Meeting Agenda
Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan
A report was heard from the chairman of each Subcommittee; each report
was followed by free discussion.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Role of the Constitution
as the Supreme Law, and free discussion
The "Emperor as symbol" system, with special reference to the
Emperor's status and succession to the throne
Report by Subcommittee Chairman YASUOKA Okiharu ( Main points )
>> With regard to the "Emperor as symbol" system in general, opinion was divided on the questions of whether the Emperor is Japan's head of State, whether the Constitution should stipulate explicitly that the Emperor is head of State, and whether the Emperor system should be maintained in the future. However, there was a consensus among all the political parties that Chapter I of the existing Constitution should be maintained more or less as it stands.
>> Many speakers were in favor of recognizing female succession to the throne, while others held the view that this should be studied cautiously. Opinion was also divided on the question of whether, in the event that female succession is recognized, the order of succession should give priority to the firstborn child or to males.
>> In my view, as was also suggested by the informant, Mr. TAKAHASHI,
in future we should carry on an in-depth debate on the Emperor system as
it stands, including the question of revision of the Imperial House Law.
Free discussion
MORIOKA Masahiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We should stipulate explicitly in the Constitution that the Emperor is Japan's head of State. I believe this for the following reasons. In light of the nation's history, I think that the provisions of Article 1 of the existing Constitution are acceptable as they are, but it is unnatural that, while the Emperor is treated as the head of State by other nations, at the least, the situation remains ambiguous at home, and I therefore believe that we should establish clearly in the Constitution that he is in the position of representing Japan.
>> I am not opposed to female succession per se, but the imperial succession is a serious question which should be studied carefully. If we allow for the accession of Empresses, the question of how to treat an Empress's consort is likely to become an important issue; accordingly, if female succession is to be accepted, I believe there is a need for fundamental, meticulous discussion of what form the Imperial House system itself should take, including the order of succession and the extent of the Imperial family.
With particular reference to whether explicit provision should be made for the Emperor's status as head of State:
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> I am opposed to stipulating in the Constitution that the Emperor is Japan's head of State. Under the principle of popular sovereignty, I think that it is the Prime Minister who is the nation's representative, both at home and abroad.
>> Mr. TAKAHASHI urged us to "conduct a debate on the Emperor system as it stands." In my view, this means discussing the fact that, under the Constitution, the Emperor is not permitted to be involved in government, and also discussing the ten "acts in matters of state" that are listed in the Constitution.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> With regard to the Emperor's status as head of State, we should first clarify what is meant substantively by Article 6 and the "acts in matters of state" which Article 7 stipulates that the Emperor shall perform.
>> With regard to female succession, we should make it clear that the Emperor is "under the sovereignty of the people." Under the Meiji Constitution, women lacked many rights. In Japan today, there is a sense of impasse which is due to our inability to change our old habits, and the reason for this impasse lies in the fact that Japan is still a male-centered society. To help promote women's full participation in society, I believe that we should make it clear, both at home and abroad, that the right of female descendants to accede to the throne is recognized.
SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I believe that Article 1 is acceptable as it stands, since the division of authority and power between the Emperor and the Cabinet is very well formulated. I would like to ask Mr. MORIOKA his views about the relationship between the parliamentary cabinet system and the head of State.
> MORIOKA Masahiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I believe that the head of State is the person who represents the nation. However, as Japan changes prime ministers more often than other countries, I would argue that, although the prime minister possesses power, under these circumstances he cannot be said to represent the nation.
>> Is not the Emperor more suitable in that regard, as he is regarded as the head of State by other countries?
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> To quote from Article 1, we should view the Emperor as "deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power." In other words, the status of the "Emperor as symbol" is determined by the will of the people, who are sovereign, and it is distinct from the status of head of State.
>> Political exploitation of the Emperor has been prohibited due to critical awareness of what happened under the Meiji Constitution. What are needed in future are efforts to bring the Emperor closer to the people.
OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> As I understand it, at the beginning of the process by which the existing Constitution was enacted, the "MacArthur Note" declared the Emperor to be at the head of the State, but this was later replaced by the existing provisions in order to avoid the mistaken idea that his status remained the same as it had been under the Meiji Constitution.
