Japan’s historic step toward the first revision of its postwar pacifist constitution

Japan’s historic step toward the first revision of its postwar pacifist constitution

Posted in Japan | 18-May-07 | Author: Hisane Masaki

"Japanese Prime Minister Abe wants to allow the nation to play a greater role in the international security arena, especially in step with the USA."

While Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's ruling coalition may seem to be cruising easily toward the first revision of the country's postwar pacifist constitution, it has encountered an unexpected headwind - a decline in public support for the move.

In a historic step toward revising the constitution, Japan’s Diet (parliament) enacted a bill on May 14 with the strength of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)-led coalition’s majority in both houses of the Diet, setting the rules for the national referendum required for any constitutional changes.

But recent opinion polls show that public support for constitutional amendments, especially rewriting an article that has put strict restrictions on Japanese military activities since the end of World War II, has plummeted.

It is believed that some of those who used to favor revising the constitution have become cautious about the issue after realizing that what they thought was just an armchair exercise may become a reality. This swing of the public opinion pendulum makes it even more uncertain whether - and when - the constitution will actually be revised.

Since taking office last September, Abe has advocated a more assertive foreign policy and further strengthened the security alliance with the United States, Japan’s most important ally. He has also called for a “departure from the postwar regime” and vowed to seek revisions of the constitution as his top priority goal to allow the nation to play a greater role in the international security arena, especially in step with the United States. Abe has specifically expressed a strong desire to see the constitution, which took effect in 1947, revised within five years.

To be sure, the enacted national referendum law marks a significant step toward revising the constitution. But it remains to be seen whether the constitution will actually be revised as early as Abe wants.

Any constitutional revisions are still at least three to four years away because the referendum law is to actually come into force three years after its proclamation. In addition, there are two high hurdles to be cleared before the constitution can be changed; approval in both houses of the Diet with support from a two-thirds majority of members and then endorsement in a national referendum with support from more than half of eligible voters.

Enacted referendum law

"The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of setting internatuional disputes."

On May 14, the LDP-New Komeito coalition voted for the referendum bill at a plenary session of the House of Councillors, the upper house of the Diet. Four major opposition parties - the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the Japanese Communist Party (JCP), the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the People's New Party – voted against it. The House of Representatives, the lower house of the Diet, had passed the referendum bill on April 13.

After the enactment of the new law, Abe said, 'With the constitution's Article 96 showing amendment procedures, the ruling parties have been able to fulfil their responsibility.' Abe also reiterated his intention to make the constitutional amendment a key issue in the upper house election, calling it “a good opportunity to promote debate”. He said “as the enforcement of the law will be three years ahead, it is important to have a quiet, broad and deep discussion in a calm environment. We would like to proceed to discussions with the people about the LDP-compiled draft of a new constitution.”

Opposition parties called the move “a stain in constitutional politics.” Several hundred civic group and labor union members staged a protest near the Diet building, saying they cannot tolerate revision of the constitution’s war-renouncing Article 9.

Under Article 96 of the constitution, any amendments must be proposed supported by two-thirds or more of both houses of the Diet and then be approved in a national referendum by a simple majority vote. Procedures for such a referendum are not stipulated in the constitution.

The coalition between the LDP and New Komeito, a centrist party backed by the lay Buddhist organization Soka Gakkai, falls far short of a two-thirds majority in the less powerful upper house. This situation will not change, regardless of the outcome of that Diet chamber’s election this summer. Therefore, the ruling coalition will very likely need help from members of the opposition parties to obtain the required two-thirds of all votes in both houses of the Diet.

Sixty years after the constitution took effect in 1947, Japan has not had a law concerning a national referendum on constitutional amendments because there was strong opposition to enacting such a law amid solid public support for the constitution. But in recent years public opinion has become more favorable towards constitutional amendments.

The ruling coalition between the LDP and New Komeito and the largest opposition DPJ introduced their own national referendum bills to the Diet in May 2006 and attempted in vain to reconcile them.

