Election to Choose Which Party We Want to Put in Power
FUKUHARA Koichi / Journalist
August 20, 2009
The House of Representatives election to be held on August 30, 2009, is often referred to as "the election to choose which political party is most fit to govern." It is only natural for Japan, whose politics is based on parliamentary system of government, that the Lower House elections offer the chance for the people to choose which party they will let rule the country. Why is it, then, that the coming election is being so particularly emphasized? The answer is that there have actually been only a few cases that have led to the change of government as the result of elections to date. Since 1947, general elections have been held 22 times, but there are only two cases where a change of government has taken place:
1) As a result of the 1947 elections, the new Socialist-led Tetsu Katayama administration was formed of a multiparty coalition of the Socialist, Democratic and National Cooperative Parties with the Japan Socialist Party amassing 143 seats to become the single largest party and took over the reins of government from the first Shigeru Yoshida administration, a coalition of the Liberal and Progressive Parties.
2) In 1993, the Liberal Democratic Party was divided and a three-party coalition of the Shinsei (Newly Born) Party, Japan New Party and New Party "Sakigake" government led by Hosokawa Morihiro was established.
Even though the number of opposition seats have widely fluctuated, no change of government has occurred since then. The Liberal Democrats have always been in power, except for the cases mentioned above. The political power struggles have been limited to a tug-of-war or factional strife among various cliques within the party. But this time, it is widely believed that the leading opposition party has a good chance to seize power, which would be an entirely new situation in Japanese politics.
However, in order to achieve a transfer of power all at once, the Democratic Party needs a landslide victory. It is more likely that they will fail to obtain such needed strength and the political situation will become murky and unstable. No matter what situation arises, it will contribute to a recovery of the people's faith in politics as it means the start of a National Diet that reflects popular sentiments based on the great change that has been taking place in recent years in Japanese politics.
Since 1994 when the single-seat constituency and proportional representation system were introduced in Lower House elections, slow but steady progress has been made toward the establishment of a two-major-party framework. The concentration of population into big cities and the widening of disparities among local areas have also been occurring, while the firm conservative electoral bases have gradually eroding away.
More than anything else, the overwhelming military and economic power of the United States, which has provided stability for Japan’s diplomatic and security policy through the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, is losing significance because of stagnation from the war in Iraq and the global recession (triggered by the American financial crisis). Thus, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Japan, with the second largest economy in the world – now out of breath due to the extended business slump, has been losing in recent local elections. The LDP just relinquished its leadership position to the Democratic Party in the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly in the July election.
The Diet members who now stand for election after the dissolution of the House of Representatives are those who won their seats in the election held in August of 2005, under the then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who forcefully advocated the privatization of the postal services. Koizumi dissolved the Lower House in response to the decision made in the Upper House against the privatization of the state-run postal services. It was a spectacular move by Koizumi. He refused to give the party authorization to LDP candidates who had opposed his postal reform and even tried to block their re-election by backing rival candidates, nick-named "assassins." The "theater-style" electoral battle, in which the Prime Minister shouted out: "This is a real reform that may demolish the LDP," enfevered the voters and brought about an all-time landslide victory for the LDP, winning more than two-thirds of the seats. However, the LDP is still suffering from the after-effects of that election.
Koizumi resigned as Prime Minister in September of 2006, at the expiration of his term as the LDP presidency. In a substantial transfer of power, the Shinzo Abe administration was inaugurated. The young, new Prime Minister inherited Koizumi's "House of Representatives two-thirds majority" legacy and intended to realize amendments to the Constitution as well as strengthen Japan's military. But he suffered a fatal defeat in the House of Councilors election in July of 2007 and resigned after only one year in office.
The LDP tried to cope with the worsening situation by handing over the reins of government to Yasuo Fukuda (in September of 2007) and then to Taro Aso (in September of 2008), but they were criticized severely both at home and abroad as a "weak regime changing its leader every year." Prime Minister Aso came in with the resolve to "reconstruct the regime by dissolving parliament and winning elections." But he was unable to do so for various reasons, and he finally dissolved the Lower House just two weeks before the expiration of the term of the members. He had no other way, but he succeeded in forestalling the intra-party move to force him to bring forward an LDP presidential election.