>> Other nations consider the Emperor to be the representative of Japan. Thus, regardless of whether or not he is called the head of State, he is in the position of representing Japan.
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Mr. KANEKO's view regarding political exploitation of the Emperor is a position that his party has taken ever since it was the Socialist Party? Doesn't this send the wrong message to the public?
>> I agree that the Emperor must not be exploited for political purposes, but isn't that precisely what is happening when one takes the position that he must not be made head of State?
>> We should discuss what the Emperor's duties according to "the will of the people" should be, and, on that basis, we should make provision in the Constitution for the Emperor's status as a head of State who does not hold power.
HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I believe that, in terms of the national character of Japan, that is to say, its culture and identity, the provisions of Chapter I are very meaningful and they have a great influence on the Japanese.
>> With regard to the question of the head of State, Japan can be said to be the world's oldest and greatest monarchy. From that standpoint, the Emperor represents Japan abroad, and other countries also recognize this.
TANIKAWA Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It should be stipulated in the Constitution that the Emperor is "head of State as the representative of Japan."
>> Democracy is a form of exercise of state power, and this should not be confused with "the sovereignty of the people."
>> I think the Meiji Constitution was problematic in stating that the Emperor "combin[es] in Himself the rights of sovereignty."
NODA Takeshi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The questions of authority and power should be considered separately. Supreme power should not be equated with authority.
>> There seems to be a difference in the way the Emperor is perceived in Japan and overseas. Other countries see the Emperor as the head of State, and this has become established.
>> The Emperor system has sustained itself throughout the course of Japanese history, and the question of whether the Emperor should be head of State is also a question of whether one feels the Emperor has charisma because of the weight carried by the Imperial line.
>> In the phrase "the people with whom resides sovereign power," "sovereign power" refers to political power, not authority. From that viewpoint, we should stipulate explicitly in the Constitution that the Emperor is the head of State.
FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)
>> That the Emperor is head of State is implicit in the existing provisions, but we should stipulate that status explicitly in the Constitution.
KITAGAWA Renko (Social Democratic Party)
>> I do not fully understand the definition of a "head of State who does not hold power."
>> I cannot take a position for or against making the Emperor head of State as long as there is no agreed definition of the term.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The word "symbol" in "the Emperor as symbol" means, among other things, that he has no power.
>> In my view, one tends to feel automatically that the position of "head of State" carries power with it, but, when one looks at the kings and queens of various nations that have a monarchy, in actual practice this does not give rise to problems.
NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I think that we have yet to reach a uniform definition of "head of State." With regard to the Emperor's functions, I believe that the provisions of Article 4 are fundamental.
>> The definition of "head of State" varies from one country to another. For example, the head of State may represent the country in the eyes of other countries, or, within the country, may be a figure of spiritual unity. Making the Emperor the head of State under the Constitution will require careful debate.
On topics including female succession and related issues:
SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I am in favor of opening the way to female succession to the throne. In May 2001, I conducted an interpellation on this subject in the Standing Committee on Cabinet and confirmed that female succession could be recognized by amending the Imperial House Law. Although the Meiji Constitution stipulated that heirs to the throne must be "Imperial male descendants," there is no such provision in the present Constitution.
>> Also, with regard to making the Emperor head of State, I think we need to discuss how this would differ from the provision of Article 4 of the Meiji Constitution.
KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It will be difficult to limit succession to the male line under the present circumstances, and I am in favor of female succession to perpetuate the Emperor system.
>> Rather than viewing this issue as a constitutional debate, we should view it more as a debate on the Imperial House or a legal question.
>> Further, I believe that it is possible to make the Emperor head of State, because a separation has been made between authority and power.
INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)
>> We should clarify the definition of "head of State" based on an in-depth debate.
