“I wish to serve my country as long as I live.”

　　　So declared Tokyo’s firebrand governor Shintaro Ishihara (80) on October 25 as he announced his resignation to form a new political party. I can well understand the degree of exasperation of the novelist-turned-politician, who laid bare the depth of his frustration during an urgently-called news conference, describing the undeniable feeling of helplessness prevailing in today’s Japan. Here are some of his comments:

　　　“I wish to take the initiative in reorganizing the centralized administrative system and the bureaucracy that have basically been in place since the Meiji Era.”

　　　“There is no credible balance sheet in this country. Why has double entry bookkeeping not been introduced to the central government?”

　　　“The government’s ‘yutori’ system (more flexible, pressure-free education implemented in the 1980s) has contributed to a drastic decline in the academic ability of Japanese students, but the former Ministry of Education (which became the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in 2001) has not officially retracted this system.”

　　　“I am determined to scrap the existing ‘peace’ constitution of post-war Japan.”

　　　Ishihara’s indignation about these points is well taken. Japan finds itself in a critical situation today. With the international community divided dangerously into two camps – a group made up of single-party dictatorships revolving around China versus another group comprising nations honoring freedom, democracy, and the rule of law – the conflict between Japan and China is becoming ever more serious.

　　　Unfortunately, Japan should take at last half of the blame for this sorry state of affairs, as it has neglected to assert itself, especially with its intractable and recalcitrant neighbor, failing to demonstrate the mettle with which to safeguard its territorial sovereignty and people, reluctant to this day to show any signs of its readiness to use military power if it becomes necessary. It looks as if Japan has long forsaken its responsibility to protect its land and its people on its own.

　　　That is all the more reason for Ishihara to assert the need to replace the existing constitution, which is the root cause of virtually all of the ills of post-war Japan. The current constitution, replacing the Meiji constitution, was enacted on May 3, 1947 – in the second year of the American occupation of Japan (1945-1952). Unless a fundamental reform is carried out resolutely to wash off all the ‘dirt’ accumulated in this nation over the past 67 years, Japan is bound to sink helplessly. In point of fact, Ishihara’s worries are shared by a growing number of thinking Japanese today, prompting political parties to position constitutional revision as a pressing issue. Also, a majority of Japanese are beginning to actually feel increasingly that our dysfunctional politics and absence of vigor as a nation are derived from the wording of the preamble to the “peace” constitution as well as its Article 9, which prohibits any act of war by the state. This is why Ishihara, who argues that the constitution must be scrapped, has attracted a growing number of sympathizers across Japan.

　　　The flaws in the existing constitution are plainly evident even without having them specified by Ishihara. First and foremost, the constitution employs improper Japanese. As Ishihara pointed out during the news conference, “several postpositional particles are clearly misused.” It fails to reflect proper Japanese in terms of both grammar and expression, indicating clearly that it is a translation. One need not be a man of letters to be fed up with the sentences used, which are dull and shallow. In light of the depth of Japanese civilization, which saw Lady Murasaki and Sei Shonagon introduce what is recognized as one the world’s most outstanding literatures some 600 years before Shakespeare, the existing constitution should quickly be termed a disaster in terms of literary creation.

　　　I believe nothing has more seriously undermined post-war Japan than the sense of reliance on others and the lack of spirit to defend itself which is evident in the wording of the preamble to the constitution, as well as Article 9, which states the essence of the preamble in concrete terms. Also, Chapter 3 (the Rights and Duties of the People), which purportedly reflect the values of the Japanese people, obviously does no such thing.

　　　Against such a backdrop, it is hardly surprising that there are many who are inclined to think it is too late to start revising each and every one of the articles of the constitution, and how nice it would be if Ishihara’s idea of simply discarding the constitution were to materialize. On the other hand, one must take note of those who would prefer to pursue a revision of the constitution, rather than simply disposing of it, while simultaneously entertaining serious doubts about the structure of Japan’s post-war government.

Democratic Process Mandatory for Constitutional Revision

　　　There is, for example, the bipartisan “Diet Members’ Caucus Aimed at Revising Article 96 (pertaining to amendments) of the Constitution,” for which former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (recently elected president of the leading opposition, the Liberal Democratic Party), serves as advisor. To date, the caucus has obtained some 250 signatures from Diet members representing various political parties who support the projected revision.

