EDITORIAL: Upper House poll will be vote on curbing Abe’s dominant power

The official campaign period for the July 21 Upper House election starts on July 4, launching a crucial political battle for Japan.

It will be the first national election in 21 months since the Lower House poll in the autumn of 2017.

The Upper House poll will not lead to a regime change no matter what the results may be. But the outcomes will have huge implications for the fate of this nation’s democracy.

Shortly after a drubbing in the Upper House election in the summer of 2007, Abe, who was then serving his first tenure as prime minister, had to resign. In the next Upper House election in the summer of 2010, then Prime Minister Naoto Kan saw his Democratic Party of Japan lose its majority in the chamber, resulting in the further weakening of the party’s grip on power.

HEALTHY TENSIONS NEEDED FOR HEALTHY DEMOCRACY

More than six years since Abe returned to power, the upcoming election will be an effective referendum on the way he has been using his dominant political power to lead the nation for an unusually long period.

Last year, Abe was re-elected as president of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party for a third term that will run through September 2021. Japanese voters are facing the choice between reining in his overwhelming political power to restoring vital healthy tension in politics or allowing the status quo to continue.

Their choice at the polls will go a long way toward determining the course of the nation over the next several years.

Abe has said the biggest issue for the election is “political stability.” He has taken every opportunity to remind voters how the DPJ’s rule ended in just three years and three months, asking them whether they are willing to return the nation to “the era of political turmoil.”

Instead of discussing current key policy issues or talking about the future of the nation, Abe has kept carping on the DPJ's past performance. This is not the way a sensible political leader behaves.

Supported by the ruling coalition’s overwhelming majority in both houses, the Abe administration has forced a raft of controversial bills through the Diet using strong-arm management of Diet affairs. But the administration has failed to use its political capital based on a stable power base and a long rule to tackle tough policy challenges in a way that really serves the interests of the people.

When a recent Financial Services Agency panel report that said elderly couples would need at least 20 million yen ($185,600) in savings to make ends meet over a 30-year period sparked public criticism, the administration simply refused to accept it and claimed the report did not officially exist.

By doing so, the administration avoided debating important pension issues instead of responding to the people’s anxiety about their post-retirement years.

Abe has decided to proceed with the plan to raise the consumption tax rate to 10 percent from the current 8 percent, a step that he has twice postponed.

When asked about the possibility of a further consumption tax hike in the future to secure the financial sustainability of the social security system during a debate among party heads on July 3 at the Japan National Press Club, he asserted there will be no need for a further increase in the tax rate for the next 10 years.

But the nation’s population will continue aging amid low birthrates, making it inevitable to make a comprehensive review of the balance between the burdens and the benefits.

Precluding debate on this issue will not help work out an effective plan to tackle this challenge.

ABE’S CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL NOT IN TUNE WITH POLITICAL REALITY

Abe’s eagerness to discuss his initiative to amend the Constitution stands in sharp contrast with his reluctance to debate many other important policy issues.

In the previous Upper House election three years ago, the LDP, its junior coalition partner, Komeito, and opposition Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) collectively won a two-thirds majority in the chamber.

These parties, which have a positive stance toward constitutional amendment, also collectively control more than two-thirds of the Lower House seats. Since the Constitution requires "a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House” to hold a national referendum on a constitutional amendment, the Upper House election outcomes were seen as “a watershed” in Abe’s long-running quest to rewrite the Constitution.

There has been no progress in debate on constitutional amendments, however, since the parties’ positions on the issue differ widely and there is no strong public support for the initiative.

While ruling out the idea of setting a fixed time frame for his constitutional proposal, Abe has stuck to his goal of putting into force four amendments to the Constitution, including a new provision to codify the constitutional status of the Self-Defense Forces, in 2020.

There is no doubt that the performances of the pro-amendment parties in the forthcoming poll will greatly affect debate on the Constitution in the coming months.

Abe has criticized anti-amendment opposition parties, saying voters are facing the choice between parties that refuse even to debate the issue and the parties willing to promote such debate.

But the ruling camp has no monopoly on the right to select topics for debate.

Given that there is criticism about the excessive concentration of political power in the prime minister’s office, which has been abused by the Abe administration, the constitutional issues that should be urgently debated are restrictions on the prime minister’s right to dissolve the Lower House for a snap poll and measures to enhance the Diet’s role in monitoring and checking the government.

Abe has led the ruling coalition to five consecutive electoral wins. But that does not mean voters have given total support to his administration.

In an Asahi Shimbun poll conducted for the May 3 Constitution Day, 80 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that the LDP’s dominance of the Diet is not a good political situation.

OPPOSITION PARTIES NEED COMMON POLITICAL BANNER FOR UNITY

Most opposition parties have agreed to field unified candidates for all the 32 single-seat constituencies of the Upper House as they did for the election three years ago.

The opposition candidates will undoubtedly attract votes from many people critical of the Abe administration.

But it is not quite clear to voters under what kind of common political agenda the opposition forces are joining hands.

The leaders of five opposition parties, including the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, the Democratic Party for the People, the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party, have signed a 13-point agenda proposed by the Civil Alliance for Peace and Constitution, a citizen union promoting opposition alliance.

The agenda calls for opposing an amendment to the war-renouncing Article 9, repealing the security legislation, phasing out nuclear power generation and aborting the planned consumption tax hike.

While the agenda is described as a common policy platform, the parties are not in agreement on which of the planks should be given a higher priority.

The opposition parties should demonstrate their unified commitment to responding to public expectations and trust. One approach worth consideration would be proposing more progressive policy measures for respecting diverse values that are not in the ruling camp’s platform, such as introducing a system that allows married couples to use different family names in legal documents.

Policy issues are not the only topics for election debate. The administration’s approach to policy development and implementation, which has been marked by arrogance and lax discipline, should also be questioned.

Last week, LDP Secretary-General Toshiaki Nikai, speaking at a meeting to rally support for prospective LDP candidates, said there is no problem with allocating more funds to constituencies where the ruling party candidates have shown strong performances in the election.

This is blatant influence-peddling by using taxpayer money. Nikai’s remarks reflect the administration’s undisguised contempt for the ethical norms of lawmakers.

We strongly wish to hear healthy political dialogue among parties, candidates and voters that befits the election to choose members of the chamber known as “the Seat of Common Sense” during the 17-day campaign period.

--The Asahi Shimbun, July 4