Right after his ruling
coalition’s big gains in the July 10 Upper House election, Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe effectively put his bid for amending the Constitution on the agenda
of Diet discussions, urging parties to work toward building a consensus for
revision — beginning as early as in an extraordinary session to be convened
this fall. He is making the call now that pro-amendment forces have finally
come to control two-thirds of the seats in both chambers of the Diet — a
condition for initiating an amendment for approval in a national referendum.
What’s still not forthcoming, however, either from the prime minister or most
other proponents of revision, is which part of the Constitution needs to be
changed, how or why now.
What’s particular about Abe’s push for an amendment is
his repeated emphasis on how the 1947 Constitution was drafted while Japan was
under the Allied Occupation following its surrender in World War II. His statements
echo the views of many amendment proponents that the Constitution must be
revised because it had been “imposed” on the nation by the Occupation powers.
While the prime minister’s statements reflect his advocation of a “departure
from Japan’s postwar regime,” they border on a lack of respect of the
Constitution.
Under such a way of thinking, it appears as if amending the
Constitution is an end in itself, not the means to achieve concrete objectives.
That hardly sets the stage for rational discussions on just what needs to be
changed in the Constitution.
Abe also openly challenges the view that the role of a
constitution is to limit state power to protect people’s rights and freedom.
During a Diet debate in 2014, Abe said such a way of thinking belongs to the
days when monarchies held absolute power — and that a modern-day constitution
should instead define the nation’s form, ideals and future. An LDP draft
revision released in 2012 says it’s an obligation of the people to respect the
Constitution, whereas Article 99 of the current Constitution states that public
officials including ministers of state, Diet members and judges, along with the
Emperor, “have obligations to respect and uphold the Constitution.” Such
thinking on the part of Abe and the LDP should be kept in mind as the issue
unfolds in the Diet.
Abe plays down the significance of the two-thirds
majority gained by the pro-amendment forces as a result of the Upper House
election, saying that this past election was not about changing the Constitution.
He says he does not think the LDP draft will be adopted as it is since the LDP
alone remains far short of a two-thirds majority. Still, this situation is
obviously what he has long been waiting for. After enacting a law setting
procedures for holding a referendum on constitutional amendments during his
earlier short-lived stint in office, Abe advocated revising Article 96 of the
Constitution right after he returned to the government’s helm in late 2012 — so
as to lower the two-thirds threshold for the Diet to initiate an amendment,
only to withdraw the proposal in the face of widespread opposition, even from
within his ruling alliance. Now with the post-election gains of pro-amendment
forces behind him, Abe is urging the opposition Democratic Party — which
campaigned against constitutional revision under Abe’s watch but has members
who do not oppose revision — to join the discussions for revising the
Constitution.
The prime minister says what specifically should be
amended in the Constitution should be left to Diet discussions. It’s clear that
he has his mind set on eventually revising the war-renouncing Article 9. Abe
changed the government’s long-standing interpretation of Article 9 to lift the
self-imposed ban on Japan engaging in collective self-defense — to defend an
ally under attack even if Japan itself is not being attacked — in a Cabinet
decision in 2014 and last year enacted the security legislation that implements
a decision to significantly expand the scope of Self-Defense Forces’ overseas missions.
The controversial decision still permits Japan to engage in collective
self-defense only when the survival of the nation itself is threatened by the
enemy attack on its ally, and Abe said any further expansion of Japan’s
international military roles will require revising the Constitution.
Still, Abe and other leaders of the ruling coalition
deny that Article 9 will be on the agenda of amendment in the near future. The
prime minister keeps saying that public discussions have not deepened enough to
change the sensitive provision. Deputy LDP chief Masahiko Komura charged
Democratic Party leader Katsuya Okada with “demagogy” when he said during the
election campaign that Abe would aim to revise Article 9 once the parties in
favor of an amendment take a two-thirds majority in the Upper House. The LDP
knows that its coalition ally Komeito and other pro-amendment forces are not on
the same page for amending Article 9, and is concerned that seeking to change
it would still alienate a large proportion of voters.
Instead, the LDP is reportedly eyeing an amendment
that could possibly gain consensus among parties, and likely win popular
approval, such as giving the prime minister emergency powers in the event of a
major disaster or an attack — to test the waters before aiming for amendments
on more divisive issues, including Article 9. That is the wrong way to revise
the Constitution, which should be amended only when and where there is a clear
and compelling need for change. The proposed discussions in the Diet must focus
on what the parties and lawmakers think needs to be amended in the
Constitution, how and for what purposes. They should not initiate an amendment
for the sheer sake of setting a precedent.
No comments:
Post a Comment