>> In the matter of female succession to the throne, we should take
the trend of public opinion into account and should not reach a conclusion
hastily.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and International
Cooperation, and free discussion
The Constitution and states of emergency, with special reference to responding
to terrorism and related threats
Report by Subcommittee Chairman NAKAGAWA Shoichi(Main points)
>> A wide range of opinion was expressed with regard to how Japan should respond in a state of emergency and what form antiterrorist measures should take in an international framework, but I believe that we must forge a consensus without delay by pursuing in-depth debate, in view of the need to respond actively to a dramatically changing international situation, e.g., the rise of increasingly extreme and increasingly international terrorist activity, and in view of the fact that it is the government's duty to protect the lives and property of the people.
>> I think that, in future, it will be necessary to discuss the ideal
form of Japan's security and international cooperation in still greater
depth, based on the debate and accompanying research that we have conducted
up to this point.
Free discussion
FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)
>> I believe that, if the tragedy of war is not to be repeated in the 21st century, the ideals of Article 9 should be passed on. However, as it is the duty of the State to protect the lives and property of the people, we should make constitutional provision for the maintenance of the Self-Defense Forces and the Prime Minister's right of command.
>> We should build a new concept of security for the 21st century and forge a relationship of cooperation with the international community. To that end, recognizing that it is impossible to preserve peace at home by means of the rights of individual and collective self-defense alone, we should participate actively in collective security and UN-centered operations.
>> We should make provision in the Constitution for states of emergency. Possible states of emergency include not only invasion by another nation, but also terrorism, major natural disasters, and riots, and, in my view, we should make explicit provision for such situations as well. Among other matters, we should stipulate limitations on rights and freedoms and the accompanying compensation, the roles of the central and local governments, and the Prime Minister's right of command. It should be noted that, based on such an approach, the Liberal Party submitted a proposed "Basic Law concerning the Response to States of Emergency" to the Diet in May 2002.
SHIMOJI Mikio (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Where activities relating to security and international cooperation are concerned, it is necessary to gain the public's understanding. This is one reason why we should adopt a UN-centered policy, that is, a policy of acting in accordance with UN resolutions and decisions.
TANIKAWA Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The emergency situations currently under debate are very different from what was imagined when the Constitution was enacted, and, given that it is a written constitution, it has become necessary to add new provisions. For example, the importance of Article 54's provision for convoking the House of Councillors in emergency session lies in dealing with budgetary issues, which is a very different matter from the concept of a "state of emergency." Also, no substantive provisions for states of emergency were enacted in the Constitution because at that time Japan was occupied, and any state of emergency would have been dealt with, in effect, by the Occupation forces.
>> Based on this approach, we should think about ways of dealing with situations like terrorism that could not have been foreseen when the Constitution was enacted, and we should establish constitutional provisions for states of emergency which explicitly stipulate such matters as limitations on property rights.
OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In the security debate, we must understand the process by which the Constitution was enacted, together with Japan's position at the time. For example, GHQ initially proposed that Japan should be forbidden to engage in war even in self-defense. Japan today is an economic power, and it is necessary that we carry out a certain level of responsibilities in the international community.
SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The existing Constitution does not postulate states of emergency, and I am therefore in favor of enacting a "Basic Law Concerning States of Emergency." Also, it is clear from the words "war as a sovereign right of the nation" in Article 9, Paragraph 1, that the Constitution does not postulate terrorism, which could be called a new kind of war. I believe that it is the duty of this Commission to investigate and discuss these matters.
BANNO Yutaka (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Protecting the people's lives and property is the most important purpose of the State, and the Constitution can be seen as a means to that end. I believe that the emergence of new threats such as terrorism makes it necessary to change the means by which we achieve that end. Security is an urgent issue, and this includes measures to combat terrorism.
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> The definition of a state of emergency cannot be said to have been adequately discussed in this Commission. I consider acts of terrorism to be crimes, not acts of war, and I believe that they should be dealt with as such. Accordingly, I think that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court should be expanded.
