Subcommittee on Fundamental and Organizational Role of Politics (Fifth Meeting)

Thursday, Jury 4, 2002

Meeting Agenda

Matters concerning the fundamental and organizational role of politics

After a statement was heard from Prof. YAGI Hidetsugu concerning the above matters, questions were put to him; this was followed by discussion among the members.

Informant

  • YAGI Hidetsugu, Associate Professor, Takasaki City University of Economics

Members who put questions to Prof. YAGI


Main points of Prof. YAGI's statement

1. Lessons to be learned from the Meiji Constitution

>> The Japanese word kenpo means the same as the English word "constitution," that is, "the character of the nation." Thus, the constitutional debate must first of all be a discussion of "the character of the nation."

>> The chief architects of the Meiji Constitution--ITO Hirobumi, INOUE Kowashi, and KANEKO Kentaro--all recognized, without being reactionaries, that a constitution must be founded on a basis of history and tradition.

>> I believe that there are lessons to be learned from the Meiji Constitution, not in terms of its contents, but in terms of the importance that was placed on discussing "the character of the nation" during the process that led to its enactment.

2. The contemporary assessment of the Meiji Constitution

>> Today, in the schools and elsewhere, the order established by the Meiji Constitution is depicted as one of absolutism under the Emperor system, with the Emperor as the supreme power, and emphasis is placed on the strength of his authority. However, this is not a correct understanding.

3. The structure of government under the Meiji Constitution, with particular reference to the relationship between the Cabinet system and the Emperor

(a) The difference between ITO Hirobumi's and INOUE Kowashi's views of the Emperor's role
>> With regard to the relationship between the Emperor and the Cabinet, ITO Hirobumi and INOUE Kowashi had different views of the Emperor's role.

>> ITO Hirobumi viewed the Emperor as a "passive sovereign"; he believed that the prime minister should be the central actor in government, and that the Emperor could exercise power only in accordance with the advice of the Ministers of State. INOUE Kowashi, on the other hand, saw the Emperor as an "active sovereign" who was central to government, with the Ministers of State being no more than his aides.

>> Article 55 of the Meiji Constitution, which stated that the respective Ministers of State shall give their advice to the Emperor, and the regulations governing the organization of the Cabinet were the product of a compromise between these two views, and as a result there were ambiguities in their subsequent interpretation and application.

(b) Actual practice
>> In actual practice, the system of government can be said to have been in line with ITO Hirobumi's concept.

>> The party cabinet system became established within the context of this practical application.

>> However, the prime minister was empowered to exercise only weak control, and this later allowed the military to intervene in politics.

(c) Separate spheres of authority: The defects of the Meiji Constitution
>> In the system established by the Meiji Constitution, the Emperor did not govern directly but, as the nominal chief executive, exercised power in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet and various other bodies.

>> Because these advisory bodies were mutually independent and had separate spheres of influence, in practice the genro or elder statesmen were responsible for coordinating among them. As the elder statesmen died out, however, a void developed at the center of actual government.

(d) The system of constitutional monarchy
>> In what was termed "the regular procedure of constitutional government," under normal conditions the Emperor was expected to respect public opinion. Therefore, I regard the political system under the Meiji Constitution as a constitutional monarchy.

4. The theory of the "Emperor as symbol" system in the Constitution of Japan

>> In preparing the draft of the Constitution of Japan, the GHQ, intending that the Emperor should have "a significant status," adopted the concept of a British-style constitutional monarchy in which state affairs are divided into a "ceremonial part" which is the responsibility of the throne, and "practical parts" which are the responsibility of the Cabinet and other bodies, and the throne is the " visible symbol of unity."

>> This has elements in common with ITO Hirobumi's concept which postulated a "passive sovereign."

>> Accordingly, Chapter I of the Constitution of Japan should be understood to have carried on elements of the Meiji Constitution, at the same time as it adopted the British mode.


Main points of questions and comments to Prof. YAGI

OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Article 8 of the existing Constitution stipulates that no property can be transferred to or from the Imperial House without the authorization of the Diet. I believe that matters relating to the dignity of the Emperor and the Imperial House, including those concerning Imperial property, should be entrusted to the Imperial Household Council. What are your views in this regard?

>> The Meiji Constitution declared many powers, especially the supreme command of the army and navy, to be the prerogatives of the Emperor, with the result that the Diet was unable to control the Cabinet, and the Cabinet was unable to control the military. I believe that this subsequently led to the expansion of the war. What is your view in this regard?

>> I have misgivings about the present state of Japan's diplomacy, which appears to emphasize following the wishes of other nations. I believe that the government should clearly assert Japan's stance as a nation vis-a-vis China, the Republic of Korea, and the United States, among others, taking into account the fact that different nations have different views of history and religion. Would you like to comment on this point?


BANNO Yutaka (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> I believe that contemporary Japanese are no longer able to appreciate "the character of the nation," because discussion of this topic has been avoided in postwar education. I would like to hear your views from this perspective on what form education should take in the future.

>> Would you not agree that many young people today are unable to recognize the fact that they have a native land? In this era of ongoing globalization, I believe we should pay particular attention to the love of one's own country. What is your view in this regard?

