Fourth Meeting

Thursday, November 9, 2000

Meeting Agenda

1. Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan (A vision for Japan in the 21st century)

After statements were heard from Prof. SASAKI Takeshi and Prof. KOBAYASHI Takeshi concerning the above matters, questions were put to them.

Informants:

Members who put questions to Prof. SASAKI

Members who put questions to Prof. KOBAYASHI


Main points of Prof. SASAKI's statement

1. The beginning of political leadership: Leaving the century of bureaucratic control

>> If Japan is to solve various structural problems, it must change from a system of bureaucratic control to a system of political leadership.

>> "Political leadership" means overcoming compartmentalization of the bureaucracy, achieving policy-making that is systematic and plan-oriented, and making government more strategic.

>> To that end, traditional political practices should be reformed as follows:

1) The present two-track management system, in which the Cabinet and the ruling party (or parties) each manage legislation separately, should be changed into a single unified system.

2) The practice of frequent Cabinet reshuffles should be corrected.

3) Rules should be drawn up to obtain a balance between political leadership and  impartiality of the executive branch.
 

2. Political leadership and government on the basis of constitution: problems expected from the amendment procedures

>> The existing stringent conditions for proposing amendments have the bad effect of stifling public discussion on the Constitution.

1) There is a risk of the Constitution being reduced to mere form without substance.
2) Even clauses that have no direct effect on the life of the nation (e.g., the provisions concerning the Diet) cannot be altered.
 

3) There is no political risk involved in the constitutional debate, and this lowers our ability to solve problems through politics.

>> Accordingly, the conditions for proposing amendments should be relaxed in order to restore a healthy tension between politics and the Constitution.

3. Problems pertaining to politics and the political system

a. The status of political parties

>> The status of political parties should be defined and their role and responsibilities clarified in the Constitution.

>> In this regard, in the Constitution itself it will be sufficient to stipulate that political parties are public organs for the realization of popular sovereignty and to make provisions to ensure their openness and transparency. Detailed provisions can be left to the Political Party Law.

b. Problems concerning the Diet and the Cabinet

>> To ensure adequate deliberations, the principle of discontinuous sessions should be reconsidered.

>> The present status of the House of Councillors combines aspects of both a parliamentary and a presidential system. Specifically: (1) There is no system for dissolving the House of Councillors on a vote of non-confidence (which makes it close to the legislatures found in presidential systems). (2) The House of Councillors takes part in nominating the prime minister (which is a principle of parliamentary systems). There is thus a need to marshal arguments over the bicameral system.

c. Reconstituting the relationship between the capital and the regions

>> Mutual dependency between the capital and the regions should be ended. Efforts should be made to thoroughly decentralize power and to liberate the politics of central government from the politics of regional government.

>> The national government should concentrate on performing its functions at the international level, and the regional governments should foster cost-consciousness by reviewing the number and size of local bodies.

d. Direct popular participation

>> The best argument against the recent mood favoring direct democracy in this country is to have the parliamentary system ensure results through political leadership.

Main points of questions put to Prof. SASAKI

SHINDO Yoshitaka (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> If the Constitution is to be amended under the initiative of political leadership, I think we need to consider who should draft the bill(s) that will form the basis of deliberations in the Diet, and how it should be done. What are your views on this?

>> If it is decided to revise the Constitution, which do you think is preferable, complete or partial revision? Also, do you think that the amendment procedures should remain strict, or should they be relaxed to allow flexible revision?

>> To enable the Japanese people to have a sense of national unity and solidarity, what sort of balance should be struck between fostering respect for the individual and fostering a public spirit and an awareness of being part of the nation?

>> I believe that, notwithstanding our excellent national qualities and our having the fundamentals of a major power, Japan does not have a major power's confidence toward other nations and its status is not properly recognized by the rest of the world. How should Japan behave in future in the international community?
 

KANO Michihiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> I believe that the reason why Japan's prime ministers cannot exercise leadership is that their authority is not stipulated clearly in the Cabinet Law, which is a subordinate legal framework of the Constitution. What is your view of this?

