“I am very ashamed of seeing such an election take place here. It will long keep me from looking the people of the rest of Japan in the eye.”

　　　　　These were the remarks by Kenichi Itokazu, chairman of the Yonaguni-machi town council on the westernmost Japanese island of Yonaguni, after its residents accepted a central government plan to deploy a Ground Self-Defense Force (GSDF) coastal monitoring unit on the island 500 kilometers (313 miles) west of Okinawa and 110 kilometers (73 miles) east of Taiwan.

　　　　　With 85.7% of eligible voters voting in a referendum held on February 22, pro-deployment forces upset general expectations by collecting 632 votes—187 more than the opposition (445 votes). It was a significant victory for incumbent mayor Shukichi Hokama, whose idea it was to petition for the deployment of the GSDF unit in the first place, but who had barely managed to win the last mayoral election by a margin of just 47 votes.

　　　　　There is a good reason why Mayor Hokama is ashamed of the referendum despite his “big” victory. That is because the referendum was so abnormal it would have been totally unthinkable in any normal constitutional state. Yonaguni granted voting rights to not only junior high school pupils but also permanent resident aliens, enabling both groups to vote in the referendum.

　　　　　Ultimately, a total of 1,284 citizens, including 97 minors—41 of whom were junior high school students—and five foreigners permanently residing in Yonaguni Town, were made eligible for the referendum. These minors and non-Japanese were in effect asked whether or not they approved of the deployment plan which the state and the local municipality had already agreed on. Can a supposedly normal constitutional state commit anything more unconstitutional abnormal than this?

　　　　　As one who is critical of Japan’s post-war constitution, I am convinced a major constitutional revision is mandatory in order to rejuvenate this nation. Yet, while I am opposed to the current constitution, it is now the law of the land and we must at all times comply with it. The Yonaguni referendum was an unforgivable challenge to the spirit and letter of the constitution.

　　　　　That Yonaguni granted its resident aliens the right to vote, I believe, is a blatant violation of the purport of Article 15 of the constitution, which defines universal adult suffrage as the “inalienable right of the people of Japan.” Points out Professor Akira Momochi, an expert on the constitution at Nihon University:

　　　　　“The right to leave or enter the country at any time, the right to vote, and social rights are examples of rights recognized for Japanese citizens　and denied foreigners residing in Japan. Each of these rights relates directly to the very existence of the nation, with the right to vote granted in Article 15 functioning as the main pillar.”

National Security: Exclusive Prerogative of State

　　　　　Article 15, allow me to repeat, defines universal suffrage as the “(Japanese) people’s inalienable right.” In point of fact, the Supreme Court ruled on February 28, 1995, that “universal suffrage does not apply to foreign nationals residing in Japan.”

　　　　　In addition to violating Article 15, the referendum in Yonaguni Town ran counter to the spirit of Article 93, which rules that all local governance must be implemented through the direct popular vote of the local citizenry. Expounds Prof. Momoi:

　　　　　“The Supreme Court terms ‘residents’ as those ‘Japanese who take up residence within local public entities.’ That is to say that only local residents who are Japanese nationals are eligible to vote in elections conducted by local municipalities, whether that be for heads of local governments or local assemblymen.”

　　　　　In other words, aliens with permanent residency in Japan are barred from all municipal elections—regardless of the length of their stay.

　　　　　Furthermore, if one views national security as the ultimate guarantee of the public welfare, the Yonaguni referendum also ran counter to the purport of Article 13—that one is free to exercise individual rights to the extent that they do not interfere with the public welfare.

　　　　　I wish to add another important matter. That is, national security is the state’s exclusive prerogative. With only two police officers posted permanently in the whole of Yonaguni at present, it is almost completely defenseless. Now that China, backed by its enormous military might, is taking boldly provocative actions against Japan, a deployment of SDF troops in the East China Sea is an absolutely necessary measure designed to defend not only Okinawa but also the entire Japanese archipelago. Yonaguni is just 150 kilometers (94 miles) south of the disputed Senkaku Islands.