　　　Article 96 pertains to amendments to the constitution, stipulating that amendments can only be possible when more than two-thirds of all the Diet members agree. If the caucus manages to double the signatures, the number will comfortably exceed two-thirds of all Diet members (who number 722), making a revision of Article 96 possible. Actually, the caucus is taking measures to reduce the ratio from “two-thirds” to “more than one half” – from a ‘qualified’ majority to a ‘simple’ majority. Comments Abe:

　　　“The ideal opportunity to discard the existing constitution was, I believe, April of 1952 when Japan regained independence. At the time, Japan should have declared the constitution null and void as it was imposed on Japan while we were deprived of our sovereignty during the American occupation following the end of the Pacific War. However, more than 60 years have since lapsed with Japan living with the same constitution. It may be that its ‘statute of limitations,’ if I may, has run out by now. ”

　　　Obviously, Abe’s thinking reflects his concern over possible negative effects the democratic system of this nation most likely would suffer if the existing constitution, which after all has sustained the country for over 60 years, were completely scrapped. Abe probably feels that, if he is to carefully follow the democratic procedures necessary, he would need to first have Article 96 revised, which would then be followed by efforts to change, delete, or add words or content to each of the 103 articles in the constitution.

　　　As for articles to be deleted, Article 18, comes immediately to mind: “No person shall be held in slave-like bondage of any kind. Involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime, is prohibited.” There has never been a period in our history in which slaves existed in Japan. And yet, “slave” appeared in the Japanese constitution out of the blue – proof that it reflects American values. In the US, the bloody and tragic Civil War was fought over the emancipation of the slaves, with President Lincoln delivering his famous Gettysburg address on November 19, 1863. The word “slave” derives from this speech.

　　　When the time comes, we should eliminate from the constitution provisions that are totally alien to us even though they may represent very important values for the Americans, such as the emancipation of slaves. On the other hand, new provisions should definitely be added to make up for the absence of emergency clauses; this was painfully felt in the aftermath of the March 11 disaster in 2011.

　　　If every article is to be reviewed and revised, much debate will understandably occur, making the operation extremely time-consuming. And yet, we must recognize that this is what democracy is all about, and that rules that are established after following the required democratic procedure cannot easily be overturned. On the contrary, the danger involved in skipping the process can be actually felt by taking into account the following possibilities.

Only the Methods Are Different

　　　Suppose conservative politicians like Mssrs. Ishihara and Takeo Hiranuma, chief of the Sunrise Party of Japan, banded together and scrapped the constitution through a method that could effectively be called a revolution, and then created a constitution appropriate for today’s Japan. That may be valued for what it is worth. However, if a revolutionary method is permissible, it may be also possible for politicians who are the exact opposite of conservatives like Ishihara and his colleagues to manage to gain a great deal of influence in due time and scrap the new constitution. What is there to do then? The truth of the matter is that one cannot absolutely deny such a possibility. If so, wouldn’t it be better to follow the democratic process no matter how cumbersome it may be?

　　　And yet, I strongly feel that one should not denounce Ishihara’s ideas as “too radical” or “rightist.” Those who advocate scrapping the constitution are aiming for the same goal as those who prefer to revise it. Because the only difference between them lies in the methods to be chosen, it would not be necessary for those in the conservative camp to either face off against each other or break up. Like-mined people should never be disunited, especially when they have set the same objective. I believe differences over the methods can be overcome if they put their heads together and cooperate.

　　　I find it extremely regrettable that those said to be conservatives have in the past been unable to control the differences among themselves and ended up being divided, as in the case of the school textbooks. For the sake of Japan’s future, members of the conservative camp should muster strong will power, avoiding a situation in which divisiveness frustrates and weakens the precious energy which could otherwise carry them forward.

　　　This year, I was appointed chief representative of the “Forum for Distinguished Citizens to Discuss Japan and Its Constitution in the 21^st Century,” popularly known as the “Private Research Commission on the Constitution.” I am most anxious for our forum to realize a revision of the constitution in the near future – say, in the next year or two. As regards the method, I consider it pertinent to first have the afore-mentioned Article 96 revised, so all of the constitution’s provisions can then be reviewed and revised as necessary, following a democratic process. And, in the event of a successful revision of Article 96, in-depth discussions should then be promoted provision by provision, with the aim of developing a new foundation for Japan. I believe that, in that process the thinking of conservative leaders like Mr. Ishihara can be significantly taken into consideration.

　　　What is important now – in order to shake Japan free from the suffocating spirit of the existing constitution – is above all else for conservatives across Japan to join hands together and overlook minor differences for the sake of the common good.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 533 in the November 8, 2012 issue of The Weekly Shincho)