>> Article 65 says "Executive power shall be vested in the Cabinet." However, I consider the apparatus of executive power (ministries and agencies) and the Cabinet to be inherently separate, and I think we need to clarify the relationship between them, which would also enable the parliamentary cabinet system to function soundly. What are your views on this?
 

AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> You advocate a shift from bureaucratic control to political leadership, but is it not difficult to draw a clear line between politicians and bureaucrats?

>> It has been suggested that the reason for the current active constitutional debate among the general public is the public's growing distrust of politics. What do you think of this view?
 

TAKEYAMA Yuriko (Liberal Party)

>> How do you think that the groundwork should be laid for political leadership?

>> What are the qualities of the ideal politician? If you had to name one politician with those qualities, who would it be?

>> What are your views on the problem of unaffiliated undecided voters?
 

HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)

>> I think that the realization of political leadership would also, in a way, give a concrete form to popular sovereignty. How do you view the present state of popular sovereignty?

>> At present, problems such as the disparity in the value of individual votes mean that the people's will is not being truly reflected, although this is the basic premise of parliamentary democracy. What are your views regarding this situation?
 

HIMORI Fumihiro (Social Democratic Party)

>> Has not the people's understanding of the Constitution been hindered by the lack of opportunities for them to discuss the Constitution as a matter of immediate personal concern, which is partly due to the lack of an organ such as a constitutional court?

>>If there were to be a system of public election of the prime minister, is there not a risk that, depending on a particular leader's qualities, he or she might lead the nation in a dangerous direction?
 

KONDO Motohiko (21st Century Club)

>> What are your views on the future of the single-seat constituency system that has been introduced for elections to the House of Representatives?

>> What are your views on the need for a system of public election of the prime minister?
 

Main points of Prof. KOBAYASHI's statement

Introduction

On the premise that the Constitution is a work of the people, with whom sovereign power resides, I will present my thoughts on "a vision for Japan in the 21st century" as one of the people with whom sovereign power resides, and as a constitutional scholar.

1. The "vision for Japan" approach to conducting research on the Constitution

(1) The proper form of research by the Commission

>> Research on what kind of country Japan should be with reference to the Constitution (namely, the form that the society and the nation should take as indicated by the principles of the Constitution; in other words, the constitutional structure of the nation)

>> In conducting the constitutional debate, each political party and each politician should be fully aware of their responsibilities to the people with regard to putting the Constitution into practice.

(2) Confirmation of the legal status of the Commission

>> Self-imposed limits on the Commission's authority (e.g., the Commission's purpose is limited to "broad and comprehensive research on the Constitution of Japan," it does not have the right to introduce legislative bills, and the duration of its research has been set at about five years)

>> The research topics of the Commission should be chosen on a more systematic basis.

2. The causes of the gap between politics and the Constitution


(1) How has the Constitution of Japan been regarded over the years?

>> The unfavorable attitude shown by postwar governments and ruling parties toward the Constitution of Japan; the method of constitutional revision by interpretation, which deviates from the principle of the rule of law.

>> The historical role of the Commission (objective research on the extent to which the Constitution's provisions have become reality)

(2) How has the Supreme Court handled the issues involved in realizing the Constitution's provisions?

>> The Supreme Court's handling of whether laws are constitutional or not shows excessive leniency toward the political sector.

>> The Diet, which makes laws that do not adequately fulfill the requirements of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, which avoids ruling on the constitutionality of those laws

3. A vision for Japan in the 21st century in which the Constitution plays a full part


(1) What kind of country should Japan be in the new century?

>> The implications of several laws enacted by the 145th session of the Diet (Law Concerning Measures to Deal with Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan, Law Concerning the National Flag and National Anthem, Wiretapping Law, etc.)

