
on Aug. 14 deviated from his own personal sentiments and its message became
weak because of its lengthy text. The prime minister did use an expression that
apparently reflected his own thought — that Japan must not let its future
generations be predestined to apologize for that war, with which they have
nothing to do. He may have wanted to dispel the chagrin at having had to refer
in the statement to the wartime aggression and the “women behind the
battlefields whose honor and dignity were severely injured.” As long as he and
right-wing politicians close to him continue to try to deny that Japan had
waged a war of aggression and justify its colonial rule, the new generations of
Japanese will have to keep apologizing to the people of Asia. I wonder if the
prime minister understands the logical structure of this problem.
Another — and even larger — constraint is the popular will. As long as Japan is
a democracy, the acts of those in power will obviously be constrained by the
will of the people. It was in fact an extraordinary situation that the prime
minister, until just recently, did whatever he wanted on the strength of the
strong popular approval ratings of his Cabinet. Abe might have preferred to
paint the 70th war anniversary statement with his own colors if the approval
ratings had stayed high. But he had no other choice but to take a low posture now
that public criticism of his administration has gained momentum. And while he
extended the Diet session through the end of September in order to secure
enactment of the security legislation, he is reportedly ready to shelve the
passage of his other controversial bills, including the one to exempt some
office workers from work-hour regulations. This may indicate that the popular
will is serving as a brake on the administration to some extent.
On July 1 last year, before Abe’s Cabinet made a decision the same month to justify
Japan’s exercising the right to collective self-defense, I joined hands with
other scholars in political science and constitutional law and launched a movement to protect
constitutionalism — the Group for Constitutional Democracy. Its members are
pushing the movement with a sense of crisis that a series of moves by the Abe
administration threaten to destroy constitutionalism, which constrains
political power with the Constitution. To be honest, the changes in public
opinion since June this year went beyond our imagination. In prewar Japan,
political parties used the term constitutionalism to oppose the dominance by
bureaucrats and the oligarchy that ruled the country since the Meiji
Restoration. After being pushed to oblivion for some time as postwar democracy
prevailed, the term is back in circulation —triggered by the controversy over
the security legislation.
Our trial and error in pursuit of full democracy in this country over the
past 20 years or so led us to rediscover the crude reality — that no other political
party except the Liberal Democratic Party is yet capable of running the
government. However, the LDP itself has lost the breadth and prudence that it
used to possess, and is now dominated by politicians with little experience as
lawmakers, whose words and actions border on those of right-wingers on the
Internet sphere. And these lawmakers are trying to push through the Diet a set
of bills that are labeled by a majority of constitutional scholars as
unconstitutional.
Under such a situation, we may not have the luxury of advocating a system where
political parties take turns running the government, but will need to return to
the bottom line of constitutionalism, that is, putting a brake on political
power by confining it in a certain frame. It is not that such a view is shared
by citizens who take to the streets to voice opposition to the security
legislation. But I am hopeful that the agenda of putting abrake on political
power will gain sympathy and support from a broad range of citizens.
The movement for constitutionalism would not be sustained if it ends up being a
game of whack-a-mole against arrogant leaders in power — a process that will be
tiring for those who pursue the movement. We need to establish a custom in which
those in power who ignore the Constitution will be severely punished by voters
in elections. But that will also require creating an alternative political
entity that can take the place of the LDP. I grew a bit tired after saying the
same thing repeatedly ever since the Democratic Party of Japan lost power three
years ago. Still I need to keep saying that. The opposition forces should work
together to create a minimum set of agenda on important policy issues that can represent the energized
citizens who are active in protecting the Constitution and peace. The Upper
House election next year will be a crucial test for survival of constitutional
democracy in this country.
Japan Times, August 26