>> Behind terrorism, there are underlying problems such as poverty and economic inequality. In keeping with the spirit of the Preamble of the Constitution, Japan should play a part in efforts to eliminate the causes of terrorism, acting within a framework of international cooperation. There is simply no other way to achieve a fundamental solution.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> In regard to security, we need to attune our thinking to the actual situation. I believe that Japan today is being called on to conduct peace diplomacy, for example, on the issue of nuclear disarmament, and also to make comprehensive efforts toward a fundamental solution to terrorism by playing an active role in the International Criminal Court. In regard to measures for natural disasters, I think there is a need to address concrete issues such as policing and fire fighting.
>> Most constitutional scholars interpret the absence of provisions on states of emergency and national emergency rights in the Constitution not as a deficiency but as a deliberate choice not to confer national emergency rights on the State. I believe that even so-called "states of emergency" should be addressed based on the principles of the Preamble and Article 9.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> With regard to measures to combat terrorism, I believe that the necessary legal provisions have gradually been put in place. With regard to the debate on terrorism, Article 13-which can be seen as the single most important clause in the Constitution-should form the basis of our approach; otherwise, individual rights will come under unwarranted limitations in the name of security measures. No matter what the security measure, I believe that, from a constitutional point of view, we must guarantee the right of the individual to dissent.
>> Supporters of the three emergency-response bills sometimes argue for granting the Prime Minister powers that override the Constitution's provisions on local autonomy, but I believe that this is problematic in terms of the Constitution.
KONNO Azuma (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In the debate on the emergency-response bills, in my view the problem is that there has been no effort to verify what measures are possible and what deficiencies there are under existing laws.
>> I believe that concentrating power in the hands of the Prime Minister during a state of emergency poses certain dangers, and that strong participation by the Diet is essential.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> We should keep the status of Article 9 and measures against terrorism separate in our minds.
>> Although it is worded in a way that can be difficult to understand, Article 9 can be said neither to deny the right of individual self-defense nor to prohibit the Self-Defense Forces, and one possible approach would be to let it stand as it is.
>> Let us suppose that the nations of the world conclude a treaty and form an organization empowered to police the activities of international terrorists and similar groups, and that its powers exceed those that exist within the framework of any one state. In that context, operations by the Self-Defense Forces would not constitute the use of force by the State, and we could move beyond equating all such operations with the use of force. The debate over peacekeeping operations should likewise move beyond the problem of weapons use in combination with the use of force.
INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)
>> It is only natural to make full provision for security in the Constitution, and Article 9 should be revised. Further, we should also lay down provisions for a government organization to guarantee security, together with its powers and related matters.
>> We should also set forth provisions on international cooperation.
KOBAYASHI Kenji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Whether terrorist acts are acts of war is currently under debate, but we should bear in mind that the United States has decided that terrorist acts are acts of war, and that, in actual fact, things are going ahead on the basis of that interpretation.
>> In discussing the Constitution and security, the debate tends toward sophisticated arguments that remain entirely in the realm of theory, but what is needed is a fundamental debate based on an awareness of the facts, beginning with such facts as the need to establish a chain of command and channels of information.
SUGIURA Seiken (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Constitution of Japan lacks provisions concerning a collective security system and international cooperation based on the UN Charter. I believe that we should establish such provisions when we draw up a new constitution, and that, as a prerequisite, a wide-ranging national debate is needed.
TANIMOTO Tatsuya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In my view, it is dangerous to rely too much on constitutional interpretation on the grounds that the Constitution contains no explicit provisions on responding to terrorism and related matters. Of course, it is important that we work to avoid such situations arising, but we should make clear provision for their handling in the Constitution.
NODA Takeshi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The existing Constitution was enacted during the Allied Occupation when Japan was in a state of having been disarmed, in other words, a state in which it was not allowed to manage its own security. The Constitution therefore lacks provisions for responding to states of emergency and related matters based on principles of independence and self-management as a nation, and thus it is not the constitution of a normal nation. We should make provision for these missing items in the Constitution.
>> Further, because of the same circumstances, the Constitution does not provide adequately for a domestic system for the maintenance of public order. We should establish a system in readiness for a state of emergency, taking into account the fact that it is only right and proper that limitations be imposed on private rights.