In the past, the Prime Minister's prerogative to dissolve parliament has been regarded as a trump card to suddenly break a deadlocked political situation. Certainly it must have been true in the days when the Japanese people were making efforts to practice democracy introduced to Japan under the American occupation when alliances between and rupture of political parties were in full play. As we gain more experience in democratic politics, it is now hoped that major parties will bring about a change of administration by competing with each other on policy matters. It is, therefore, earnestly expected that the ruling party make every effort to fulfill their campaign promises during the four-year term of the members of the House of Representatives as provided for by the Constitution. On the other hand, the opposition is expected to use their resources to appeal to the public by proposing countermeasures to government policies through normal discussions at the Diet.
It was nothing but nonsense for Prime Minister Aso, therefore, to proudly reiterate throughout the summer that, "I am the one who will decide the time to dissolve the Diet." Likewise, the Democratic Party that won the landslide victory in the House of Councilors election in July of 2007 appeared quite unpleasant as they tried to boycott Diet deliberations and demanded an early dissolution of the House, claiming that "the will of the people is now with us."
In the early stages of the campaign for the coming August election, the Democratic Party (DP) seems to have assumed the offensive by publishing a manifesto, a list of high priority policies and claiming "the need for drastic reforms as well as an exclusion of government bureaucratic rule." On the other hand, the governing LDP is counter-attacking vehemently by saying, "DP policies are just irresponsible hand-outs without financial backup." The current political atmosphere is full of feverish excitement. The opposition's new policies sound attractive, but will they really be able to carry them out? Which side will attract more votes, the government parties' past achievements and stability, or the opposition parties' willingness and possibilities? In the process of narrowing the issues, if the opposition's policies are not completely satisfactory, whether or not the voters agree to give them a chance and test their abilities to handle the difficult issues, recognizing that it is the only way to advance Japan's politics—this actually is the key to the outcome of the coming election that may bring about a change in the administration.
The writer is a former Chief Editorial Writer of Kyodo News Service.
1) As a result of the 1947 elections, the new Socialist-led Tetsu Katayama administration was formed of a multiparty coalition of the Socialist, Democratic and National Cooperative Parties with the Japan Socialist Party amassing 143 seats to become the single largest party and took over the reins of government from the first Shigeru Yoshida administration, a coalition of the Liberal and Progressive Parties.
2) In 1993, the Liberal Democratic Party was divided and a three-party coalition of the Shinsei (Newly Born) Party, Japan New Party and New Party "Sakigake" government led by Hosokawa Morihiro was established.
Even though the number of opposition seats have widely fluctuated, no change of government has occurred since then. The Liberal Democrats have always been in power, except for the cases mentioned above. The political power struggles have been limited to a tug-of-war or factional strife among various cliques within the party. But this time, it is widely believed that the leading opposition party has a good chance to seize power, which would be an entirely new situation in Japanese politics.
However, in order to achieve a transfer of power all at once, the Democratic Party needs a landslide victory. It is more likely that they will fail to obtain such needed strength and the political situation will become murky and unstable. No matter what situation arises, it will contribute to a recovery of the people's faith in politics as it means the start of a National Diet that reflects popular sentiments based on the great change that has been taking place in recent years in Japanese politics.
Since 1994 when the single-seat constituency and proportional representation system were introduced in Lower House elections, slow but steady progress has been made toward the establishment of a two-major-party framework. The concentration of population into big cities and the widening of disparities among local areas have also been occurring, while the firm conservative electoral bases have gradually eroding away.
More than anything else, the overwhelming military and economic power of the United States, which has provided stability for Japan’s diplomatic and security policy through the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, is losing significance because of stagnation from the war in Iraq and the global recession (triggered by the American financial crisis). Thus, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Japan, with the second largest economy in the world – now out of breath due to the extended business slump, has been losing in recent local elections. The LDP just relinquished its leadership position to the Democratic Party in the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly in the July election.
