Subcommittee on ideal constitution as supreme law (First Meeting)

Thursday, February 6, 2003

Meeting Agenda

Matters concerning the ideal Constitution as the supreme law (system of symbolic Emperor)

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

Informant

  • TAKAHASHI Hiroshi, Lecturer, Kokugakuin University; Lecturer, Tokyo Keizai University; former staff writer of Kyodo News

Members who put questions to Mr. TAKAHASHI


Main points of Mr. TAKAHASHI's statement

Introduction

>> I shall express my views concerning the Emperor and the Imperial Household from the perspective of my experiences as a journalist covering these matters.

1. Succession

(1) Problems of the Constitution and Imperial Household Law

>> Provisions concerning succession under both the old and current Constitution and in the Imperial Household Law do not significantly differ on the point that only male heirs are eligible for succession.

>> If the rule of male succession is maintained, the Imperial Household will eventually come to an end.

(2) Past methods of succession

>> The continuation thus far of the rule of male succession has depended importantly on the existence of concubines. The old Imperial Household Law allowed for succession by a male heir born to a concubine.

>> In past history, beginning with Empress Suiko, Japan has had eight Empresses who occupied the throne during a total of ten reigns. However, all Empresses are considered to have been exceptions because they were either (a) transitional occupants of the throne because the crown prince was very small; or (b) dowagers or unmarried women occupying the throne.

(3) Drafting process of former Imperial Household Law

>> The early drafts of the former Imperial Household Law allowed for succession by female descendants.

>> INOUE Kowashi argued that succession should be restricted to male descendants on the following grounds: (a) all past Empresses were either dowagers or unmarried, and they occupied the throne in order to protect the male heirs; (b) certain European countries excluded succession by female descendants.

>> Following this debate, ITOH Hirobumi formulated the three key principles of succession: (a) restriction of succession to the imperial bloodline; (b) restriction of succession to male descendants; (c) maintenance of a single, undivided line of succession.

(4) Drafting process of present Imperial Household Law

>> During the drafting of the present Imperial Household Law, there was some discussion that, in light of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, succession by female descendants should be allowed. However, no change was made and succession remained restricted to male descendants.

>> As seen in the statement made by Minister of State SHIDEHARA, at the time, the drafters did not believe there was a risk of running out of male heirs. On the other hand, Minister of State KANAMORI stated that the provisions on succession under Article 2 of the Constitution do not provide a constitutional basis for restriction to male heirs.

(5) Necessity of Imperial Household Law

>> In public opinion polls taken after the pregnancy of the Crown Princess, a growing acceptance of succession by female descendants was seen.

>> If the three key principles of succession contained in the former Imperial Household Law are to be preserved, one possibility would be to bring former members of the Imperial Household back into the household. However, this is not a realistic option as more than 50 years have passed since these persons were removed from the household.

>> Hence, the Imperial Household Law should be amended to allow for succession by female heirs. While paying due consideration to limiting the growth in the number of Imperial Household members, a further amendment should be made to allow female members of the Imperial Household to inaugurate new imperial families.

>> Succession can be based either on "priority of males" or "priority by age-primogeniture." Because an "imperial personality" is fostered through training and education, I believe the principle of " primogeniture" is preferable.

2. Emperor as Symbol

>> Since ancient times, the emperor was expected to be characterized as follows: (a) to be attentive to religious rituals; (b) to pursue knowledge and learning; (c) to be fair and just to all people. For this reason, imperial names frequently contained the character "Jin" which denotes the spirit of mercy. The key phrases in the accession message of the present Emperor were: (a) together with the people; (b) hoping for the happiness of the people; (c) observing the Constitution. These phrases are indeed indicative of the Emperor as symbol.

>> There is an imperial tradition of "not sullying the sword with blood." This places the Meiji Emperor in a very small historical minority of "Emperors in military uniform."

>> In view of these facts, the "Emperor as symbol" is not the creation of the General Headquarters of the Allied Forces. Rather, this expresses the reality of the Emperor since ancient times.