　　　　　The 150-strong Coastal Observation Unit of GSDF to be deployed on Yonaguni is expected to play a vital role in keeping close watch over Chinese boats and planes traveling in the vicinity. Meanwhile, the projected deployment itself will constitute an effective deterrence against China. Such a security policy can and must predominantly be determined by the state, based on a thorough analysis of Japan-China relations as well as the world situation; for local municipalities to overrule it would will be contrary to the role allocated to local governments.

　　　　　One is dumbfounded by the irregularities of the Yonaguni referendum, such as the decision to grant minors the right to vote, as well as the fact that only four assemblymen—three of whom belonged to the faction opposing the deployment—attended the session of the town assembly during which an ordinance proposing the referendum was passed.

　　　　　In the first place, the process of deploying Self-Defense Forces in Yonaguni began when Mayor Hokama petitioned the central government. Although the town council approved the deployment, the scheme took a sinuous course as concrete plans progressed forward, with the mayor demanding \1 billion (approximately US$10 million) in “nuisance payment” from the central government.

　　　　　To date I have heard him speak several times, but the only subjects the mayor has discussed in connection with the deployment scheme are the island’s economic and population problems. Needless to say, these are life-and-death issues for this isolated the island. While I can well understand how important these matters must be to the island, I must point out that I have heard almost no mention of Japan’s national defense or security matters, or the ongoing egregious violation of Japanese territorial waters by Chinese state patrol boats.

　　　　　It is a matter of course that the nation’s security and energy policies must be implemented by obtaining consent from the people. However, looking back at the Yonaguni referendum, one cannot but seriously question if it is reasonable for the state to leave the nation’s security policy to the judgment of a local municipality.

“Supreme Law” of Local Municipalities

　　　　　This time the faction favoring the GSDF deployment scheme was victorious.

　　　　　What if the results were the other way around? The government maintains that the state’s policy of deploying GSDF troops would not have been affected, as the referendum violated the spirit of the constitution in the first place. But I believe it certainly would have been affected. In point of fact, Mayor Hokama has said the “townspeople would have been uncooperative with the SDF troops” if the deployment plan was rejected in the referendum, even if its outcome was not going to be legally binding. The government must establish explicit principles on how to forge ahead with the nation’s security policy as it affects local municipalities.

　　　　　In that sense, I do not believe I am alone in having serious concerns about some of the basic ordinances now being enacted in no small number of municipalities across Japan. Although the specifics may vary somewhat among each of the municipalities, in most cases these basic ordinances are being positioned as “the supreme law,” obligating the head of the municipality to strictly abide by them. Furthermore, almost without exception these same local municipalities are also granting resident aliens voting rights.

　　　　　The Institute for Research on Public Policy reports that the number of municipalities across Japan that have enacted their own local ordinances reached 321 as of the end of January 2015. Three municipalities, including Tokaichi City in Niigata Prefecture, are expected to follow suit by April. The number of municipalities having enacted basic principal local ordinances is fast reaching some 20% percent of the total of 1,700 local municipalities that exist across Japan.

　　　　　While these ordinances must be scrutinized in detail, I believe it is reasonable to say that all over the country ordinances that could shake the nation from its foundations are spreading far and wide. Even though our constitution denies resident aliens the right to vote, ordinances to the contrary could very well be recognized as the prevailing law in various local municipalities, substantially changing the shape of the nation over time.

　　　　　Although no such ordinance was enacted in Yonaguni, the local municipality still carried out a referendum that is strongly suspected of violating the constitution, and nobody dared stop it. Regardless of the outcome, a bad precedent has been set. Is the future of Japan really secure under such circumstances?

　　　　　At this juncture, the central government must make every effort to enhance the basic foundation of Japan in every respect as a nation in which the rule of law prevails. It is the responsibility of our politicians to pay close attention to all levels of government, even the most local, as they move forward in these efforts. (End)

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 645 in the March 5, 2015 issue of The Weekly Shincho)