Subcommittee on Ideal Constitution as Supreme Law (Fifth Meeting)

Thursday, July 3, 2003

Meeting Agenda

Matters concerning the ideal form of the Constitution as the supreme law (the Preamble)

After a statement was heard from Mr. HANABUSA Masamichi concerning the above matters, questions were put to him.

Informant

Members who put questions to Mr. HANABUSA

Main points of Mr. HANABUSA's statement

Introduction

>> I would like to present my views as one who has long been interested in constitutional issues, especially the Preamble.

1. Reasons for proposing revision of the Preamble

>> I am in favor of revising the Preamble for two reasons: (a) the existing Preamble has already served its purpose and is past its "freshness date," and we Japanese need a new Preamble suited to 21st-century Japan; (b) if the Constitution is to be revised, the Preamble would be an appropriate place to start.

[1] The merits and demerits of the existing Constitution

>> The Preamble of the existing Constitution is full of excellent ideals such as the sovereignty of the people, international peace, and universal political morality, and it has served us well by gaining acceptance for the idea of popular sovereignty and establishing various democratic institutions in postwar Japan.

>> On the other hand, it is completely indifferent to Japanese history, culture, and tradition. It could be the preamble to any country's constitution; it is stateless, so to speak, and resembles political distilled water.

[2] Overcoming Japan's identity crisis

>> In an excess of enthusiasm for implanting universal ideals and institutions in Japan, the Preamble of the existing Constitution relegated national consciousness and traditional Japanese values to secondary importance.

>> I believe that we can overcome the present identity crisis by incorporating a clear Japanese identity in the Preamble of the Constitution.

>> As Japan embarks on an era of far-reaching change that is almost comparable in scale to the Meiji Restoration and the postwar reforms, it would be very meaningful to incorporate Japanese values and new ideals into the Preamble of the Constitution.

[3] Legitimacy, not immutability

>> Like the Meiji Constitution, the existing Constitution was given to the people from above and is an "immutable code of law" that has never been revised by the people.

>> Japan has a high level of education and the public has a sound political consciousness. It is not appropriate for Japan to have a Constitution that has not been submitted to a national referendum.

[4] Complete revision, or partial revision by stages?

>> We Japanese are conscientious, we tend to be perfectionists, and we like to do things in a coordinated way. Because of this national character, we tend to want to revise the Constitution as a whole. But in that case we are likely to face an all-or-nothing choice at the end of the debate, and it is possible that, ultimately, nothing will change.

>> Thus, it would be more realistic to revise the Constitution partially, in stages, beginning with those parts on which there is a broad public consensus. Further, it is important to familiarize ourselves with the process of constitutional revision by gaining experience in this way.

>> To that end, I suggest that the best place to start is the Preamble, which lends itself easily to discussion by everyone, and which is nonspecific in a positive sense.

2. The roles to be played by a new Preamble

>> There are five possible roles that a new Preamble might be expected to play: (a) setting forth a vision for the nation based on Japanese tradition and culture; (b) charting Japan's future course; (c) energizing the nation to break out of the present impasse; (d) clearly showing the coordinate axes of Japan's position in the world; (e) declaring Japan's all-embracing and universal ideals.

3. The vision of Japan and the ideals that I consider should be declared in the Preamble

>> If the Preamble is to fulfill these five roles, I think it should incorporate: (a) Japanese tradition and culture; (b) popular sovereignty, democracy, and respect for human rights; (c) recognition of Japan's place in the global community and of interdependence; (d) cultural pluralism; (e) international cooperation and the supremacy of peace. On this basis, I have drawn up and published a draft proposal.

Conclusion

[1] The educational effect of a new Preamble

>> A new Preamble such as I have proposed not only can answer the question of what kind of nation we are, but when used as a teaching aid for discussion in junior or senior high schools, it should also enable us to confirm our identity as a people.

[2] Proposal for drafting a new Preamble with public participation

>> If it is decided to revise the Preamble, I hope that the public will be involved to the maximum extent in the drafting process.

Main points of questions and comments to Mr. HANABUSA

HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The Preamble sets forth the intent of the Constitution as a whole, and I think that revision of the Preamble should be accompanied by revision of the individual articles. What do you think is the significance of revising the Preamble on its own?

>> What is the concrete meaning of the phrase "limits of national sovereignty" in your draft? Also, how do you view the relationship between "limits of national sovereignty" and the role of the United Nations?