>> The imperial system has changed considerably under the current Emperor who speaks and acts freely on his own judgment. This was made possible because, unlike the Showa Emperor, the current Emperor had an opportunity to think about and examine the "Emperor as symbol" from his days as Crown Prince. In this sense, the present Emperor is the "first symbolic Emperor" to accede to the throne under the Japanese Constitution.

Conclusions

>> Foreign tours of the Emperor and other members of the Imperial Household are arranged to suit the convenience of the government and are accompanied by "senior politicians." This has given a political hue to what is viewed as "imperial diplomacy." This "political hue" should be removed.

>> When we think about debating the imperial system, what immediately comes to mind is the old imperial system under the former Constitution. However, I would ask the Diet to focus its discussions on the "Emperor as symbol" and what this essentially means.

>> The Imperial Household Law should be amended to bring greater stability to the issue of succession.

Main points of questions and comments to Mr. TAKAHASHI

MORIOKA Masahiro (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> In view of how the imperial system has developed, I believe that Article 1 is acceptable as it stands, but the Constitution should explicitly state that the Emperor is the head of State. What is your view on this matter?

>> If succession is determined by order of birth and the first child is a daughter, would not the choice of consort pose a difficult problem?

>> From your experiences as a journalist covering the Imperial Household Agency, what are your views on privacy and disclosure concerning the Imperial Household?


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

>> Children should be taught about the Constitution and the Emperor at an early age. I believe that Empresses should be allowed, as there is a sense that countries that allow for queens and empresses are more mature. What is your view?

>> What is the status of the consorts of queens and crown princesses in foreign countries?


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> Minister of State KANAMORI has said that the advantages and disadvantages of allowing for Empresses must be considered. What exactly are these "advantages and disadvantages?"

>> It seems to me that discussions about allowing for the accession of Empresses will generate a debate about other issues related to the Emperor in general.

>> If Japan were to adopt a system of choosing the prime minister through general election, how would that affect the relation between the Emperor and prime minister? That is, how would that affect the status of head of State?

>> You are critical of senior politicians accompanying members of the Imperial Household on foreign visits. What specific problems does this engender?


FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> Specifically, how should we interpret the meaning of the Emperor as "symbol?"

>> What are your views on the political neutrality of the Emperor?

>> If the prime minister were to be chosen through general election, the status of "head of State" of a publicly elected prime minister would become an issue. Under the present Constitution, do you think that the status of a publicly elected prime minister would be compatible with that of the Emperor?

>> Judging from the sentiment of the people, don't you think it would be better to give priority to male heirs in succession and allow for succession by female heirs only when male descendants are unavailable?


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> The contents of the former and present Imperial Household Laws are almost identical. However, in this context, must we not be mindful of the difference between the former and present Constitutions concerning where sovereign power resides?

>> The imperial system has a long history, but it is only under the present Constitution that we have had an imperial system with sovereign power residing in the people. What is your view on this point?

>> The present Constitution very strictly defines the functions of the Emperor in matters of state. In your view, what is the reason for this?

>> The functions of the Emperor should be very strictly interpreted. The separation of "acts in matter of state" and "personal acts" is justified, and I believe that the concept of "official acts" is inadmissible. In your opinion, what problems does so-called "imperial diplomacy" present in relation to "acts in matter of state?"

>> The present Constitution contains no provisions concerning a head of State. If a head of State were to be specified, I believe the prime minister as head of government is the head of State. Hence, would it not be impossible to interpret the Emperor to be head of State?

>> At the time of his accession, the present Emperor stated that he "hoped for the happiness of the people and would observe the Constitution." On what provisions of the Constitution is this statement based?


KITAGAWA Renko (Social Democratic Party)

>> I believe we should be very cautious in allowing for the accession of Empresses. What is the primary reason that you advocate succession by the firstborn? Is your position based primarily on concern for preserving the imperial system rather than on the principle of the equality of the sexes? How do you view the fact that the mass media approaches the issue of Empresses from the perspective of the equality of the sexes?

>> From the so-called "women's perspective," it seems the problems of the Japanese traditional patrilineal family system remain also in the Imperial Household. What is your view of the imperial system as viewed from this "women's perspective?"

>> What is your view of the human rights of the Emperor and Imperial Household, including the right of abdication and the right to leave the Imperial Household? What is your view on the reproductive health rights of female members of the Imperial Household?