>> Such a system is all the more necessary if we think in terms of limited military response, but we should establish a system to prevent emergencies proactively during peacetime.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> As a premise for discussing emergencies, terrorism, and related matters, we need a unified image of what these terms mean. Also, I believe that we should not avoid a constitutional debate.
>> A state of emergency will call for a unified response by means
of a centralization of powers. As a result, even if the response measures
are limited to crisis management, they could come into conflict with private
rights or the powers of local governments. We should therefore improve
the constitutional provisions for states of emergency. In so doing, however,
as a general rule we should consider certain articles to be under an absolute
guarantee, namely, Articles 18 through 21, Article 23, and the provisions
about criminal proceedings and related matters in Articles 31 through 40.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Ideal Government and Organizations,
and free discussion
Local autonomy, with special reference to the do-shu system and prefectural mergers
Report by Subcommittee Chairman SUGIURA Seiken (Main points)
>> In order to further improve the local autonomy that is guaranteed as a system in the Constitution, we must go forward with the decentralization reforms that are already under way. To that end, it is vital to secure and allocate tax revenues in amounts worthy of the name of decentralization, and to carry out reforms of the municipalities and prefectures, which are the chief players in decentralization. The possibility of adopting larger regional units of local government, including the possibility of introducing a do-shu system, should be studied from that viewpoint.
>> I believe that introducing a do-shu system and related reforms will make it possible to streamline the administrative structure at both national and regional levels, which is a pressing issue, and to trim administrative costs substantially (by at least 10 trillion yen). It should be noted that interested members of the Liberal Democratic Party are presently conducting studies with a view to realizing a do-shu system, in the belief that redrawing the map of Japan through municipal mergers and the introduction of a do-shu system is a timely move at the outset of the 21st century.
>> I hope to conduct in-depth discussion of what form the municipalities
and the prefectures should take, and also of what system of organization
the national government should adopt in the future, while taking into account
the progress of municipal mergers and related developments.
Free discussion
SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)
>> At present, there is a lively debate in progress about the ideal form of the municipalities, but when it comes to the ideal form of the prefectures, there has been little discussion of related issues, including whether they should be retained or abolished. There are no provisions in the Constitution that specify a three-tiered structure consisting of the central government, prefectures, and municipalities, nor is the number of prefectures fixed at forty-seven; these are matters to be provided for by law. Thus, we can have meaningful discussions of alternatives such as changing from a three-tiered to a two-tiered structure or introducing a do-shu system.
>> The informant, Governor MASUDA of Iwate Prefecture, told us that the prefectures' workload has grown too large, and studies have found that almost half of that workload is not strictly necessary for the prefectures to handle. We should take these comments and findings into account in discussing local government.
HIRABAYASHI Kozo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The geographical boundaries of the prefectures have remained almost unchanged since the Meiji Period, while the municipalities have undergone three rounds of extensive mergers, in the Meiji Period, the Showa Period, and at the present time. We should discuss such points, taking into consideration the fact that whether the prefectures are to be maintained or abolished is a matter to be provided for by law.
>> In thinking about the ideal form of local government, we should take into account such issues as over- and underpopulation and the problems of small municipalities.
>> The Constitution provides for direct popular election of the heads and other officials of local governments. However, critics argue that something like a parliamentary cabinet system would be more suitable for small local governments. Issues like these, which would require a constitutional amendment, should be debated in this Commission.
>> I believe that local autonomy is the most important element in the maintenance and development of a democratic system.
NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> At the practical level, municipal mergers are in disarray. This is because they are being promoted without first sorting out the division of roles between the central and local governments. Also, promoting mergers through a system of preferential fiscal measures seems problematic from the viewpoint of self-government by residents.
>> Laws should be enacted to restrict the powers of the central government based on the "principle of local autonomy" (for example, by changing "delegation to Cabinet orders and ministerial ordinances" to "delegation to ordinances"). This is the responsibility of the Diet as the legislative branch.
>> Local governments are organized in a uniform way due to provisions such as Article 93, Paragraph 2, which calls for direct election of their heads and other officials, but I believe that we should allow diversity in the organization and management of local governments.