>> You said that we should contribute actively to peacekeeping, but what, specifically, do you have in mind? I think it would be necessary to exercise the right of collective self-defense in order to "contribute actively"; do you agree?

>> In recent years, Japanese culture has been highly regarded. I think that Japanese culture is characterized by not coercing others. What is your view on this point?


SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> At present, there is much discussion of what constitutes Japanese identity. You commented that it must not be defined in a self-serving way that is meaningful only to the Japanese. What do you think constitutes an identity that is both unique and universal, that is, what constitutes a distinctively Japanese culture that also has universality?

>> If Japan's identity is to be set forth in the Preamble, in connection with the issue of security I think it is essential to include the elimination of nuclear weapons. Do you agree?


ENDO Kazuyoshi (New Komeito)

>> I think the Preamble is inseparable from the individual articles of the Constitution. What would be the significance of revising only the Preamble and not the individual articles?

>> Do the constitutions of any other countries contain an explicit statement about "limits of national sovereignty"?

>> In the view of some people, the existing Preamble contains ideals that are ahead of their time, and this is what makes Japan truly unique; the problem is that those ideals have not been realized, and we should dedicate our efforts to making them a reality. What is your view of this position?

>> You have incorporated "a politics that values harmony" in your draft, but I suggest that, in some ways, this is out of touch with present-day needs in these times of drastic change, when what is needed is active decision-making by majority vote under strong leadership. Would you like to comment?


FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> Even in this age of globalization and increasing borderlessness, the role of the state is important, and I believe we need to take this into account in thinking about the Constitution. What are your views on this point?

>> I think it is difficult to incorporate Japanese identity in the Preamble. How is it incorporated in your draft?

>> I think that Japanese history, culture, and tradition should be incorporated in the Preamble, and I think that certain aspects of these overlap with the Japanese identity. What are your views in this regard?

>> I think it is desirable to chart Japan's future path and ideals in the Preamble. What are your views on this point?


HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)

>> You said that the existing Preamble is stateless, that one cannot tell what country it belongs to, and that it is past its "freshness date." But the Preamble of the Constitution of Japan states ". . . resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government." This is a reflection on the war caused by the Japanese government and a strong resolution never to allow it to be repeated, and even today it has not lost its significance. Does the constitution of any other nation contain such a provision?

>> The Preamble stipulates "the right to live in peace." Does the constitution of any other country stipulate that peace is essential to the life of the nation?

>> Some people criticize the part of the Preamble that says "we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world," on the grounds that it entrusts our security and existence entirely to the goodwill of other peoples. In my view, this passage is a clear statement that peace cannot be preserved through war. What are your views on this point?

>> I believe that the Preamble and the individual articles are close and inseparable, and that this is especially true of the relationship between the Preamble and Article 9 with regard to pacifist principles. What is your view in this regard?


KITAGAWA Renko (Social Democratic Party)

>> Popular sovereignty, respect for fundamental human rights, and pacifism are the three basic ideals of the existing Constitution. What was your intention in excluding pacifism from the matters that should be set forth in the Preamble?

>> Both Article 9 and the Preamble set forth provisions concerning pacifism, and I think that the two form an indivisible whole. If your draft Preamble were adopted, could paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9 exist in their present form?

>> I think the ideal of popular sovereignty cannot be found directly in your draft Preamble. What part of your text expresses this ideal?

>> In a democracy, it is important to listen to minority opinions. I think that the "politics that values harmony" referred to in your draft Preamble is incompatible with democracy in some respects. What are your views in this regard?

>> How do you regard the recent attempts to retranslate the English text of the Preamble into Japanese?


INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)

>> I think the Constitution does not need a preamble. The only possible need for one that I can see would be as a standard of interpretation for the articles. Do you think that your draft preamble serves as a standard of interpretation for the articles?

>> The Constitution should not be revised frequently, and in practice the provisions governing amendment are strict. Thus, I think it is necessary to leave a certain latitude for broad constitutional interpretation. One could say that having a Preamble may pose the risk of, and even have a tendency toward, restricting constitutional interpretation more than is necessary. What do you think of this point?

>> Taking your draft Preamble as a premise, are there any articles in the Constitution that you think should be revised?