>> Am I right in thinking that your position is, in essence, that we should approach constitutional revision in the same spirit as if we were enacting a new constitution ? Also, if you advocate revising the Constitution, how do you think the Emperor system should be situated within it? I would like to hear your views on this point, taking into account the debate on popular election of the prime minister.


SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> I have understood that the existing Constitution and the Meiji Constitution have elements in common. Having said that, I believe that in the existing Constitution the emphasis is on universality, while the Meiji Constitution emphasized a system native to Japan. What do you think of this point?

>> I would like to hear your views on the relationship between popular sovereignty and imperial sovereignty, and on the nature of the guarantee of human rights under the Meiji Constitution.

>> I would like to hear your views on the relationship between the Fundamental Law on Education and the Imperial Rescript on Education.


FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> You stated that a constitution exists on the basis of history and tradition. In reviewing the present Constitution, in what form do you think we should incorporate history and tradition?

>> When formulating the concept of a new constitution by taking into account ideas about the rights and duties of the people, democracy, and other principles under the systems of both the Meiji Constitution and the existing Constitution; in what direction do you think this should proceed?


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> When examining the Meiji Constitution, it is necessary to look into both the external situation at the time and the constitutional initiatives that arose outside government circles in the Freedom and People's Rights Movement. How do you evaluate the draft constitution written by UEKI Emori, which was one of these unofficial initiatives?

>> You argue that the form of government under the Meiji Constitution was a constitutional monarchy, but constitutional monarchy presupposes a denial that the monarch is absolute. Are there any provisions in the Meiji Constitution that deny the absolute nature of the monarch?

>> I would like to hear your views as to why MINOBE Tatsukichi's theory of the Emperor as organ of the state was suppressed, and your evaluation of the theory.


KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)

>> You stated that the Meiji Constitution was effectively suspended after 1935, the year when MINOBE's theory was suppressed, but were there not fundamental problems inherent in the constitution itself, such as the Emperor's right of supreme command over the armed forces and the formalistic nature of the parliamentary system?

>> You say that Japan took the road to war because the Meiji Constitution, which had liberal aspects, was set aside. I believe that the present Constitution, which espouses pacifist principles, exists on the basis of critical reflection on that history. In light of these facts, I believe that the current moves toward adopting a set of emergency-response laws and revising the Constitution will lead to Japan's taking the road to war again. What are your views on this point?

>> Taking into account the course of events which led to the atomic bombing of Japan after it delayed acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, which called for unconditional surrender, in order to "preserve the national polity," what do you think "preserving the national polity" meant to the Japanese people, and what do you think Japan was trying to preserve?

>> Your position seems to be that the Meiji Constitution can be seen as embodying principles of popular sovereignty, but I would suggest that in the system established by the Meiji Constitution, the powers of the Cabinet, whose function was to advise the Emperor, were stronger than those of the parliament. I would like to hear your views on this point.


INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)

>> In my view, the Emperor system is an institution unique to Japan, and the existing Constitution contains well-ordered provisions concerning the Emperor as symbol of the State. You hold that the Constitution should stipulate clearly that Japan is a constitutional monarchy, but what kind of provision do you think is desirable?

>> I would like to hear your views on the Fundamental Law on Education, which was enacted in unison with the existing Constitution.

>> I believe that while Article 9 is a noble ideal, it does not function in a way consistent with reality. I would like to hear your views on this point.


NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> In the "Seventeen-Article Constitution," the principles of government promulgated by Prince Shotoku in 604, we can see the wisdom of separating power and authority under a system centered on the Emperor, in order to avoid the ravages of war. I believe that, in discussing a new constitution, we should heed this wisdom and create an ideal constitution that seeks to prevent the tragedy of the whole world being engulfed in war. I would like to hear your views in this regard.


SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> You advocate that the Constitution should explicitly stipulate that the Emperor is the head of state. I believe that we should make this provision not on the basis of the old concept which vests absolute power in the head of state, but only after redefining it as a new concept. What is your view in this regard?

>> You described separate spheres of power as a characteristic of the governmental structure under the Meiji Constitution, but a similar situation could be said to exist even under the present Constitution, since, although the prime minister is the "head" of the Cabinet according to the Constitution, he does not have strong powers under the Cabinet Law or the National Government Organization Law. Am I right in thinking that this lack of a center of government is part of Japan's "national character"? Also, what do you think of the present situation, in which a center of government is lacking?

>> Why was the phrase "Imperial male descendants" in Article 2 of the Meiji Constitution ("The Imperial Throne shall be succeeded to by Imperial male descendants, according to the provisions of the Imperial House Law") deleted from Article 2 of the existing Constitution? Also, I believe that a female Emperor would be recognized under the Constitution; I would like to hear your views on this point.


Main points of comments made by a member of the Subcommittee

NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> In considering "a constitution with a Japanese flavor" based on Japanese history and tradition as advocated by you, we need to take into account the belief system characterized by "myriads of gods and deities."

>> It is sometimes said that the war began at a word from the Emperor, but greater importance should be placed on the fact that the war ended and a battle to the finish on the Japanese mainland was avoided at a word from the Emperor.

>> To ensure that the world does not suffer tragically in the twenty-first century, Japan, as a nation that has suffered nuclear attack, should create an ideal constitution incorporating universal principles, including the principle of building peace without bloodshed.