The Diet members who now stand for election after the dissolution of the House of Representatives are those who won their seats in the election held in August of 2005, under the then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who forcefully advocated the privatization of the postal services. Koizumi dissolved the Lower House in response to the decision made in the Upper House against the privatization of the state-run postal services. It was a spectacular move by Koizumi. He refused to give the party authorization to LDP candidates who had opposed his postal reform and even tried to block their re-election by backing rival candidates, nick-named "assassins." The "theater-style" electoral battle, in which the Prime Minister shouted out: "This is a real reform that may demolish the LDP," enfevered the voters and brought about an all-time landslide victory for the LDP, winning more than two-thirds of the seats. However, the LDP is still suffering from the after-effects of that election.
Koizumi resigned as Prime Minister in September of 2006, at the expiration of his term as the LDP presidency. In a substantial transfer of power, the Shinzo Abe administration was inaugurated. The young, new Prime Minister inherited Koizumi's "House of Representatives two-thirds majority" legacy and intended to realize amendments to the Constitution as well as strengthen Japan's military. But he suffered a fatal defeat in the House of Councilors election in July of 2007 and resigned after only one year in office.
The LDP tried to cope with the worsening situation by handing over the reins of government to Yasuo Fukuda (in September of 2007) and then to Taro Aso (in September of 2008), but they were criticized severely both at home and abroad as a "weak regime changing its leader every year." Prime Minister Aso came in with the resolve to "reconstruct the regime by dissolving parliament and winning elections." But he was unable to do so for various reasons, and he finally dissolved the Lower House just two weeks before the expiration of the term of the members. He had no other way, but he succeeded in forestalling the intra-party move to force him to bring forward an LDP presidential election.
In the past, the Prime Minister's prerogative to dissolve parliament has been regarded as a trump card to suddenly break a deadlocked political situation. Certainly it must have been true in the days when the Japanese people were making efforts to practice democracy introduced to Japan under the American occupation when alliances between and rupture of political parties were in full play. As we gain more experience in democratic politics, it is now hoped that major parties will bring about a change of administration by competing with each other on policy matters. It is, therefore, earnestly expected that the ruling party make every effort to fulfill their campaign promises during the four-year term of the members of the House of Representatives as provided for by the Constitution. On the other hand, the opposition is expected to use their resources to appeal to the public by proposing countermeasures to government policies through normal discussions at the Diet.
It was nothing but nonsense for Prime Minister Aso, therefore, to proudly reiterate throughout the summer that, "I am the one who will decide the time to dissolve the Diet." Likewise, the Democratic Party that won the landslide victory in the House of Councilors election in July of 2007 appeared quite unpleasant as they tried to boycott Diet deliberations and demanded an early dissolution of the House, claiming that "the will of the people is now with us."
In the early stages of the campaign for the coming August election, the Democratic Party (DP) seems to have assumed the offensive by publishing a manifesto, a list of high priority policies and claiming "the need for drastic reforms as well as an exclusion of government bureaucratic rule." On the other hand, the governing LDP is counter-attacking vehemently by saying, "DP policies are just irresponsible hand-outs without financial backup." The current political atmosphere is full of feverish excitement. The opposition's new policies sound attractive, but will they really be able to carry them out? Which side will attract more votes, the government parties' past achievements and stability, or the opposition parties' willingness and possibilities? In the process of narrowing the issues, if the opposition's policies are not completely satisfactory, whether or not the voters agree to give them a chance and test their abilities to handle the difficult issues, recognizing that it is the only way to advance Japan's politics—this actually is the key to the outcome of the coming election that may bring about a change in the administration.