MORIOKA Masahiro (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The reality is that every nation has an army, every permanent member of the UN Security Council possesses nuclear weapons, and international terrorism and wars do occur. In this real world, there are times when a nation must use force to maintain its independence and secure peace. I think that a statement to this effect should be included in the Preamble and elsewhere in the Constitution; do you agree? Also, from this perspective, we ought to evaluate our historical legacy more positively. In your draft Preamble, the words "this history has taught us the precious value of peace" could be seen as masochistic; would you like to comment on this?

>> I believe that Shinto, Buddhism, and Confucianism play an important role in forming the Japanese identity. If the Japanese identity is to be incorporated into the Preamble, I think it should also touch upon these religions and philosophies of the Japanese. What are your views in this regard?

>> What are your views on the relationship between the present state of education and the Constitution?


NAKANO Kansei (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> Against the background of various appreciations and criticisms of the Preamble, I would like to commend you for publishing a draft that could set in motion the process of writing a new Preamble with public participation. One criticism of the existing Preamble is that it lacks originality, being derived in part from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and the United Nations Charter, among other sources. What are your views on this point?

>> If there is anything further that you would like to add with regard to incorporating Japan's identity in the Preamble, I would like to hear it.


HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and the U.S. Constitution are said to have been based on Locke's theory of the social contract. On the other hand, some countries, such as Britain, have forged their basic ideals for the nation (their constitution) on a foundation of history and tradition. Am I right in thinking that your approach to the Constitution, or your political ideals, are on the British model?

>> I believe that the term "the people" in "the sovereignty of the people" includes the Emperor, and that the Emperor is the symbol of "the people." What are your views on this point?

>> The ethical standards of the people, which supported Japan through the Meiji, Taisho, and Showa eras, are in confusion. What do you think should be the basis of public ethics in the 21st century?

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

OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The present Constitution was drafted in accordance with three principles stated by MacArthur, one of which was that Japan would have no armed forces and that war would never be authorized even to preserve its own security. When one reads the Preamble and Article 9 as a whole, one can see this principle embodied in them. I think that, as this suggests, the Preamble and the articles of the existing Constitution are inseparable.

>> It is important that each member of the Diet act with steadfast convictions; as long as this is the case, there is no need to fear that the government will again misguidedly lead the people toward war. In my view, we should not perpetuate the afterimage of Occupation policy forever.

HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)

>> You stated that the existing Preamble does not incorporate Japanese history, tradition, and culture, and that it lacks originality. But I think that the existing Preamble encompasses all the necessary basic principles consistent with world trends, and that it sets forth pioneering ideals and principles that are not found in the constitutions of other nations.

>> Critics claim that the Japanese people are unable to be confident or proud because the Constitution has no historical or cultural content, but these are two entirely separate questions. If pride and confidence are the issue, the answer is not to write them into the Constitution; we should first weigh the consequences of, for example, the fact that there have been U.S. military bases in Okinawa since the war ended 58 years ago.

>> We should recognize that the Preamble and the articles form a single unit. To take the example of pacifist principles, their contents are made concrete in the Preamble, Article 9, Article 13, and elsewhere, and they are thus guaranteed in a constitutionally complete form. Further, the guarantee of human rights through peace, which is a common desire throughout the postwar world, has been realized in the Constitution in the form of positive law, and I think that the Constitution's value today is fresher than ever.

SENGOKU Yoshito, Deputy Chairman of the Commission

>> Although the Meiji Constitution created a system in line with the principles of the modern state, it left the task unfinished; for example, the accompanying Imperial Oath and Imperial Rescript on the Promulgation of the Constitution reflected concepts of royal or imperial authority that were inconsistent with the principles of the modern state. I believe that this inconsistency was one cause of the rise of militarism and the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is a fact that the present Constitution was drawn up on the basis of MacArthur's three principles, but we should recognize that the government at the time had no choice but to accept what was imposed on it.

>> Nevertheless, in the present era of rapid globalization, it is also necessary to establish our identity as Japanese. A challenge still to be addressed is how to reconcile what it means to be Japanese, or the qualities that can be called "Japanese," with such constitutional qualities as universality that reflect the principles of the modern state.

>> The greatest weakness of the nationalist or ultranationalist position in Japan becomes most clearly evident when the subject turns to Japan's independence in its relationship with the United States. I find it strange that advocates of a nationalist position take no stand on issues like the acceptance of U.S. bases in Japan or blind compliance with the United States in the Iraq war.