TANIKAWA Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Japan introduced "American-style local autonomy" after the war, but we should also pay attention to the moves toward decentralization that have been under way in the European Union in recent years.
>> In Japan, government continues to be dominated by the center. However, in light of current economic conditions such as globalization and the deepening fiscal deficit, local autonomy-that is, preferring local self-government to central control-is an important concept, and decentralization is inevitable. When we consider the future of local autonomy in the 21st century, I suggest that it is not enough to have only four articles in the Constitution (Articles 92 through 95) that provide for local autonomy.
FURUKAWA Motohisa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In the present system, the central government holds sovereign power and delegates this in part to the local governments. But the opposite approach is also possible, i.e., local governments hold sovereign power and the central government complements them. Debate is needed on the question of whether sovereign power belongs to the central government or the local governments.
>> The Constitution does not provide for the fiscal independence of local governments, for example, the right to levy taxes autonomously. Since fiscal autonomy is essential to the independence of local communities, making explicit provision for this in the Constitution is another important point to be discussed.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> In the remarks of Governor MASUDA of Iwate Prefecture, I was particularly impressed by three comments he made on the Constitution and local autonomy: (a) There is "an outlook that one can only understand when one is involved at the practical level," for example, with regard to subsidies, independent sources of revenue, and human resources. (b) There are many possible measures that fall within the scope of Article 92's "principle of local autonomy." (c) Governor MASUDA opposes the "Nishio draft plan," which enforces municipal mergers by coercive measures, as he believes that the restrictions in the plan will lead to small local governments being discarded.
>> We should also pay attention to the debate on local autonomy in Europe. We face similar issues in Japan, for example, bringing stability to people's livelihoods and employment while responding to globalization. It is important that the central and local governments solve such issues together; in particular, the time has come to rethink the responsibilities of the central government.
NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> One sees a number of contradictions, for example, the fact that population is concentrated in Tokyo while many of the nation's more than 3,000 local governments face a steadily dwindling population, or the fact that Osaka City has a bigger budget and greater powers than Osaka Prefecture. The question facing us is how local governments should be viewed within the Constitution.
>> Since the role of local governments in defense issues is not clear, provision should be made for this point in the Constitution.
INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)
>> It is not desirable to give local governments a fixed structure and powers by establishing provisions in the Constitution. I think that the existing four articles on local self-government are sufficient.
>> Two contrasting phenomena can be seen: on the one hand, the concentration of powers in the prefectural governments is actually holding back local autonomy; on the other hand, a prefecture like Kanagawa has lost many of its powers because it contains two designated cities (cities with a population of 500,000 or more). We should address such problems by means of legislation.
NAKANO Kansei (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I agree with the proposal to introduce a do-shu system by merging or otherwise combining prefectures after first reorganizing the municipalities into about 300 cities. However, I have my doubts about the way that the central government is currently imposing mergers on municipalities, and hence I believe that, in realizing a do-shu system, it would be better if the central government decided only the broad outlines, such as where to draw the dividing lines, and left the individual do-shu to decide their own organization and other concrete details.
>> In thinking about local autonomy, what matters most is not making it easy to govern from the center, but giving residents a choice of services. From this perspective, we should think about the Constitution in terms of creating a system which facilitates daily life.
TAKEYAMA Yuriko (Liberal Party)
>> I agree with the idea of "regional sovereignty," and self-government by the regions is an important concept. However, the actual situation today presents many problems, since the regions cannot be said to be truly independent due to the inadequacy of their powers and fiscal resources.
>> Services such as fire fighting and sanitation are being handled
on an increasingly broad regional basis. We should study the possibility
of placing education on a similar basis, and I suggest that the systems
employed in Europe and the United States will serve as a useful reference
for such studies.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Guarantee of Fundamental
Human Rights, and free discussion
The right to receive an education and related matters, including revision
of the Fundamental Law on Education
Report by Subcommittee Chairman OIDE Akira (Main points)
>> With regard to Article 26, while some speakers thought that its nature as a right should be further strengthened, in general there was a consensus among the political parties that it is well written.
>> With regard to the Fundamental Law on Education, it was suggested that there are points on which it fails to provide fully for education in today's increasingly complex society.
>> There was lively debate on such topics as the relationship between the decline in moral standards and education on the human rights of other people.
>> I felt the need for further in-depth discussion in order to resolve
various problems relating to education.
Free discussion
HIRABAYASHI Kozo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Before discussing Article 26 and the Fundamental Law on Education, we should gain a good understanding of the process that led to their enactment.
>> I believe that the success or failure of school education is greatly influenced by the personal qualities of the teachers who are directly responsible for education, and that the most important educational issue is improving the personal qualities of the teachers who play a part in building children's characters.
>> There is a need for deeper discussion to address the problems that affect education, including the collapse of classroom order, juvenile crime, the breakdown of the family, and the moral decline of the Japanese.
TANIKAWA Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Personally, I have doubts about Article 26 itself. I would argue that, in large measure, its provisions relate primarily to fiscal concerns.
>> The postwar education debate in Japan has been limited to school education. But, as the title of the Fundamental Law on Education suggests, education does not take place only in the schools; it includes social education and education in the home. Education in this true sense should be given a place in the Constitution.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> One of the informants, Professor OKAMURA, expressed the view that the character of the Fundamental Law on Education would be distorted if it were discussed separately from the Constitution in the Subcommittee. However, the Fundamental Law on Education is a general law, and I think that as long as we respect the three principles of the Constitution, it is quite proper to review it separately.
>> I agree completely with the view of the other informant, Mr. TORII, that teachers, the home, and the community should all be teaching norm consciousness, perseverance, and industry to children at the elementary and junior high school levels. It is no good just saying that children can do as they please. The example of Britain can serve as a reference in this discussion.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> A wider debate is needed on the question of whether Article 26 is acceptable as it stands.
>> As I understand it, there is an inseparable relationship between the Constitution and the Fundamental Law on Education. I think the Fundamental Law on Education should also be revised, but the matter should be discussed in more depth by the public and the Commission might also conduct a parallel debate. It would not be too late if the Law were revised after completing the Commission's scheduled five years of debate.
>> It is true that the process which led to enactment of the Fundamental Law on Education is important, but the various moves toward revision of the Law are also important. The whole series of moves should be considered thoroughly, beginning with the National Implementation Guidelines (1951) that were formulated shortly after the war, and including the National Council on Education Reform (1956), the "image of the ideal human being" (1963), and the Commission on the Constitution that was set up within the Cabinet (1957).
>> In our determination to overcome the prewar doctrine of sacrificing one's personal interests to the public good, in the postwar era we have ended up sacrificing the public good for personal interests. This is a disturbing trend, but it seems to me that, so far, it has not been taken into account in the debate on revision of the Fundamental Law on Education.
>> In any case, we should also discuss revision of the Fundamental Law on Education, after first conducting a thorough debate within the framework of the Constitution.
OHATA Akihiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> When we look at the incidents occurring in society today, it seems that the society and the ideals envisioned in the Constitution are becoming increasingly distant from the real world. There is also a growing gap between the haves and the have-nots. It is gradually becoming a noticeable trend for the children of affluent homes to receive a good education while the children of homes without means have a difficult time. These trends should be discussed. At issue is what sort of society we want to create.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> I cannot agree with those who attribute the deterioration of education today to the Fundamental Law on Education.
>> In the Subcommittee, I asked Mr. TORII why "nurturing sturdy Japanese" suddenly appeared as a principle of education, but there was no clear explanation. I do not think that contemporary educational problems will be solved by revising the law to include what amounts to a list of virtues, with items like "sturdy Japanese" and "traditional culture." The way to solve the problems is to shift the emphasis of our education system away from competition and control and place it instead on children's growth and development, in keeping with the Fundamental Law on Education.
>> I am in favor of improving teachers' ability to give guidance, but there is no point in hunting out those who are lacking in these skills. We should resolve this problem by, for example, providing voluntary in-service training and reversing the trend toward excessive workloads for teachers.
>> A trial of "open schools" is under way in Kochi, and twenty-one prefectures around the nation have set a maximum class size of thirty. These initiatives have the support of the central government.
>> I would like to quote the words of the chairman of the National Commission on Education Reform, Chairman HAMADA of Ricoh Co., Ltd.: "The first time I read the Fundamental Law, I thought it was wonderful. Why is it necessary to change it? The real problem is the fact that we have not been able to achieve the objectives that it sets out."
KITAGAWA Renko (Social Democratic Party)
>> I am against linking phenomena like the collapse of classroom order and the breakdown of the family with the Fundamental Law on Education, as various other aspects may be left out (e.g., how children's education is affected by economic disparities, intensifying competition, and the destruction of the natural environment).
>> I agree with Professor OKAMURA's view that "What is needed is to determine which of the principles of the Fundamental Law on Education have been realized and which have not."
>> The Treaty on the Rights of Children, which Japan has ratified, provides for the right of children to express their opinions, but forums in which children themselves can convey their opinions to adults have not been established.
>> Education Minister TOYAMA has reportedly said that different ranks of eligibility to take university entrance exams will be established for graduates of schools for foreign students, but I am opposed to this. Even if we look just at the single area of internationalization, is it not obvious that the government's policies are out of touch with what is actually happening in education?
OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> According to the minutes of the secret committee on the Constitution that met during the 90th session of the Imperial Diet, there was a discussion urging that the Constitution's ban on religious education in schools be deleted. The Fundamental Law on Education was enacted in the same period, but whereas the Constitution contained the wording "[The State and its organs] shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity," the Fundamental Law stipulated that public schools "shall refrain from education on specific religions or any other religious activity." Also, when the Fundamental Law on Education was proposed, in the draft outline the preamble placed importance on religious sentiments, but this was later deleted. The point I want to make clear is that there is a difference between the Constitution and the Fundamental Law on Education in the way that they provide for religious education.
>> We should revise the Fundamental Law on Education without delay and stipulate such matters as respect for tradition and cultivation of religious sentiments.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> When we take into account the fact that the present Constitution and the Fundamental Law on Education came into existence through critical reflection on the past, I believe that the most important thing they embody is the dignity of the individual.
>> As decentralization proceeds, the national treasury is paying a smaller share of the costs of compulsory education. There is a similar trend in the United States, but, from what I hear, this has resulted in American schools relying on corporate donations, which has had some detrimental effects on education. We should reconsider the cutbacks in the national government's share of the costs of compulsory education.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I agree with Deputy Chairman SENGOKU's comment in the Subcommittee that "Children are a reflection of the adult world." Education's importance as an issue lies in the fact that children are the precious rising generation.
>> The statement by Mr. TORII was very useful, and so was Ms. MIZUSHIMA's comment on the problem of children refusing to attend school.
>> Mr. HARUNA said that he opposes making the rearing of "sturdy" children one of the ideals of education, but it is only natural to want children to grow up "sturdy," and to want them to realize their potential and play an active part as adults in society. Nobody is thinking of returning to prewar ideas.
> HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> I am not against wanting children to grow up "sturdy."
I made my comment because (a) it is not clear what is meant by that phrase,
and (b) the Fundamental Law on Education is supposed to prohibit public
power from bringing a specific set of values into education.
Conclusion
Based on the first presentation of reports by the Subcommittee chairmen in the current Diet session and the lively free discussions that ensued, Chairman NAKAYAMA made the following comment:
>> When Article 54's provision for the Cabinet to convoke the House of Councillors in emergency session was enacted, the kinds of events that were envisaged were invasion by a foreign country, an accident to the Emperor or Prime Minister, or a major natural disaster. During the simultaneous election for both Houses (in 1980), when I was serving as chairman of the Standing Committee on Rules and Administration of the House of Councillors, Prime Minister OHIRA died suddenly, but no emergency session was convoked at that time. Today, in addition to situations of this kind, acts of terrorism can also be considered. In order to prepare for such contingencies, I believe that it is important in terms of national security to conduct an exhaustive discussion of states of emergency in relation to the Constitution, and I would suggest that there is a need to make explicit constitutional provision for states of emergency.