The writer is a former Chief Editorial Writer of Kyodo News Service.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
政権選択の選挙
福原 亨一 / ジャーナリスト
2009年 8月 20日
８月30日投票の衆院議員総選挙は「政権選択の選挙」と呼ばれている。議院内閣制をとる我が国では自明の理である「衆院選＝政権選択」が、今回ことさらに強調されるのは、これまで総選挙の結果が政権交代につながった例は少ないからだ。1947年以降、22回の総選挙のうち、①1947年、社会党が143議席で第一党となり、社会、民主、国民協同３党連立の片山哲内閣が自由、進歩両党連立の第１次吉田茂内閣に取って代わった ②1993年、自民党が分裂し、新生党、日本新党、新党さきがけ３党連立の細川護煕内閣が成立した----二例だけだ。野党の議席は比較的大きく変動、消長しても政権交代には至らず、政権党内部の主導権争い、派閥闘争の域にとどまるのが普通だった。今回、野党第一党が政権を奪う可能性あり、と広く認められていることは日本政治の新局面を示している。
しかし一挙に政権交代を実現するには、民主党の地滑り的大勝が必要で、今回は同党の力が及ばず、政治情勢は混迷、不安定になる、という可能性も十分にある。どのような結果であれ、近年の重大な情勢変化を踏まえた民意を反映する国会のスタートは政治への信頼回復に貢献するだろう。
1994年、衆院選に小選挙区比例代表並立制が採用されてから二大政党化の流れは着実に強まってきた。人口の都市集中、地域格差の拡大も進んで、保守政権の固い選挙基盤は徐々に崩されてきた。
なによりも日米安保条約で日本の外交、安保政策に大きな安定感を与えて来た米国の圧倒的な軍事力、経済力が、泥沼化したイラク戦争、アメリカの金融危機を引き金とする世界不況で権威を失墜。世界第二位を誇った日本経済も長引く苦境にあえぐ中で、自民党は最近の地方選挙で連敗し、7月には東京都議会第一党の座を民主党に明け渡したばかりだ。
今回の解散で失職した前衆院議員は、2005年８月に小泉首相が強行した「郵政解散」選挙で当選した人たちだ。国営郵政事業の民営化を推進した小泉氏は、参院の郵政改革法案否決に対抗して衆院を解散する奇策に訴え、改革に反対した自民党議員の公認を拒否し、「刺客」と呼ばれる対立候補を立てて排除を図った。首相が「自民党をぶち壊す改革だ」と絶叫した劇場型の選挙戦は国民を熱狂させ、自民党に議席の三分の二を与える大勝をもたらしたが、その後遺症が自民党を悩ませている。
小泉氏は翌2006年9月、自民党総裁の任期が切れるとあっさり辞任、実質的な政権禅譲で、安倍晋三内閣が発足した。若い新首相は、小泉氏の遺産「衆院議席の三分の二」を頼りに念願の憲法改正、軍備強化の推進を急いだが、2007年7月の参院選で大敗、在任僅か１年で退陣した。
自民党は、福田康夫（07年9月首相就任）、麻生太郎（08年9月同）と政権のたらい回しを続けて事態をしのいだが、「毎年一人ずつの弱体政権」と内外から酷評された。「解散、総選挙を断行し政権を立て直す」決意で登場した麻生首相も容易にチャンスをつかめず、結局、彼の解散は、前衆院議員の任期を２週間足らず繰り上げただけ、自民党内の総裁選繰り上げ論を封じた成果に満足するほかなかった。
従来、首相の衆院解散権は政治の膠着した局面を一気に打開する切り札だと見られていた。確かに米占領軍によって導入された民主政治の習得に努め、政党の離合集散も激しかった時代にはその通りだったに違いない。しかし民主政治の経験を重ね、大政党が政策を競いながら健全な政権交代を実現することが望まれる今では、政権党に対しては憲法に規定された衆院議員四年の任期を尊重し、その期間中に選挙公約の着実な実現を求めること、野党に対しては正常な法案審議を通じて対案を練り上げ、将来の政策実行に当たる人材の存在をアピールすること、が強く期待される。
そう考えると、麻生首相が「解散の時期は私が決める」と終始、得意顔で繰り返す姿は滑稽としか見えなかった。同様に、07年の参院選で大勝した民主党が「最近の民意はわが党の側にあり」と衆院の即時解散を要求し、国会審議を妨げようとする態度も強い違和感を感じさせるものだった。