YAMATANI Eriko (New Conservative Party)

>> The religious acts and rituals of the Imperial Household are an integral part of Japanese history and tradition, and underscore the status of the Emperor as the symbol of Japan to the people. However, these matters are not conveyed by the media and in schools. Under such conditions, the people, and particularly the young people, cannot be expected to have a clear understanding of the Imperial Household. As such, I find the results of public opinion polls to be questionable. What is your view on this matter?

>> I believe it is important to engage in discussions concerning the Emperor as symbol in order to perpetuate this system. But so far, such discussions have been rare. What is your view on this matter?


KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The people today have a strong interest in the imperial system, and a consensus is beginning to form for accepting the accession of an Empress. On the other hand, there are those who argue that succession should be restricted to male descendants. However, it seems to me that the opinion of such people differs from the ideas that formed the basis of the former Imperial Household Law. What in your view on this matter?

>> If Japan were to have an Empress, she would probably take a commoner as a spouse. How would the people react to this?


OHATA Akihiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> While the House of Representatives can be dissolved through Article 69 of the Constitution, dissolution has always been undertaken through the Emperor's acts in matter of state as provided under Article 7. I find this to be problematic. What is your view on this matter?

>> Some have argued that choosing the prime minister through popular election would create a conflict with the status of the Emperor as head of State. What is your view on this matter?

>> Britain is referred to as a "parliamentary monarchy." How should the Japanese system be characterized?


HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> While there is a vague feeling that the Imperial Household Law needs to be amended, the Japanese people have a tendency to put off such matters. But the Emperor constitutes our national identity and our "unique culture." Sooner or later, I believe the people will put their heads together to find a wise solution. What is your view on this matter?

>> The Emperor is supposed to act in matters of state "with the advice and approval" of the Cabinet. In matters of "Imperial sanction," such as the appointment of cabinet ministers, do you think the Emperor can actually refuse to attest an appointment?

>> I find no problem in the provisions of the current Constitution concerning the Emperor. However, there is some lack of clarity in the word "symbol." My understanding is that the Emperor has no say in the acts in the matters of state that he performs as a "symbol." What is your view on this matter?

Main points of comments by members of the Subcommittee (in order of presentation)

OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Article 1 states: "The Emperor . . . deriving his position from the will of the people." Regardless of whether or not the term "head of State" suits the Emperor, I believe that the Emperor has certainly been placed in a position to represent the Japanese people.

>> On the other hand, Article 8 states that the Imperial Household cannot give or receive any property without the authorization of the Diet which requires very complicated procedures. There is a sense of incongruity between this and the provisions of Article 1. I believe that this was included in the drafting of the present Constitution because of the desire of the General Headquarters of the Allied Forces to restrict the properties of the Imperial Household.

>> I think it is necessary to think about a new Constitution with the idea of creating a new Japan in line with our national traditions. This will require us to examine the conditions that prevailed at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, including the fact that Japan was then occupied by the Allied Forces.


NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman of the Commission

>> In the questions directed to Mr. TAKAHASHI, I noted that apparently no views were expressed by any of the political parties in opposition to the emperor system itself. As we continue our discussions in the future, I think it will be very important for each party to present its position regarding the emperor system. I would like to pose this question to Mr. YAMAGUCHI of the Japanese Communist Party.

> YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Mr. OKUNO made a statement to the effect that "the Emperor is in a position to represent the Japanese people." The Emperor is the symbol, and that is not the same as representing the people. Regarding Article 8 which requires Diet authorization of the giving and receiving of property by the Imperial Household, I believe this to be a legal arrangement that has been established within the framework of the Constitution.

>> I don't think that the position of the political parties on the emperor system will have an important bearing on our future discussions. There is, after all, an obvious contradiction between the principle of popular sovereignty and the identification of a specific family as the symbol of the state. The present Constitution very strictly delineates the Emperor's acts in matters of state. Therefore, the emperor system is not an issue for the time being.

> NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman of the Commission

>> I would like to pose another question to Mr. YAMAGUCHI. Which of the following positions do you find to be the most acceptable: a publicly elected prime minister as head of State; the Emperor as head of State; the Emperor as symbol of the State? > YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> It is desirable for the emperor system to be dissolved in the course of history. For now, the Emperor is a symbol under the Constitution, and this does not pose an immediate problem. > NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman of the Commission

>> I would like to ask Ms. KITAGAWA of the Social Democratic Party to comment on the same questions posed to Mr. YAMAGUCHI. > KITAGAWA Renko (Social Democratic Party)

>> This is not the official position of the Social Democratic Party, but personally I believe that we should take a very cautious approach to the matter of Empresses.

>> If the "will of the people" changes, that will also change the implications of Emperor as symbol.

>> The Constitution establishes the sovereignty of the people and the rights of women. Yet, one senses a gap between these principles and the emperor system, and I would hope that the emperor system will cease to exist as a system in the future.

> NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman of the Commission

>> Mr. TAKAHASHI stated that imperial training and education should start at an early age. He also stated that prompt action should be taken to amend the Imperial Household Law to allow Empresses, as Princess Aiko has already celebrated her first birthday. I would like to hear Ms. KITAGAWA's views on this matter. > KITAGAWA Renko (Social Democratic Party)

>> I feel that the Imperial Household Law is very different from the Constitution. I am opposed to any amendment of the Imperial Household Law unless the amendment debate is geared towards protecting the human rights of the Emperor as an individual human being. > NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman of the Commission

>> I would like to ask Mr. AKAMATSU to comment on the views expressed by our colleagues from the Japanese Communist Party and Social Democratic Party. > AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> I can appreciate what Ms. KITAGAWA means when she refers to the gap between the Constitution and the Imperial Household Law.

>> I interpret the position taken by Mr. YAMAGUCHI to mean that the system of having the Emperor serve as the symbol of Japan does not need to be changed for the time being, but that it "should be changed over the long term." Have I understood you correctly?

> YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> I believe that the Constitution itself contains mechanisms for changing the emperor system based on the decision and judgment of the people. There is a contradiction between the principle of popular sovereignty and the identification of a specific family as the symbol of the state. I think that, over time, the emperor system will naturally move in the direction of dissolution.

SENGOKU Yoshito, Deputy Chairman of the Commission

>> We need to re-read the Imperial instructions contained in the Imperial Constitution as well as the Imperial rescript on the promulgation of that Constitution.

>> At the time of the enactment of the Imperial Constitution, it seems to me that the government wrongly believed that women were impure and unfit for the throne because the Emperor was god. I cannot but feel that this thinking is reflected in the present Imperial Household Law. I stand in favor of the accession of Empresses. But before we start discussing that matter, first we have to take care of some other questions. First of all, what reasons were there for the exclusion of females? Secondly, certain forms of rhetoric, such as the restoration of Imperial rule and the divine rights of Emperors, were manipulated and abused as Japan went rushing into World War II. This entire process must be examined and brought to a settlement.

> OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Is it not too early to revise the rule for exclusive male succession? Amendment of the Imperial Household Law is a legal issue, not a constitutional one. I have never before heard the argument that women were impure and could not take the throne because the Emperor was god, and I am quite certain that this argument never came up in the debate that immediately followed the end of the war. > SENGOKU Yoshito, Deputy Chairman of the Commission

>> I was not referring to the post-World War II period, but rather the drafting and enactment process of the Imperial Constitution following the Meiji Restoration.

NAKANO Kansei (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The question of whether or not to allow an Empress should not be debated in the context of whether or not a male heir is available. The question should be considered from the perspective that this issue relates to what the emperor system should be, the equality of the sexes and other matters of fundamental philosophy that define the very essence of the State. My conclusion is that Empresses should be allowed, and succession should be determined by order of birth regardless of sex.

>> I believe the Imperial Household Law should be examined, debated and amended at the same time as the Constitution.

>> There are various points concerning the emperor system that have to be considered. For instance, what does the "will of the people" in Article 1 specifically mean? As for Article 7, item 4 of the Emperor's acts, the phrase "general election of members of the Diet" should be re-written to read "general election of the members of the House of Representatives and normal election of the members of the House of Councillors." Be that as it may, the system of Emperor as symbol has taken root among the people, and I believe it should be perpetuated.