Meeting Agenda
Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan
1.Rights and duties of the people
Free discussion was held among the members on the above topic.
2.The Diet, the Cabinet, and related matters
Free discussion was held among the members on the above topic.
Rights and duties of the people
Main points of initial round of comments by representatives of each party
HORI Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Unlike the Meiji Constitution, which had no provisions on education, the present Constitution provides for the right to receive an education. This is a very important point, and we should keep the existing provision, although some slight revisions may be acceptable.
>> We should state in the Constitution, as an admonitory provision, that children have a duty to receive an education.
>> There are a number of points in the existing article on education that need to be discussed, including the appropriateness and exact meaning of the terms shijo and futsu kyoiku ("boys and girls" and "ordinary education" in the English text), which are currently not in common use.
>> In discussing the provision on the right to receive an education, it should be noted that it contains two conflicting requirements: no interference by the state is allowed, but the state must make the necessary arrangements.
>> The Central Council for Education has recommended prescribing love of country and public spirit as educational goals in the Fundamental Law of Education. I would like to point out that such matters will be influenced to a great extent by the contents of the Preamble.
SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In the interim recommendations we issued last year, the Democratic Party of Japan called for international human rights law to be actively applied in Japan. We need to carry on a creative constitutional debate in order to have a living Constitution that is responsive to the increasingly international nature of Japanese society and to the changing times.
>> A good natural environment is a prerequisite for the health of the Japanese people. To halt the ongoing destruction of the environment, we need to make provision for environmental rights, specifying who possesses them, their contents, and their scope.
>> Advanced technologies that make it possible to capture and transmit information have raised the issues of invasion of privacy and the right to preserve one's reputation, and these rights need to be protected on the basis of the right to the pursuit of happiness. However, in stipulating a right to privacy in the Constitution, it will be necessary to state that, as a general rule, the privacy of public figures is not protected.
>> Since the executive branch has become the most powerful branch of government because of the phenomenon of the welfare state, guaranteeing the right to know and putting in place a system of information disclosure are legitimate and important steps, and the right to know should be stated in the Constitution. However, to prevent obstruction of administrative efficiency and an uncontrolled outflow of administrative information, it should be stipulated that this is a beneficiary right of the people, and thus more amenable than other human rights to reasonable restrictions.
>> In the constitutional debate, we need to reaffirm that the ideal at the heart of the Constitution is the dignity of the individual, and that its central principle is respect for fundamental human rights.
FUKUSHIMA Yutaka (New Komeito)
>> In the area of new human rights, the Constitution should make explicit provision for the perspective of an environmentally responsible nation, for the right to know, and for the right to privacy.
>> In connection with the provision on equality, we should expressly prohibit in the Constitution discrimination against persons with disabilities and also put in place the necessary legislation, including a Law Prohibiting Discrimination against Disabled Persons.
>> In the area of bioethics, we should not rely on legal regulation alone; we should establish constitutional provisions as a basis for the universal dignity of life, a ban on artificial manipulation of life, restriction of access to genetic information, and so on.
>> In Article 25, I suggest that Paragraph 1 should be regarded as providing the basis for livelihood assistance to ensure a national minimum standard of living, Paragraph 2 should form the basis for mutual-aid systems such as pensions and nursing care, and we should consider reviewing the provisions on social welfare and public health, taking into consideration the changing times.
>> We should recognize the right of permanent foreign residents to vote in local elections, while making a clear distinction from participation at the national level. In light of the declining birthrate and the trend toward globalization, if Japan is to maintain its vitality we need a clear strategy regarding the rights of foreign nationals.
>> There are calls for stronger provisions on duties and for clear provisions on the family and the community, but we should heed the critics who warn that the essence of human rights provisions is "freedom from the state," and that departing from this approach will alter the essential nature of human rights.
>> Given the current decline in Japan's population, I believe that we need to establish provisions to promote the development of the next generation, or provisions relating to children. I can agree to adding provisions on the family if they adopt the perspective of promoting the development of the next generation.
>> There is no need to change the provision on the right to receive an education. It is more important to evaluate the education system in order to ensure sound child development.
TAKAHASHI Chizuko (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The fundamental human rights provisions of the present Constitution are a response to the modern movement toward constitutionalism; that is to say, they draw on the lessons learned from the suppression of human rights under the Meiji Constitution and on the spread of civil liberties and social rights. In the words of Article 97, they are "fruits of the age-old struggle of man to be free."
>> There are moves to stipulate that the people have a duty to bear the costs of social security and related programs, on the grounds that we are entering an age of self-reliance and coexistence. This is an abandonment of the state's responsibility to guarantee the right to a minimum standard of living.
>> Environmental rights, which grew out of the Constitution and the citizens' movements to which it gave rise, are already universal rights that are recognized worldwide, and there is therefore no need to make express provision for them.