８月選挙の序盤の状況は、民主党が「官僚支配を排除して思い切った改革を」と意欲的な政策を並べたマニフェストを発表して攻勢に出れば、政府自民党は「財源の裏付けのない無責任なばらまき」と激しく反撃して、熱気が高まった。野党の新政策に魅力はあるが果たして実現できるのか。与党の実績、安定と野党の意欲、可能性と、どちらが選挙民を引きつけるのか。争点が絞られる過程で、仮に野党の政策が万全でなくても実行の機会を与え、応用改善の能力をテストすることが日本の政治を前進させる、との意識を選挙民が受け入れるかどうかが政権選択を左右するカギになるだろう。
（筆者は元共同通信論説委員。）
しかし一挙に政権交代を実現するには、民主党の地滑り的大勝が必要で、今回は同党の力が及ばず、政治情勢は混迷、不安定になる、という可能性も十分にある。どのような結果であれ、近年の重大な情勢変化を踏まえた民意を反映する国会のスタートは政治への信頼回復に貢献するだろう。
1994年、衆院選に小選挙区比例代表並立制が採用されてから二大政党化の流れは着実に強まってきた。人口の都市集中、地域格差の拡大も進んで、保守政権の固い選挙基盤は徐々に崩されてきた。
なによりも日米安保条約で日本の外交、安保政策に大きな安定感を与えて来た米国の圧倒的な軍事力、経済力が、泥沼化したイラク戦争、アメリカの金融危機を引き金とする世界不況で権威を失墜。世界第二位を誇った日本経済も長引く苦境にあえぐ中で、自民党は最近の地方選挙で連敗し、7月には東京都議会第一党の座を民主党に明け渡したばかりだ。
今回の解散で失職した前衆院議員は、2005年８月に小泉首相が強行した「郵政解散」選挙で当選した人たちだ。国営郵政事業の民営化を推進した小泉氏は、参院の郵政改革法案否決に対抗して衆院を解散する奇策に訴え、改革に反対した自民党議員の公認を拒否し、「刺客」と呼ばれる対立候補を立てて排除を図った。首相が「自民党をぶち壊す改革だ」と絶叫した劇場型の選挙戦は国民を熱狂させ、自民党に議席の三分の二を与える大勝をもたらしたが、その後遺症が自民党を悩ませている。
小泉氏は翌2006年9月、自民党総裁の任期が切れるとあっさり辞任、実質的な政権禅譲で、安倍晋三内閣が発足した。若い新首相は、小泉氏の遺産「衆院議席の三分の二」を頼りに念願の憲法改正、軍備強化の推進を急いだが、2007年7月の参院選で大敗、在任僅か１年で退陣した。
自民党は、福田康夫（07年9月首相就任）、麻生太郎（08年9月同）と政権のたらい回しを続けて事態をしのいだが、「毎年一人ずつの弱体政権」と内外から酷評された。「解散、総選挙を断行し政権を立て直す」決意で登場した麻生首相も容易にチャンスをつかめず、結局、彼の解散は、前衆院議員の任期を２週間足らず繰り上げただけ、自民党内の総裁選繰り上げ論を封じた成果に満足するほかなかった。
従来、首相の衆院解散権は政治の膠着した局面を一気に打開する切り札だと見られていた。確かに米占領軍によって導入された民主政治の習得に努め、政党の離合集散も激しかった時代にはその通りだったに違いない。しかし民主政治の経験を重ね、大政党が政策を競いながら健全な政権交代を実現することが望まれる今では、政権党に対しては憲法に規定された衆院議員四年の任期を尊重し、その期間中に選挙公約の着実な実現を求めること、野党に対しては正常な法案審議を通じて対案を練り上げ、将来の政策実行に当たる人材の存在をアピールすること、が強く期待される。
そう考えると、麻生首相が「解散の時期は私が決める」と終始、得意顔で繰り返す姿は滑稽としか見えなかった。同様に、07年の参院選で大勝した民主党が「最近の民意はわが党の側にあり」と衆院の即時解散を要求し、国会審議を妨げようとする態度も強い違和感を感じさせるものだった。
８月選挙の序盤の状況は、民主党が「官僚支配を排除して思い切った改革を」と意欲的な政策を並べたマニフェストを発表して攻勢に出れば、政府自民党は「財源の裏付けのない無責任なばらまき」と激しく反撃して、熱気が高まった。野党の新政策に魅力はあるが果たして実現できるのか。与党の実績、安定と野党の意欲、可能性と、どちらが選挙民を引きつけるのか。争点が絞られる過程で、仮に野党の政策が万全でなくても実行の機会を与え、応用改善の能力をテストすることが日本の政治を前進させる、との意識を選挙民が受け入れるかどうかが政権選択を左右するカギになるだろう。
（筆者は元共同通信論説委員。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