lovely's insights.2

Political Reformation

In every generation, cultures either change or develop from one form to another. Culture can often describe the kind of government a certain country could possibly have. Charter Change and political reform are often the subjects of debates in the Senate or House of Representatives. However, in Japan, much consideration is being done just for them to have political reform. Let us have a quick look back in history.
Pacifism
Japan’s defeat in 1945 made the people suffer tremendously. This is the reason why article 9 is created. It says there:
“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.
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.”

Hatred of war is natural since war is destructive so, it will follow that warfare will be removed from the country’s constitution. During the Cold War’s spread in Asia, Japan began rearming themselves, but many considered this as a violation in the constitution. Therefore, the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) changed the way the constitution is interpreted although the government has not changed its interpretation that Japan shall not engage in the collective right of self-defense. That is, Japan cannot fight for an ally or help an ally militarily. Also, it should be noted that Japan’s public opinion and media remain pacifist. Only 13 percent of Japanese people replied affirmatively when asked whether they would fight if Japan were invaded. In other major countries, around 80 percent or more answered affirmatively.

Possible Sources of Reform

Now, the biggest hanging question is what are the prospects of political reform in Japan? Can Japan not change? Could it not go with the flow of times? The following paragraphs give definite answers to the questions.

Firstly, the electoral reform of 1994 in Japan was supposed to bring an end to one-ended party dominance and encourage candidates to square-off in political issues. Despite of the attempted reform in elections, the system was still the same. The effectiveness of the reforms is debated among Japan scholars but still, change has been slower than many hoped for. It was said that the 1994 reform not only has effect on electoral reform but also to domestic policy and foreign affairs. Such reforms allowed Japan to have self defense troop during war in Iraq and enabled Japan to involve itself in overseas peacekeeping operations.

Secondly, another source of political reform is the generational change. Younger members of the National Diet support the idea of political reform. The new generation of Japanese leaders considers political change a very effective way of strengthening Japan’s dysfunctional constitution. Of course, as was said, constitutions change according to the kind of culture a certain country currently has. In addition, because of the new, overseas-educated and politically-prepared leaders, new skills or styles in politics emerged. Thus, a change in political policies is possible.

Furthermore, globalization may be another source of political reform in Japan. Although Japan was criticized during its total indifference during the Gulf war as a response to the horrors of World War II, the post-Cold War gave a galvanizing effect to Japan’s foreign policies. The recent war in Iraq made the country act upon America’s call for anti-terrorism by, at least, changing most of its foreign laws.

Lastly, relationship between politicians and bureaucrats, nowadays, is not harmonious. Today, Japanese bureaucrats are regarded as a major cause of Japan’s economic difficulties: a prolonged lump, high unemployment, stock price stagnation, deflation, bad loans, and looming government debt. Until the early 1990s, however, the bureaucracy was lauded as a catalyst for stable economic performance, internationally competitive manufacturing, and record trade surpluses.

There are three possible ways for effective reformation of bureaucracy according to Junko Kato, a writer in Japanese politics. She said and I quote, “First, the cabinet office needs more staff. The 2001 reform has generally focused on increasing political control over policymaking. However, strengthening policy expertise for politicians that is independent of the bureaucratic organization is a more effective way of coping with current economic difficulties. The independent staff would complement bureaucratic capabilities by bringing in new ideas, conflicting views and alternative solutions—which would serve to break through the routines and precedents in bureaucratic decision-making. Second, in addition to strengthening policy expertise inside the cabinet office, ministries and agencies should have their own access to policy expertise that is independent of their unchanging organizational needs and thus may be used to reverse present policies. The Japanese government has long used advisory councils in policymaking, but has not made the best use of those policy experts appointed from the private sector—who, of all the council members, tend to be most opposed to policy proposals prepared by the government. Because of the emphasis on consensual decision making, the advisory councils tend to be no more than a “rubber stamp”; however, if active policy discussion were more appreciated, the councils could be a source of policy innovation. Some movement in this direction has already occurred, but more progress is needed. A third reform would involve cultivating “out of the box” thinking among members of the ministries and agencies themselves. For lateral entry, policy expertise should be a more important criterion (though making it the sole criterion would hurt the morale of existing organizational members, and there should be limits on the number of lateral entries and/or the terms of the individuals involved). A related move would be to increase opportunities for members to enlarge their own expertise, in order to stimulate them to break with “the done thing” inside the bureaucratic organization. Under the pure organizational orientation, bureaucrats do not have much opportunity to gain special knowledge on the inside, and their ability to do so does not necessarily respond flexibly to changing and imminent policy needs such as the recent need to solve the bad loan problems of financial institutions. This lack of opportunity exists because few inside the organization can designate the changing demand for expertise.”

There is no simple answer or panacea that will work for restructuring the Japanese political economy, especially as far as the bureaucracy is concerned. Looking for answers in another country—especially the United States, whose system is quite different—is not sufficient to address the complex problems related to bureaucratic reform and the need for a comprehensive, long-term approach.

Conclusion

Although Japan’s progress regarding political change is slow, still, it is natural for people to clamor for better governing policies. Security, welfare, and peace are the major concerns of the people – just like in any other country. However their hands are tied as to the reforms that they want to make. Japanese leaders must carefully plan and resort to all means even though it might seem impossible. Every stone must not be left unturned, for their efforts might result to fruition in the near future as long as their motives are for the welfare of the country and not for vested interests and hidden agendas.