>> I cannot accept the argument that we should stipulate the freedom of economic activity of business corporations, as we would risk becoming a society in which corporations are even more dominant than they are today.
>> The proposal to impose on the people a duty to defend the nation gives military affairs priority over the freedoms and rights of the people and is not consistent with the present Constitution's approach to fundamental human rights.
>> This Commission should investigate the present status of the guarantee of human rights in Japan and the problems involved.
>> The human rights provisions of the present Constitution have sufficient depth to accommodate not only existing rights but those that may emerge in the future, and I believe that the public will pursue this potential to the full, leading to ample development in this area.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> The human rights provided for in the Constitution of Japan could be said to predate the state. The Constitution's approach is to recognize and respect their contents and to guarantee them against wrongful infringement.
>> In Article 97, the Constitution of Japan pays tribute to the age-old struggle of man for fundamental human rights and to the fruits of that struggle; in Article 11, it declares those fruits to be "eternal and inviolate rights," and in Article 12 it states that they "shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people." In expressing these ideas about fundamental human rights, as well as in the Preamble, the Constitution of Japan must be said to place its trust in human wisdom.
>> The Constitution of Japan is characterized by: (a) its guarantee of the right to live in peace as a human right; (b) the importance it places, in Article 13, on respect for the individual and the right to the pursuit of happiness.
>> It is shortsighted to think that "new human rights" will be guaranteed by stipulating them in the Constitution. The first priority is to work for their implementation through legislative measures.
>> The editorial policy for the final report and related matters should be considered by the Commission with all members present.
Comments after the first round
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The calls for writing more duties into the Constitution can only be described as misguided, because a constitution is a law that sets limits on the exercise of state power. If it is truly necessary to impose duties, this can be done by legislation, rather than in the Constitution.
>> Some people nevertheless insist that including duties in the Constitution would have an admonitory significance, but I would like to point out that such admonitory provisions have no legal force and would have no effect on the implementation of the duties concerned. The important thing is what steps are taken for their implementation.
>> The presence of human rights provisions in the existing Constitution is sometimes blamed for encouraging a tendency to individual self-interest. However, the concept underlying fundamental human rights is mutual recognition of one another's value and respect for one another's human rights; this is entirely different from self-interest.
>> We must clear up misconceptions on the above points so as to proceed with the constitutional debate on the basis of a common understanding.
IKENOBO Yasuko (New Komeito)
>> In view of (a) the recent rapid advances in bioscience and biotechnology, and (b) Japan's goal of becoming a nation founded on science and technology, there is a need to clearly set forth the nation's stance regarding human life. Thus, in addition to Article 13's provision for respect for the individual, we should make express provision for "human dignity" or "the dignity of life."
>> Some people fear that a specific reference to "human dignity" will be an impediment to free academic research. But research of a kind that serves medical science and humanity actually contributes to "human dignity," and there is therefore no cause for concern.
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The relationship between international human rights law and the human rights provisions of the Constitution should be discussed fully in the Diet.
>> Lately, we are seeing a crisis in regard to human rights; among other problems, (a) people are less aware of the value of life; (b) people are becoming intolerant toward weaker members of society; (c) as people tend to marry later and have fewer children, we are becoming a self-centered society.
>> On environmental issues, we should take a global perspective and think about the Constitution from the viewpoint of "a sustainable Earth."
>> Where two human rights are in conflict, a new principle is needed to reconcile them, other than the existing principle of adjustment for the sake of the public welfare.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The approach to constitutional interpretation that assumes an opposition between the individual and the state is a product of history.
>> We should take a new view of the Constitution as an organized system of values in which the dignity of the individual is supreme, and, based on that view, we should provide for the reconciliation of human rights between individuals, and for the necessity for the state to impose certain restrictions on human rights.
>> Also, I think it is important to clearly establish the state's duty to protect the public's health, as a further development of Article 25, and to make express provision for the basic ideals of education and protection of the home.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I recognize the value of the current human rights provisions. But I believe that if Japan is to establish its standing as a "human rights power," we must reduce violations of human rights to a minimum.
>> To prevent human rights violations by the state, we need to stipulate the individual's right of access to administrative information, and we need to introduce an ombudsman system. Also, with regard to the application of human rights between private persons, it is important to protect children and women from violence.
>> We should redefine the concept of the public welfare, taking into account the debate that took place before the present Constitution was enacted.
NODA Takeshi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In the area of human rights, in addition to the relationship between public authority and the individual, another important question is how to reconcile conflicts between the human rights of private persons, such as those between freedom of the press and the right to privacy.
>> The prewar family system was dismantled by the Occupation GHQ, who regarded it as feudal. Without seeking to revive feudalistic ideas, we should review the provisions on the family; for example, we should stipulate that parents have a duty to support their children.
>> Among the "new human rights," environmental rights should be seen in terms of duties rather than rights. Also, the human rights of crime victims should be explicitly stated.
>> Further, in addition to stating that human rights must not be infringed by public authority, we should also state that they must be mutually respected at the individual level.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The concept of the public welfare remains unclear and should be clarified.
>> Article 20, on the principle of separation of religion and the state, seems too strict. We should introduce the "purpose and effect" standard as a criterion and establish a certain amount of latitude.
>> In the area of freedom of expression, we should make express provision for the control of harmful information that has a bad influence on children.
>> We should establish certain restrictions on property rights so as to protect the environment and scenery.
>> We should also make express provision for the right to know and the rights of crime victims.
TAKAGI Yosuke (New Komeito)
>> It is important to take legislative action regarding the right to know, based on the provisions of Article 21.
>> With regard to the conflict between freedom of expression and the right to privacy, the solution to the problem of press freedom versus regulation lies not in legal controls but in such means as self-regulation by the press and the introduction of an ombudsman system.
>> Further, we should consider creating a system of punitive damages to provide redress for individuals whose privacy has been invaded by the press.
NAGAOKA Yoji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Modern constitutionalism was achieved through the popular revolutions of the modern age, and the Constitution of Japan is part of this heritage.
>> However, in order to solve the many social problems that have arisen in recent years, it will be necessary to add more provisions on duties, while also stipulating the importance of the family and the community and providing for their protection by the state. In particular, I seek a clear statement of the duty to vote.
>> I expect that liberal critics, in particular, will say that these proposals depart from the course of modern constitutionalism and risk changing the nature of human rights. However, I firmly believe that the time has come to take a step beyond modern constitutionalism and to try restructuring the Constitution in a form that provides for the people and the state to work together.
KANO Michihiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Since living can be maintained only when both peace and the quality of the environment are secured, we should establish environmental provisions in the Constitution, similar to the German Basic Law's article on the state's duty to protect the environment.
>> We should stipulate the right to know in the Constitution, as this would encourage the creation of a system for making information held by the administration available to the public.
>> We should provide for intellectual property rights in the Constitution, separately from other property rights, in order to clearly establish a vision of Japan as a nation founded on science and technology and on intellectual property.
TAKAHASHI Chizuko (Japanese Communist Party)
>> There are calls for setting out new human rights—such as the right to know and environmental rights—in the Constitution, but the Constitution already includes these rights in a comprehensive way, and I repeat that they can be accommodated adequately under the existing provisions. The important thing is to properly guarantee the existing provisions by legislation and other means.
MIHARA Asahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Constitution clearly states the rights of crime suspects and criminal defendants, but it has no provisions on victims' rights. We should make provision for the rights of crime victims.
SUZUKI Katsumasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Today, almost sixty years after the Constitution came into effect, rights that could not have been anticipated at that time are being asserted. To set forth and guarantee those rights would be consistent with the spirit of the Constitution. It is especially necessary to provide for environmental rights, thereby declaring the ideal of environmentalism.
>> I feel that the duties which are implicit in rights have recently been losing their force. The dignity of life and human dignity should be set forth in the form of duties, not rights, as norms common to the whole nation. From that viewpoint, I agree with the idea of a constitution as a contract that calls for the people and the government to work together.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> Those who are cautious about stipulating new human rights warn against "human rights inflation." But I suggest that, among the "new" human rights, environmental rights are actually old rights that have been forgotten, and hence this is not a case of inflation.
>> While I can see the point of the argument that new human rights can be realized adequately by legislation, if I were asked to name one area in which a national consensus is possible, or in which there is an urgent need for consensus, I would point to environmental rights.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI's visits to Yasukuni Shrine are the subject of controversy. We should review the principle of separation of religion and the state so that there is no difference of opinion over the actions of the nation's leader, and we should also review Article 89 in relation to subsidies for private schools.
>> If Japan is to remain vital and dynamic, it is essential to protect intellectual property. We should make express provision for intellectual property in the Constitution, separately from general property rights.
>> If Japan wishes to be trusted by the world, education is a very important concern. The importance of education should be stated in the Preamble or provided for in a separate article, apart from Article 26.
SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> While it is certainly important to build up a body of positive law, we must avoid the danger of positive law being twisted to suit the purposes of whoever is in power. To prevent this, we should make clear provision in the Constitution for matters on which there is a national consensus.
>> Other speakers have argued that various rights are already covered by Article 13, but, to carry that argument to its extreme, one could say that all the human rights provisions in the present Constitution can be derived from Article 13. Paying due attention to the history that led to each of those rights being declared in a separate article, we should make explicit provision for those items on which there is a national consensus.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> We could say that the people and the state are one in the sense that government exercises power with the mandate of the people. From that point of view, it is meaningful for the people to set forth guidelines for the exercise of governmental authority in the Constitution, as a declaration of their will. However, such guidelines should be limited to matters of fundamental importance, such as bioethics and the natural environment.
>> It is important to identify what constitutes the public welfare as concretely as possible in the Constitution. For example, stipulating the right to privacy as a new human right will lead to concrete adjustments in relation to the freedom of the press.
>> Provisions relating to the family might be acceptable if they took the form of "the right of the people to enjoy the benefits of family values" or "the duty of public authority to ensure that the people can enjoy the benefits of family values."
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Because war is the greatest violator of human rights and destroyer of the environment, the renunciation of war is of prime importance from the viewpoint of guaranteeing human rights.
>> Stipulating new human rights in the Constitution might clarify their nature as judicial norms, but this hardly seems an urgent problem.
>> We need to be aware that there are rights set forth in the existing Constitution that are not functioning adequately, such as the fundamental labor rights.
>> Ultimately, to ensure the guarantee of human rights, it will be necessary to establish a Constitutional Court. Also, one way to avoid lengthy court cases over human rights issues might be to establish procedural laws, such as a Constitutional Litigation Law.
NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> A national minimum standard of living must be guaranteed as a social right not by the state alone, but at every level of local government, including the community.
>> With international standards making inroads in every sphere of Japanese life, we need to discuss in a little more depth how we want to delineate the national character.
HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Article 20a of the German Basic Law could be said to express a basic popular consensus on what constitutes the state. It serves as a reference point in thinking about the Japanese Constitution, since the concept of a constitution being based on "the state versus the individual" is not suited to the Japanese way of thinking, given our history and traditions.
>> Rights may be exercised either for the benefit of the individual or for the benefit of society. Exercise for the benefit of society should take precedence; exercise for the benefit of the individual should be subject to restrictions in the interests of the people as a whole.
>> In adopting the dichotomy of authority versus private rights, we lose sight of the public interest. Behind the public interest there are unspecified private rights, and we therefore need to consider a system for weighing the relative importance of all the interests involved.
OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I recognize the great importance of respect for fundamental human rights as set forth, in particular, in Articles 11, 12, and 97, but in society each person's rights must be reconciled with the rights of others. We should specify this point in the Constitution as a basis for reconciling rights, instead of relying on a series of interpretations concerning the public welfare.
>> Also, in keeping with the changing times, we should incorporate new rights such as environmental rights in the Constitution as part of a vision for the nation. The right to privacy should be declared in the Constitution, counterbalancing the right to know, but because of the freedom of the press, the necessary restraints should take the form of self-regulation by the media.
KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Rather than being rigidly bound by the idea that a constitution is a set of norms restricting state power—the view of modern constitutionalism—I propose that we should conceptualize the Constitution as the Japanese people's shared vision for their nation in a new era.
>> Accordingly, while it may be true that new rights and other principles can be "read into" the Constitution by scholarly interpretation, this is not desirable in terms of a shared popular vision for the nation. In order to set forth such a vision for future generations, the Constitution should clearly embody the following perspectives: that of the reconciliation of rights, including the relationship between rights and duties; that of new human rights, such as environmental rights and the duty to protect the environment; and that of the importance of intermediate entities such as the family and the community.
MATSUNO Hirokazu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The legislature is the branch of government that is expected to reconcile and restrict human rights by making laws. In practice, however, the courts have changed the scope of restrictions based on "the public welfare," and they have done so over short periods of time.
>> There are many situations today which call for complex adjustments and restrictions of human rights; for instance, the need to protect the privacy of a person with a criminal record has to be reconciled with the safety of local residents.
>> In light of these points, restrictions for the sake of "the public welfare" should be specific to the circumstances. Further, there is a need to create a system that can reflect changes caused by evolving values.
HORI Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I can understand the criticism that a provision stipulating the duty of children to attend school would be merely admonitory. Nevertheless, in my opinion, such a provision could be useful in order to tell children plainly that they must go to school.
>> The words "any charitable, educational or benevolent enterprises not under the control of public authority" in Article 89 are hard to understand and should be revised.
>> Reconciling the roles of local bodies and the state in education is an important issue to be addressed in the debate on decentralization. The courts, too, have found this a thorny issue, as the decision in the Asahikawa scholastic ability testing case shows.
>> The Preamble of the Fundamental Law of Education says that it was enacted "in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution of Japan, with a view to clarifying the aim of education....". In examining the Law, consideration must be given to what is meant here by "the spirit of the Constitution."
>> The word monchi ("family origin") in Article 3 of the Fundamental Law of Education is out of place in modern times, and I would have thought it should be revised, but since it also occurs in Article 14 of the Constitution, it would be difficult to revise it in the Fundamental Law alone because of the need for consistency in the legal structure. Outdated expressions of this kind should be reviewed.
INAMI Tetsuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> There is no precedent among the developed nations for Japan's deportation of "mandate refugees," whose status is recognized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This action results from the gap between international criteria for refugee recognition and Japan's own criteria.
>> The greatest problem concerning the human rights of foreign nationals is that of refugees. If Japan is to become truly international from within, as a nation trusted by the world, the rights of foreign nationals, for example, the right to a minimum standard of living, should be stated in the Constitution instead of being addressed at the level of specific laws.
The Diet, the Cabinet, and related matters
Main points of initial round of comments by representatives of each party
FURUYA Keiji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We should maintain the bicameral system and clarify the division of roles between the two chambers, making it possible for the House of Councillors to demonstrate its distinct identity and its legitimacy to the full.
>> We should provide in the Constitution for the introduction of a do-shu system, and members of the House of Councillors should be elected as representatives of the do-shu. Also, the House of Councillors should practice voluntary restraint in exercising its powers; for example, it should refrain from passing censure resolutions, as there is no provision for these in the Constitution.
>> In a parliamentary democracy, political parties serve as a medium for the political will of the people in the government of the nation. Accordingly, there should be an article in the Constitution defining their essential nature, and we should provide explicitly for the freedom to form political parties and their freedom of activity.
>> The provision requiring a quorum for the transaction of business in either House should be deleted, and the system of Diet sessions should be abolished.
>> We should include a provision in the Constitution that the power to submit legislative proposals is limited to Diet Members, including ministers of state.
>> While retaining the present parliamentary cabinet system, we should implement it in a similar way to the British system, which unifies the ruling party and the Cabinet, in order to establish clearly where policy-making and executive responsibility lies.
>> We should put provisions in place to strengthen prime-ministerial leadership, for example, by stating the prime minister's powers in the Constitution. It is not necessary, however, to introduce popular election of the prime minister.
>> All ministers of state should be chosen from the Members of the Diet, and their obligation to appear before the Diet should be relaxed.
>> The Commission's final report should reflect majority opinion in the Diet and allow for the possibility of revising the Constitution; further, it should call for the creation of a body empowered to submit legislative proposals. A draft National Referendum Law for constitutional amendments should also be drawn up without delay.
KANO Michihiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> With regard to the nation's system of government, we need to fully implement popular sovereignty and establish a system in which the prime minister has the leading role. To that end, it is necessary to clarify where decision-making power and responsibility lie.
>> Government based on prime-ministerial leadership is the true form of the parliamentary cabinet system. To achieve this, we should amend gyoseiken ("administrative power") in Article 65 to shikkoken [("executive power"), which means controlling the executive branch and providing direction and supervision in pursuit of political goals.
>> We should abolish the dual structure of government, by taking steps to unify the Cabinet and the ruling party and to clarify where responsibility lies.
>> While shifting the policy-making initiative from the bureaucracy to politicians, we should guard against the risk of a strong prime minister going his or her own way by strengthening the control functions of the Diet. We should emphasize the Diet's role of raising issues, we should review the nature of the legislative branch, and we should augment support organs for lawmakers.
>> Political parties, being essential to modern politics, should be given a constitutional status. The relevant provisions should be kept to a minimum, however, in order to leave political parties as much freedom of action as possible.
>> National referendums have a limited place under the present Constitution, which is based on representative democracy, but other countries conduct them, and we should consider making greater use of them for questions involving transference of sovereignty, special laws, and so on. In particular, we should study the procedure for national referendums on constitutional amendments.
>> We should expand the two House Legislative Bureaus, reduce the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, and consider establishing a Constitutional Court.
TAKAGI Yosuke (New Komeito)
>> In a unicameral system, there is a risk that the majority faction in the single chamber will make unilateral and arbitrary decisions; in a bicameral system, each chamber serves to complement the other's deliberations and to encourage reconsideration. The bicameral system should therefore be firmly maintained.
>> In order to establish a clear division of roles between the two Houses, we should clarify the House of Councillors' status as the "seat of conscience" and strengthen its function of overseeing the administration by making clear the following points: (a) the House of Representatives will focus on budget deliberations, and the House of Councillors will focus on reviewing the final accounts; (b) basic laws will be considered first by the House of Councillors; (c) in personnel matters for which the Diet's approval is required, the House of Councillors will either be the sole decision-maker or will have precedence over the House of Representatives. Also, the House of Representatives alone should have the power to nominate the prime minister and to declare no confidence in the Cabinet.
>> There is a debate within New Komeito on whether to relax the requirement for repassage of bills in the Lower House after rejection by the Upper House. However, the party will not accept any weakening of the influence of the House of Councillors.
>> We should reexamine the electoral system, because (a) the system of combined single-seat constituencies and proportional representation in the Lower House seems flawed with regard to reflecting the popular will; and (b) the system of electorates for the Upper House lacks an organizing principle. New Komeito has proposed a system of multiple-seat constituencies. We should take into consideration the possibility of reducing the total number of seats, and also the need to eliminate the disparity in the weight of a vote between electorates.
>> Consideration should be given to how the parliamentary cabinet system is best implemented, particularly when there is a coalition government. Among other points, we need to: (a) aim for separation of powers according to the principles of Montesquieu; (b) transform the system to give control to politicians, not bureaucrats; (c) strengthen the role of the Cabinet as a collegial body, rather than that of the prime minister.
>> Popular election of the prime minister is not desirable, as it poses several risks: (a) the risk of a popularity contest; (b) the risk of a standoff between the Diet and the prime minister; (c) the risk of the prime minister becoming unaccountable.
>> We should discuss residents' referendums as a way of giving greater depth to popular sovereignty.
SHIOKAWA Tetsuya (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Because of the lessons learned in the prewar years, the Constitution adopted parliamentary democracy based on the sovereignty of the people. But popular sovereignty has not been fully implemented, and problems such as money politics and collusion between politicians and bureaucrats are the result. Parliamentary democracy is a principle of modern constitutionalism which helps to guarantee fundamental human rights, and it should be given greater substance.
>> The adoption of a single-seat constituency system has impeded the reflection of the diversity of public opinion in government and created an artificial bipartisan system. We should therefore change to proportional representation.
>> Political corruption stems from donations by corporations and other organizations, but in the political reform process the blame was shifted to the electoral system.
>> Since the introduction of parliamentary question time, in which the prime minister faces questions from opposition leaders, the prime minister has appeared before Diet committees less frequently than before; this shows disregard of the Diet.
>> Reducing the powers of the House of Councillors would make the Diet into a rubber stamp for the government.
>> Concentrating powers in the hands of the prime minister risks setting us on the path to a military state structure, as the mechanism for control by the Diet would no longer be effective.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> If the Diet is to reflect the will of the people, with whom sovereignty resides, it should carry out its own legislative activity and not merely review Cabinet policies. The Diet should perform its functions to the full through Members' bills and revision of bills introduced by the Cabinet.
>> The phrase "the sole law-making organ" in Article 41 refers to the entire process of proposing, considering, and passing bills, not just voting on legislation.
>> In my proposals for reforms to revitalize Members' bills in June 1996, during my time as Speaker of the House of Representatives, I pointed out that many positions of responsibility in the Diet support organs are occupied by personnel seconded from the executive branch. In recent years, some improvement has been seen in this regard.
>> We should review the requirement of a majority vote for actions based on the right of Diet Members to investigate state affairs, such as demanding records from the executive branch, as well as the requirements for introducing Members' bills.
>> The increase in the number of Members' bills is a positive trend, but we should take further steps to revitalize the Diet's deliberation on legislation.
Comments after the first round
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I sense a decline in the administration's ability to plan and draft proposals, and thus I see a need for each political party to have its own legislative think tank to improve its law-making capacity.
>> I am opposed to limiting ministers of state to Diet Members. It would be preferable to draw on a diverse pool of talented people with specialized expertise, appointing them for limited terms.
>> I am opposed to limiting the right of legislative proposal to Diet Members, as this would make it difficult to draw upon the administration's knowledge.
>> We should carry out reforms of the administrative and legislative systems, placing emphasis on an integrated administration that can bring a cross-departmental perspective to the implementation of policies.
>> We should increase the ways and opportunities available for the public to participate in politics, although there is no need to provide for this in the Constitution.
>> The Upper House has an electoral system similar to that of the Lower House and duplicates its deliberations, and this is incomprehensible to the public. If we revise the Constitution, we should adopt a unicameral system.
>> We should establish a body to review the compatibility of local ordinances with the Constitution and the law.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> To ensure greater democratic control based on popular sovereignty, the Cabinet should consist entirely of Diet Members or persons who are willing to stand for election to the Diet.
>> Appropriate checks and balances should be set up among the Cabinet and the two Diet chambers. At present, the House of Councillors has, in effect, the power to block Cabinet policies by voting against bills, but the Cabinet has no way to counter its actions. We should therefore give the Cabinet a veto-like power over the House of Councillors.
>> We should keep the bicameral system, but with representation based on different principles in the two chambers. For example, Members of the Upper House could be regional representatives, with two seats for each prefecture.
TSUJI Megumu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> A major issue is how to control the executive branch, whose power is steadily expanding.
>> We should increase the number of policy staff so that the Diet can exercise its powers to the full by means of Members' bills.
>> Both the ruling parties and the opposition should apply themselves to the study of legislative proposals in a constructive rivalry, instead of the ruling parties leaving the drafting of bills to bureaucrats, as at present.
>> The smaller opposition parties should also be empowered to investigate state affairs, so that this power will be fully utilized.
>> Reforms are needed to revitalize the Diet's deliberations and strengthen the functions of the parliamentary cabinet system. For example, the prime minister should attend more committee sessions to allow more in-depth debate.
YAMAHANA Ikuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> We can agree across party lines on the need to strengthen political leadership. I would like to see measures to ensure that Members' bills submitted by the opposition come before the Diet.
>> In the interests of incorporating methods of direct democracy, we should not be too rigidly bound by the words "sole law-making organ" in Article 41.
>> The Upper House's practice of passing censure resolutions has been called into question. If the idea is to prohibit this practice under new rules, that is cause for alarm; if it is a question of how the existing rules are applied, I see this as an internal matter that should be determined by the Upper House itself.
NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The bicameral system should be maintained. The question is how the functions of the House of Councillors should be changed.
>> The form of organization prescribed for local public entities is a kind of presidential system, and local assemblies merely give their consent to executive decisions. There is a need to review this and to allow alternative forms of organization at the local level, such as a parliamentary cabinet system or a council system.
>> There is a problematic lack of transparency in the process by which a Cabinet bill is prepared. We should make the process clear; for example, by having the Diet carry out substantive revisions.
>> The nature of political parties is hard to define, but what we have in Japan are parties of legislators. If they become "people's parties," I suggest that this will also solve the problems involved in choosing the prime minister.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Article 65 is a defect of the present Constitution. We should distinguish between the Cabinet's decision-making role and the role of government agencies in carrying out those decisions. To that end, we should state clearly in the Constitution that the Cabinet is the decision-making branch and the administrative agencies are the branch that executes the Cabinet's decisions.
>> The Constitution says that the Cabinet shall consist of ministers of state, but it should also define the status of other officials such as senior vice ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Otherwise, the fact that they appear before the Diet in place of the minister cannot be explained.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> We cannot hope to achieve truly vital debate in the Diet while the "rule of numbers" holds sway as it has done recently, as seen in the insistence on speaking times allocated by the d'Hondt formula.
>> The fact that the legislature has not enacted a law for national referendums on constitutional amendments does not amount to "legislative nonfeasance," which refers to cases that have a serious impact on the lives or interests of the people. A more pertinent question is whether or not the Members of the Diet and the Cabinet have met their obligation under Article 99 to respect and uphold the Constitution.
>> There is little need for constitutional revision; instead, we should improve the measures taken in practice, and the Constitution exists as a criterion for judging those measures. What is important is what and how we deliberate on legislative bills.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is necessary to improve prime-ministerial leadership in response to the phenomenon of the active state and the need for democratic control. Accordingly, we should revise Article 65 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Cabinet Law.
>> If the prime minister is to exert leadership, we should actively encourage the appointment of ministers of state from the private sector in order to take the fullest possible advantage of private-sector expertise.
>> Since problems arise when the two Houses disagree, we should relax the requirement for repassage of a bill rejected by the Upper House to a simple majority and make it mandatory to convene a joint committee.
>> In light of Article 73, item (1), the Cabinet should have the right to introduce bills.
OTA Akihiro (New Komeito)
>> It is important that Members introduce bills in order to improve the deliberation and voting stages of the legislative process. Further, the Cabinet should also have the power to introduce bills.
>> We should maintain the bicameral system so that the Diet can perform to the full its function of overseeing the administration.
>> It is not correct to say that, because the Lower House may be dissolved, it is unable to conduct deliberations with a long-term perspective. I see the problem as lying elsewhere, especially in the electoral system.
MATSUMIYA Isao (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The bicameral system is meaningful, but there is a need for a thorough review of its form. This is especially true of the House of Councillors, because both Houses now have a partisan composition, and yet the Upper House has a longer term of office and cannot be dissolved, and, moreover, it can pass what amounts to a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet. Specifically, possible changes include emphasizing the Upper House's review of the final accounts and strengthening its function of overseeing the administration.
>> Since the administration is too compartmentalized to map out a course for the nation, Members' bills should play a greater role. Compared with the U.S. Congress, however, individual Members' offices are inadequately staffed, and I would like to see an improvement in this area.
NAGAOKA Yoji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Japan today needs prime-ministerial leadership and a unified policy-making system in which senior members of the ruling party hold Cabinet posts, as in the British parliamentary cabinet system.
>> To enable the prime minister to implement policies with broad public support behind him, we should adopt a system in which, in a general election, each party offers its prime-ministerial candidate and its policy program as a package, so that the public can make a clear choice of government. This would overcome the drawbacks of a system of popular election of the prime minister, namely, the risk of a popularity contest and the risk of a standoff between the prime minister and the Diet.
>> To avoid the risk of governmental deadlock when the ruling party holds a minority of Upper House seats, we should reduce the requirement for repassage in the Lower House of a bill rejected in the Upper House to a simple majority once a certain period of time has elapsed.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The election to designate the prime minister needs to be run in a way consistent with the Constitution's presumption of unity between the ruling party and the prime minister, for example, by having the candidates present detailed policy statements to all the Members of the Diet.
