Party leaders line up together ahead of the debate at the Japan National Press Club in Tokyo on October 12. Shown left to right are Yuichiro Tamaki, leader of the Democratic Party for the People; Keiichi Ishii, leader of the Komeito Party; Yoshihiko Noda, leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party; Shigeru Ishiba, president of the Liberal Democratic Party; Nobuyuki Baba, leader of the Ishin no Kai; Tomoko Tamura, chairperson of the Japan Communist Party; and Taro Yamamoto, leader of the Reiwa Shinsengumi Party. (©Sankei by Yuta Yasumoto)
The security environment surrounding Japan is extremely challenging. In that context, the October 27 Lower House election is a referendum on how to safeguard Japan's independence, prosperity, and the lives of its people. However, there has been inadequate discussion about amending the Constitution. Since the Constitution underpins the nation's foundation, that is a problem.
The ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has clearly stated in its manifesto that it will propose draft constitutional amendments in the Diet. It also targets obtaining the public's approval through a national referendum. Unfortunately, however, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has rarely touched on constitutional reform in his speeches.
There are several points of contention. The LDP has prepared a summary of the issues surrounding the proposed creation of a new "Article 9-2." These are intended to clarify the legal status of the Self-Defense Forces (SDF).
Ultimately, the nation's military forces should be officially stipulated in its Constitution. Nevertheless, this would be a meaningful intermediate step. The Nippon Ishin no Kai (Japan Innovation Party) has also pledged to amend Article 9 to recognize the SDF.
Vague Responses
The Komeito, the LDP's partner in government, has taken a somewhat different stance. It has publicly pledged to recognize that the SDF has a "position within the government structure." It says these should take place in the context of Articles 72 and 73. These articles define the duties of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. However, those alone would be inadequate to demonstrate Japan's national will concerning defense.
The main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP) has criticized the LDP proposal. It contends: "The legal binding force of Article 9, Paragraph 2, which prohibits the possession of military forces and the right to wage war, will be lost. And it could become possible to even exercise a full-spectrum right of collective self-defense. That would completely gut [Japan's] pacifism."
If the CDP's position is that peace can be maintained without amending the Constitution, isn't that entirely too naive?
Dealing with National Emergencies
Another point of contention is the creation of a clause in the Constitution addressing the stability of government during a national emergency. The LDP, Nippon Ishin no Kai, and the Democratic Party for the People (DPP) have considered the problem. They are in favor of extending the terms of Diet members in an emergency. However, Komeito has said it is still considering the matter. It cites the problem of "mixed opinions within the party."
The LDP and Nippon Ishin no Kai also agree about establishing a basis for issuing emergency government ordinances. However, Komeito has adopted a cautious stance on that point, too. It says, "There is no alternative to allowing certain restrictions on private rights to be imposed within the crisis management legislation."
Meanwhile, the CDP argues that the Constitution already provides for calling an emergency session of the House of Councillors. Also, it points out specific laws in place to deal with emergencies, such as the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act of 1961. Therefore, it argues, "There is no need to establish an emergency clause that would include extending the term of office of lawmakers."
The CDP is the largest opposition party. However, it seems unaware of the inadequacies of current provisions for dealing with a major emergency. Meanwhile, other opposition parties are currently discussing the issue.
Unfortunately, we never know when a large-scale disaster might occur, such as a massive earthquake in the Nankai Trough. Concerns about a Taiwan contingency are also growing.
Preserving the country in an extraordinary emergency requires establishing an emergency clause in the Constitution. This is a duty of our political leaders. Discussion of constitutional reform is essential for the protection of the Japanese people.
RELATED:
- INTERVIEW | Shinjiro Koizumi: Let The Public Speak on the Constitution
- EDITORIAL | Voters Deserve Debate That Tackles a Range of Policy Issues
- [Speaking Out] We Must Not Run from the Struggle to Constitutionalize SDF
(Read the editorial in Japanese.)
Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun
