Fourth Meeting

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Meeting Agenda

Matters relating to a national referendum system for constitutional amendment and the Constitution of Japan

After keynote statements were heard from Special Committee members Mr. SAITO Tetsuo and Mr. KASAI Akira, other members put questions to them and made comments.

Keynote speakers:

Members who put questions or made comments:

Main points of keynote statement by Mr. SAITO

1. Introduction

>> Our basic position is indicated in the ruling parties' proposal of December 2005. However, we will not insist on this proposal, and we wish to engage in rule making in an open manner that all parties will find acceptable.

2. General points

>> Holding a national referendum and a national election simultaneously cannot be rejected. On the other hand, there is no need to include a provision mandating that the two be held simultaneously.

>> I recognize the significance of a general national referendum. But this should be considered separately from the national referendum law being debated now.

3. Eligible voters and registry of voters

>> The following views have been expressed in our party: (a) a supplementary provision should be added to the law to consider lowering the minimum voting age in national referendums and general elections to 18; (b) persons whose civil rights have been suspended should be eligible to vote in national referendums; and, (c) the three-month residency requirement should be deleted.

>> The prevailing view is that it would be realistic to use the same registry of voters for both national referendums and general elections. But related administrative problems must be considered.

4. Campaigning in national referendums

>> As a rule, campaigning in national referendums will be free, with some minimal restrictions to ensure fairness in voting. Further thought must be given to restrictions on the participation of civil servants and educators in campaign activities.

>> Regarding the participation of foreign nationals in campaign activities, organized and harmful activities should be prohibited. But these restrictions should be minimal.

>> Regarding restrictions on the mass media, we should basically rely on self-regulation by the media.

>> Provisions should be made in the law concerning bribery including vote buying, whose benefits and compensation are obvious. However, to avoid abuse, certain interpretive provisions should also be included.

>> Regarding public subsidies for campaign activities in national referendums, we should consider providing political parties which hold seats in the Diet with allotments of free access to television and newspapers.

5. Ballot and minimum voter turnout

>> Our party has come to the following conclusions concerning ballot format: (a) a general framework should be established in the national referendum law; and, (b) individual questions should be voted on separately.

>> We consider "majority" to signify a majority of the valid ballots cast. But also in view of discussions on the treatment of blank ballots, this needs to be considered further, along with how voters will indicate their approval or disapproval on the ballot form.

>> Because of the possibility of a campaign for abstention, there should be no minimum voter turnout requirement.

>> Regarding voting by persons living abroad, basically the same system should be adopted as for national elections.

6. Voting date and publicity period for constitutional amendment

>> Considering the need to develop pamphlets for distribution to the public, a publicity period of about 60 to 180 days would be appropriate.

>> To create a fair and impartial pamphlet, a "National Referendum Committee" should be created with members drawn from parties both for and against the amendment. The number of members from each party would reflect their respective number of seats in the Diet.

7. Revision of the Diet Law and other issues

>> The right to submit bills for constitutional amendment should, in the first instance, be restricted to Diet Members.

>> The sponsorship requirement for a bill for constitutional amendment should be set at a high level: for instance, one-third of the total number of seats in each House.

>> Regarding procedures for deliberation on proposed constitutional amendments, the holding of central and local open hearings should be mandated. Further consideration must be given to joint examination by the two Houses.

>> With respect to the initiation of an amendment, we interpret "all the members of each House" to mean the statutory number of seats. As a rule, each individual amendment should be separately initiated.


Main points of keynote statement by Mr. KASAI

1. Reason for opposition to "Consultation on issues pertaining to law concerning national referendum for constitutional amendment"

>> The national referendum law aims to prepare the ground for the revision of Article 9. Therefore, we oppose it. The Liberal Democratic Party has published its draft constitution and the Democratic Party of Japan has published its constitutional proposals. In this environment, it is already very clear what the intent of enacting a national referendum law is.

>> The Liberal Democratic Party advocates restrictions on national referendum campaign activities by civil servants and foreigners. It is also proposing restrictions on the media. It seems their intention is to control campaigning as much as possible and to push their amendments through.

>> Some argue that the debate on national referendums should not be linked to constitutional amendment but that it is important to create fair rules. It is highly doubtful that fair rules can be created in an environment where amendment proposals have already been published and constitutional amendment is moving in tandem with national referendum legislation.

>> It is not the will of the people to amend Article 9 and to become a nation that goes to war. An NHK opinion poll has indicated the following: (a) constitutional amendment is not desired; (b) there is no need for a national referendum law; and, (c) even if such a law were necessary, it should be preceded by very cautious discussions. The attempt to incite public opinion through "consultation on issues pertaining to a national referendum law" is putting the cart before the horse.

2. Response to the view that a national referendum law is necessary

>> It has been argued that enactment of a national referendum law will provide the people with an opportunity to reject a proposal for constitutional amendment. But this represents a waste of the people's time and energy culminating in the rejection of a constitutional amendment that they do not want in the first place, and is not a useful argument.

>> The people have other ways for expressing their disapproval of constitutional amendment. They can prevent the initiation of an amendment in the Diet, and they can prevent a national referendum.

3. The Liberal Democratic Party's draft constitution and the fundamental principles of the Constitution

>> The consensus among constitutional experts is that the fundamental values enunciated in the Constitution cannot be overturned. The Liberal Democratic Party's draft constitution involves changes in the fundamental principles of the Constitution, including the principles of constitutionalism, pacifism, and human rights.

>> The Constitution is not only a set of authorizing norms, but also a set of restrictive norms. The Liberal Democratic Party's draft constitution deletes the portions of the Preamble that relate to contrition for wars of aggression, and has instead been made a statement of the duties of the people. This is a fundamental departure from the character of the present Constitution. The draft constitution is totally biased in favor of military force and has abandoned the commitment to the principle of active peace diplomacy found in the present Constitution. This fundamentally alters the principle of pacifism and is intended to create a warring nation.

>> Amendment procedures have been significantly eased in the Liberal Democratic Party's draft constitution. This is aimed at facilitating later rounds of constitutional amendment.

4. Re-evaluating the principle of pacifism

>> Article 9 is highly valued by officials of the United Nations. It is no accident that the world is looking to Article 9 with new interest and praise. At the basis of this is the fact that the world is undergoing major structural changes and is coming closer to the ideals of Article 9.

5. Conclusion

>> Domestically, more than 4,500 "Meetings in Support of Article 9" have been established. I would like to reiterate that the people have no desire to enact a national referendum law for amending the Constitution.


Main points of questions and comments

HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To Mr. KASAI)

>> The Liberal Democratic Party highly values the fundamental principles of the Constitution and is earnestly considering how Japan can best establish itself as a peace-loving nation in the new age.

>> What is your view of each political party clearly stating its position concerning the Constitution?

> KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> In light of the postwar point of departure, it is important for each political party to state its position on the Constitution.

(To Mr. KASAI)

>> What grounds do you have in thinking that none of the people want an amendment of Article 9?

> KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> Various public opinion polls show that the people believe Article 9 has contributed to peace. To change Article 9 is to change Japan into a warring nation. It is clear that the people do not desire that.

(In connection to Mr. KASAI's statement)

>> Some opinion polls show that 60 percent of the people support constitutional amendment.

>> It was stated that rejecting constitutional amendments through national referendums was a very inefficient approach. But democracy is essentially inefficient. We should be prepared to carefully hear what the public has to say.

>> Various countries have various procedures for constitutional amendment. If you want to avoid changes in the fundamental principles of the Constitution, the way to go about it would be to amend Article 96 to demand more stringent procedural requirements for any changes in the fundamental principles.

>> Our discussions of a national referendum for constitutional amendment are not predicated on the revision of Article 9.

>> Some necessary amendments may attract very little public interest. For this reason, it is better not to have a minimum voter turnout requirement.

>> Regarding a system for general national referendums, we may use the Austrian case as a model. Austria first established a national referendum system for constitutional amendment, and later added a system for general referendums.

>> Regarding restrictions on campaigning in national referendums, the criticism was made that the ruling parties are aiming to create procedures that would facilitate the ratification of amendments. However, all that we have done is to discuss technical issues, such as the need to coordinate the contents of this bill with the provisions of the Public Offices Election Law.


SUZUKI Katsumasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To Mr. KASAI)

>> Although Article 96 allows for constitutional amendment, no specific procedures have been established. Given the principle of popular sovereignty, the will of the people must be duly reflected in amendment of the Constitution. Looking at this from the perspective of the people, I cannot find any reason to oppose enactment of a system that is provided for in the Constitution. What is your view on this matter?

> KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> The absence of amendment procedures has caused no inconvenience to the people, and the people have not demanded the enactment of such a system. This is all about some political parties bringing the matter up in tandem with their proposals for constitutional amendment.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> The minimum voting age for national referendums should be 18. There are many 18 year olds who are contributing members of society. Their participation in politics should be encouraged and they should be prompted to recognize their responsibilities. I believe the minimum voting age in public elections and the age of majority should also be lowered to 18. What is your view on this matter?

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> Both my party and myself as an individual basically agree with this position. But such a revision requires time for discussing how this relates to the provisions of the Civil Code. So, for now, we are considering the inclusion of a supplementary provision to the law stating that such efforts should be made.

(Comment)

>> Regarding voting method, the right of the people to decide freely must be ensured. Therefore, each individual question should be voted on separately. Voting on a unified package of questions should be reserved for cases involving a set of indivisible questions. The keynote statements of the Liberal Democratic Party, the Democratic Party of Japan and New Komeito indicate that a basic agreement exists on this matter, and I would ask that this direction be taken.

>> We should affirm that only minimum necessary restrictions would be placed on the media in connection with national referendum campaigning. Details should be discussed later.


MASUYA Keigo (New Komeito)

(To Mr. KASAI)

>> Given that some opinion polls show that 60 percent of the public favors constitutional amendment, your statement that the public does not wish to amend the constitution would appear to the people to be very dissonant. What are your thoughts on the need to amend parts of the Constitution other than Article 9, and what is your view of public opinion?

> KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> I believe that all articles of the Constitution must be preserved. But among the people, the focus of attention is on Article 9.

(To Mr. KASAI)

>> You have argued that failure to enact a national referendum law does not constitute legislative nonfeasance. Do you not believe that privacy rights, environmental rights and other rights should be added to the Constitution to better protect the rights of the people?

> KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> Legislative nonfeasance is a concept contained in the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation. There is no legislative nonfeasance here because there is no consensus among the people on constitutional amendment, and the people's right of constitutional amendment cannot be said to have been violated. Instead of adding new rights to the Constitution, we should discuss how the present provisions of the Constitution can be fully utilized.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> You propose setting a high hurdle for sponsorship of an amendment bill. On the other hand, you are calling for a low hurdle by defining "majority" to mean the majority of valid ballots cast, and by saying that minimum voter turnout requirements should not be adopted. What is your intent here?

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> For reasons including that an amendment must be approved by two-thirds or more of all members of each House, it is better not to have a low sponsorship requirement. On the other hand, because the two-thirds requirement lends sufficient firmness to the Constitution, other hurdles should be low.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> Observing the local referendum held in Iwakuni City, we could say that local referendums are "a powerful medicine." Personally, I have taken a very cautious position on general national referendums. What is your view on this matter?

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> There were no discussions denying the significance of general national referendums. But this matter should be discussed separately from a national referendum for constitutional amendment.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> Regarding the minimum voting age, would it not be possible to set a timeframe for discussing lowering the voting age to 18?

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> That will have to be considered in the future.