Although negotiators from the ruling coalition and the DPJ sought to reconcile their differences and reach an agreement on a unified national referendum bill, DPJ leader Ichiro Ozawa instructed his party negotiators not to budge even an inch. The ruling coalition gave up on negotiations with the DPJ and railroaded its referendum bill through the lower house on April 13 and sent it to the upper house.

Ozawa, himself a long-time staunch advocate of constitutional reform and former LDP bigwig, has hardened his stance on the referendum bill issue since ultra-conservative Abe declared in his New Year’s press conference in early January that he will make revising the constitution a key issue in the upper house election in July.

"The nation's top law is a pacifist constitution that Japan can be proud of"

Although many members of his own party favor enacting a national referendum bill - and even revising the constitution - Ozawa feared that cooperating for the passage of the bill would only benefit the coalition ahead of the crucial election. In addition, the DPJ leader did not want to undermine a united front among the opposition parties against the ruling coalition in the run-up to the poll. The other, smaller opposition forces, including the Socialist and Communist parties, are vehemently opposed to any constitutional revisions. They urged the DPJ to oppose any referendum bill.

The referendum law calls for a referendum to be held only for the purpose of constitutional revisions and defines eligible voters as Japanese citizens aged 18 and older, in principle. It also stipulates that civil servants' participation in political activities will be limited and that government workers and teachers will be banned from taking part in campaigns related to the constitutional revision issue. It sets no requirements for minimum voter turnout that, if not achieved, would nullify the referendum, as called for by some members of the opposition camp.

Despite the DPJ's decision to oppose the bill partly because of what it calls insufficient deliberations, Hideo Watanabe, a DPJ member and former post and telecommunications minister, cast an approving vote in the upper house plenary session. He told reporters later that he did so because he felt there was something “impure' in the DPJ's campaign strategy of opposing the bill. “I will accept punishment” for going against the party decision, he added. Four other DPJ members were absent from the plenary session, citing 'business' or 'ill-heath.'

Now that the referendum law has been enacted in the current Diet session, as widely expected, the focus of attention will shift to debates by panels to be set up to screen constitutional amendment bills. The standing panels are to be established in both houses of the Diet under the referendum law. The new panels will likely be established during an extraordinary Diet session scheduled to convene following the upper house poll in July. The new panels will screen draft bills submitted by Diet members on amending the constitution. But the referendum law stipulates that the new panels' authority to screen draft bills or submit amendment bills to the Diet will be suspended for three years, until the referendum law is actually put into force.

Declining public support

In the autumn of 2005, the ruling LDP adopted its draft of a new constitution that would clear the way for Japan to play a greater role in international security. The current war-renouncing, pacifist constitution, drafted by the U.S. occupation forces immediately after Japan's defeat in World War II, has never been altered.

However, establishing a "self-imposed constitution" has been the LDP's credo since its 1955 founding, and the party has been in power almost uninterrupted during that period. It was the first time the LDP had proposed a new constitution in writing.

The LDP draft calls for, among other things, rewriting Article 9 - the clause almost synonymous with Japan's post-war defense policy - to acknowledge clearly the existence of a "military for self-defense." The draft also calls for more active participation in international peace cooperation activities. All these elements are missing from the current constitution.

Article 9, Section 1 says, ”Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” Article 9, Section 2 says, “In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”

"The Abe governement has also expressed a strong desire to further expand the boundaries of Japan's militaty activities"

The LDP draft calls for removing Article 9, Section 2 to specify the existence of a "military for self-defense" while keeping Article 9, Section 1 intact.

The current constitution is widely interpreted as forbidding the possession of a military. Although, in reality, Japan has about 240,000 troops of the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) and one of the world's biggest defense expenditures, successive governments have explained away the contradiction by claiming that SDF is not a military.