>> The special significance of Article 25's guarantee of the right of survival (a key element of the policy principle that calls for "putting the Constitution into practice in daily life")

(2) A blueprint faithful to the Constitution: issues concerning pacifism

>> The normative meaning of Article 9, and a "constitution-based policy" that would convert the existing Self Defense Forces into a nonmilitary entity compatible with the Constitution

>> Development of an active constitution-based policy consisting of peaceful international contributions

Conclusion
Only when the Constitution is being faithfully implemented is it possible to have a true debate over its revision.
 

Main points of questions put to Prof. KOBAYASHI

MIZUNO Ken'ichi (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> It is appropriate to revise the Constitution for the purpose of enhancing and clarifying the ideals proclaimed therein, or for the purpose of making them consistent with the needs of the times. Particularly with regard to the existence of the Self Defense Forces and the exercise of the right of self-defense by armed force, both of which are recognized by the Japanese people, would it not be natural to revise the Constitution in order to make it consistent with reality?

>> In what way do you think the Constitution permits the right of self-defense to be exercised?

>> The Ashida amendment is considered to have had the intent of recognizing the maintenance of war potential for self-defense purposes. How do you view the Ashida amendment?

>> What, specifically, is meant by "international contributions by peaceful means"? Also, should there not be an explicit statement in the Constitution to the effect that Japan will make international contributions by peaceful means?
 

MAEHARA Seiji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> Does your view that Japan has the right of self-defense derive from your interpretation of Article 9, or does it derive from the natural rights of a sovereign state?

>> What, specifically, is meant by an exercise of the right of self-defense that is not accompanied by armed force?

>> I believe that the responsibility of government to preserve the life and property of the people cannot be fulfilled by adhering solely to nonviolence and civil disobedience. What is your view of this?

>> Is there not a possibility of destroying the constitutional system itself by being too devoted to Article 9?
 

OTA Akihiro (New Komeito)

>> What do you think of the idea of establishing a constitutional court in order to break out of the existing impasse, namely, judicial passivism regarding constitutionality cases?

>> As we enter the 21st century with a future-oriented outlook, it seems to me that Articles 13 and 25 cannot be read in such a way as to guarantee environmental rights and other related rights which call for a broader perspective that values life and the ecosystem. What is your view of this?
 

FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> I understand the existence of the Self Defense Forces to be constitutional, but, due to differences of interpretation, some people consider it to be unconstitutional. I believe we should revise the Constitution in order to eliminate that margin for differences of interpretation. What is your view of this?

>> Do you consider that the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty violates the Constitution?
 

YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> Do you think that the "constitution-based policy" to convert the Self Defense Forces to a nonmilitary entity compatible with the Constitution will become a reality before the end of the 21st century?

>> What are the reasons for Article 9 being highly regarded around the world, and for your describing Article 25 as advanced?

>> Are the provisions of the existing Constitution sufficient to substantiate the new human rights, such as environmental rights?

>> With regard to the amendment procedures in Article 96, you stated that the popular referendum cannot be eliminated because that would exceed the limits of revision, but what do you mean by "the limits of revision of the Constitution"?
 

YOKOMITSU Katsuhiko (Social Democratic Party)

>> I believe that we should enact a "Basic Law for Peace" as a way of closing the gap between the pacifist ideals proclaimed in the Constitution and the reality. What do you think of this idea?

>> What do you think is meant by the "honored place" in international society that is referred to in the Preamble?

>> In your opinion, can Japan occupy an "honored place" solely by means of nonmilitary international contributions?
 

KONDO Motohiko (21st Century Club)

>> Are there not some areas in which the Constitution should be made consistent with the realities of society, such as environmental rights and gender equality?

>> What is your evaluation of the argument that the Constitution was "imposed" on Japan?

>> Did not the problem of discrepancies between the Constitution's contents and reality (for example, GHQ censorship) exist from the time of its enactment?
 

MATSUNAMI Kenshiro (New Conservative Party)

>> What are your thoughts on the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the race between India and Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons?

>> In your experience, do you feel that freedom of speech and academic freedom are guaranteed?

>> Is the system of private school subsidies not in violation of Article 89?