>> In the parliamentary cabinet system, unlike a corporation where an elected board chooses its own representative, democratic control takes the form of the prime minister controlling the other ministers, and this requires prime-ministerial leadership.
>> Under the bicameral system, the two chambers should be elected by different methods. In the Upper House, either the Members could be elected from the do-shu, or a system of large-scale multiple-seat constituencies could be adopted.
SHIOKAWA Tetsuya (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The significance of the bicameral system lies in the fact that it ensures careful deliberation and reflection of the diversity of public opinion. Advocates of a smaller role for the Upper House underrate its functions; their view implies that it is the Diet's job to confirm the government's policies with speedy resolutions. This amounts to the Diet denying its own role.
OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The need for prompt decisions in a rapidly changing international community means that we should adopt a unicameral system. We should take note of the fact that many other countries have done so.
>> Various problems arise under a bicameral system; for example, when elections for the two chambers occur too close together, it is not clear what issues the second election should be fought over. Also, the Diet, like the administration, needs to streamline its organization for the sake of fiscal reconstruction; and since the Upper House has become partisan, the two houses have been conducting similar debates despite the lack of sufficient time for deliberation. The public wants a unicameral system; we should abolish both houses and establish one new chamber.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(In connection with the comments of Mr. OMURA)
>> I have a similar view of the problems of the bicameral system, but, as a realistic approach, we should maintain it and take steps to prevent its negative effects.
>> To solve the problems that arise when elections for the two chambers occur too close together, we should limit dissolution under Article 7 and hold simultaneous elections every three years; the Lower House should be elected from single-seat constituencies to enable voters to choose a government, while the Upper House should be elected by proportional representation or a large-scale multiple-seat constituency system to reflect minority views. On that electoral basis, we should sort out the division of roles between the two houses and their relationship with the Cabinet.
(Comment)
>> With regard to more active introduction of Members' bills, we should think along the following lines: the Cabinet could introduce bills without prior review by the ruling party, and both the ruling and opposition parties could address questions in the Diet to the Cabinet and the administration; alternatively, a bill on which the government and the ruling party are agreed could be submitted as a member's bill, perhaps by the minister concerned, and the opposition's questions in the Diet could be answered jointly by the ruling party and the government.
MIHARA Asahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Stronger leadership by the Cabinet and the prime minister is a matter of intraparty discipline, rather than a question of the organization of the legislative branch.
>> The system of policy secretaries was created to strengthen Members' ability to formulate policies. Before calling for further changes, each party should make full use of its policy secretaries.
NODA Takeshi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The requirement for repassage in the Lower House of a bill rejected by the Upper House should be reduced from the present two-thirds majority to a simple majority.
>> We should establish the status of political parties in the Constitution.
>> We should also examine whether the electoral systems at the national and local levels are compatible. Further, it seems to me that the more authority is transferred to the regions, the more difficult it becomes to establish a division of roles between the central and local governments.
>> Many countries have made the right to vote—which is a fundamental human right—subject to a registration system, and I suggest that we should study this, because Japan is becoming an aged society.
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> As the Diet's functions of overseeing the administration and enacting legislation have grown in importance, the responsibilities of Diet Members have become increasingly heavy.
>> In view of the specialized and complex nature of legislative proposals, under the present circumstances they cannot be reviewed sufficiently, even by the ruling party. As a result, laws have been enacted that are deficient in various ways, and Diet Members' ability to work as a team is in question.
>> Because the Diet cannot conduct adequate deliberations while facing the possibility of being dissolved at any time, dissolution of the House of Representatives should be limited to cases governed by Article 69.
>> We should consider reducing the number of seats in the Diet.
TANAKA Makiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In practice, Cabinet meetings are directed by bureaucrats; for example, the agenda is drawn up by the ministries. Unless we change the way Cabinet meetings are run, no progress will be made with reforms to turn bureaucratic control into political control.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> A new form of local government, such as a do-shu system, is a question that relates to the ideal vision of the nation. Moreover, we cannot leave it to the bureaucracy to reallocate "national resources" that are no longer adapted to the changing times, such as the pension system. Thus, any consideration of the structure of government for the 21st century must include reforms to shift control from the bureaucracy to politicians.
>> If a do-shu system is introduced, the powers of Diet Members might be reduced and, leaving aside the question of whether a bicameral system is appropriate, it will be necessary to make the Diet more efficient, e.g., by reducing the number of seats. The Diet needs to look at the total picture.
NODA Takeshi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> While reforms to effect a change from bureaucratic to political control do have an institutional side, essentially, the issue comes down to the qualities of politicians themselves and what being a politician should mean.
NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman
>> A problem to be considered in a unicameral system is the absence of representatives in the event of a national emergency arising while the chamber is dissolved.