Momentum for revising the constitution, which took effect in 1947, has mounted following the September 2005 general election, in which the LDP-led coalition under then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi won a landslide victory, garnering more than a two-thirds majority in the 480-seat lower house, the more powerful of the two Diet chambers. The political momentum has gained steam further with the inauguration of Abe, who has become the first premier to vow to put revising the constitution on his political agenda.

Despite the recent progress in the Diet toward revising the constitution, however, public opinion shows that Japanese support for the change has slipped and that there is little enthusiasm for completely renouncing pacifism.

According to a survey of 3,000 Japanese nationwide conducted by the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan’s largest national daily, 46% of those polled favor constitutional revisions, while 39% oppose them, with the rest undecided or having no opinion.

Although those who favor constitutional revisions have outnumbered those who oppose them for 15 years in a row, the percentage of the former dropped for three years running. The 46% support ratio represents a sharp drop of nine percentage points from a similar poll taken a year ago before Abe took office. Meanwhile, the 39% disapproval ratio was seven percentage points higher from a year ago.

Of those who favor revising the constitution, the largest percentage - 48% - answered that new problems have arisen, such as the nation’s inability to make proper international contributions, under the current constitution. Of those who oppose revising the constitution, the largest percentage - 47% - replied that the Japanese nation has a pacifist constitution to be proud of.

As for Article 9 as a whole, only 36% of those polled replied that the article should be rewritten; another 36% answered that it should be interpreted flexibly as in the past but should not be altered; and 20% said that it should not be altered and should not even be interpreted flexibly.

With respect to Section 1 specifically, 80% of those surveyed replied that it should be kept intact and only 14% said that it should be rewritten. On Section 2, 54% of those polled answered that it should be kept unchanged and 38% said that it should be revised.

Asked whether Japan should exercise its right to collective defense, 21% replied that the constitution should be revised to allow the nation to do so, and another 21% said that the constitution should be interpreted flexibly to allow the nation to do so. The largest percentage - 50% - answered that Japan does not need to be allowed to do so as in the past.

Another recent opinion poll, conducted by Kyodo news agency, also showed a decline in public support for constitutional revisions. The survey showed that the percentage of those who favor revising the constitution dropped to 57% from 61% in a similar survey two years ago. Meanwhile, the percentage of those who oppose revising the constitution increased from 29.8% to 34.5% during the same period. On Article 9 as a whole, 44.5% of those polled replied that they see no need to revise it, while only 25% replied that it should be revised.

Conclusions and recommendations

"The swing of the public opinion make it uncertain whether the constitution will actually be revised."

The Japanese move toward constitutional amendments has been hailed by Washington, if not officially, as clear evidence that Tokyo is going in the right direction to become a more reliable and responsible security partner regionally and globally.

The Abe government has also expressed a strong desire to further expand the boundaries of Japan’s military activities, even under the current constitution. Successive Japanese governments have interpreted the constitution as prohibiting the nation from exercising its right to collective defense, or the right to come to the military aid of an ally under attack.

But the Abe government wants to allow the nation to help the U.S. in certain emergencies, including striking down ballistic missiles headed their way. The government has set up a panel of experts, chaired by former Ambassador to Washington Shunji Yanai, to launch detailed discussions on a limited number of contingencies in which Japan could mobilize its forces if the U.S. were to come under attack.

But the Japanese move toward a greater role in security has raised some grave concerns among many people in neighbouring Asian countries, who fear that Japan's military genie might be beginning to escape its bottle at last, more than six decades after the end of World War II. Japanese politicians and government officials have categorically brushed aside such concerns. However, the Japanese government and ruling parties need to do more to convince both Asian neighbors and Japanese public of the need to revise the constitution.

As for the referendum law, at least one important question must still be answered. Under the law, constitutional amendments will be considered to have been approved in a national referendum with a simple majority of all valid votes cast. But a minimum voter turnout should be set to validate the outcome of a referendum. Under the law, if a voter turnout is only 50%, amendments will be realized with support of only 25%-plus of all eligible voters. If this actually happens, doubts will be raised about the legitimacy of amendments.

• Tags:
• Japan

Share