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> Do you consider the enactment of a national referendum law to be a necessary step for New Komeito's concept of "adding to the Constitution" as applied to Article 9 and other parts of the Constitution?

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> To achieve "adding to the Constitution," we first need to establish the procedures for constitutional amendment. Article 9 will be a key issue in amendment. In our party, we are discussing, while keeping paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9 unchanged, adding a third paragraph that would define the status of the Self-Defense Forces and would contain provisions concerning Japan's international contribution. A national referendum law is not being enacted for the purpose of adding new provisions to Article 9.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> What do you believe is the contemporary significance of Article 9?

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> I highly value the principle of pacifism enunciated in Article 9.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> What do you want to add to Article 9, and what will that change?

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9 would be retained with their provisions for pacifism and not maintaining war potential. Within our party, some advocated adding a third paragraph to explicitly affirm the existence of the Self-Defense Forces. On the other hand, some argued that it is sufficient as it stands. Some arguments were also made for explicitly providing for its international contribution and the negation of the right to collective self-defense.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> Will this addition to the Constitution allow the Self-Defense Forces to work alongside U.S. military forces in Iraqi war zones?

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> Current activities of the Self-Defense Forces in Iraq constitute international contribution, not the use of military force. We will not include provisions that will allow the use of military force overseas.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> What is your view of the relation between the Constitution and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty?

>SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> There is no contradiction between the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the Constitution.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> What grounds do you have for saying that there is no contradiction between the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the Constitution?

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> There is no contradiction between the two for the following reasons: (a) the principle of pacifism in Article 9; (b) the principle that the Self-Defense Forces maintain an exclusively defensive posture; and, (c) the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty calls for actions to be taken within the limits imposed by the Constitution.


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> According to an NHK opinion poll, people want a very cautious approach to discussions of a national referendum law. Also, the poll points to low public interest. What is the reason for this?

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> It is exactly because of this low level of public interest that we must endeavor to encourage public debate by deepening the discussions in this committee and in the directors' meetings.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> Even if our discussions gather momentum, I think the people will remain cold and uninterested. Japan's relations with Asia and the sense of crisis engendered by contemporary conditions demand that we adopt a very cautious stance in our discussions.

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> No one is advocating quick and truncated discussions, but it is also important to have concentrated discussions.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> Reading "Public Forum" over the past year, I have found many expressions of support for a cautious approach regarding a national referendum law. Don't you think that closer attention should be paid to views and opinions outside the Diet?

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> It is important to have a wide-ranging forum for receiving the views of the public.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> Newspaper reports indicate that there may be some "closed door" discussions going on between the Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito. Closed-door discussions should be stopped.

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> I look forward to open discussions in this committee and elsewhere.


TAKI Makoto (People's New Party)

(To Mr. KASAI)

>> The people will find it very difficult to understand if discussions of constitutional amendment are mixed up with discussions of a national referendum law which are only framework talks. Without concrete proposals for a national referendum law, how can we expect the public to develop a stronger interest in this matter?

> KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> Specific proposals for the amendment of Article 9 and other articles have already been published. In such an environment, it is impossible to have fair and neutral discussions on a national referendum law. When the people feel that the Constitution should be amended: then and only then should we begin to think about a national referendum law.

(To Mr. KASAI)

>> If you want to preserve Article 9, you should put this to a vote in a national referendum. Shouldn't the people be given a chance to make judgments on Article 9 and other fundamental elements of the framework of the nation?

> KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> The people feel that it is not necessary to change Article 9. Therefore, a national referendum is not necessary.

(To Mr. SAITO)

>> I would like to see the national referendum legislation outlined in a bill that the people will find easier to understand.

> SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> The basic position of New Komeito is expressed in the ruling parties' proposal. It is important for all political parties to join the discussions for creating rules for a national referendum law. The directors' meeting of this committee will not insist on the ruling parties' proposal, and I look forward to a consensus involving various parties.