Before surviving a no-confidence motion on June 2 over his handling of the crisis that followed a series of explosions at a nuclear power station in Fukushima, northeast Japan, Prime Minister Naoto Kan vigorously refused to resign, claiming he had “a historic mission” to achieve the recovery, reconstruction and rejuvenation of the nation.
　　　Kan stressed that, when implemented, his yet unfulfilled plans for a unified reform of the social security and taxation systems, the child support allowance system, and the individual household income compensation system for farmers will constitute “truly epoch-making policies…absolutely far from mistaken from a historical perspective.”
　　　However, what the prime minister has apparently failed to notice is that his inordinate over-confidence and abrasive style are the very factors that constitute “a serious national hazard of historic proportions.” What is distinctively manifest is, unfortunately, Japan’s national strength is expected to definitely continue to be drained -€ so long as a political leader like Mr. Kan, sadly devoid of the proper qualifications of a prime minister, remains in office.
　　　Mr. Kan, who desperately desires to retain his power on the pretext of achieving the wholesale rejuvenation of Japan, nowadays shows little interest in the revision of the Japanese constitution, which in fact will be absolutely the crucial element in any rebirth of Japan. On the contrary, his true intentions were seen in the decision he made in December 2010 to indefinitely postpone a review of Japan’s three principles of arms exports in order to once again woo the minority Social Democratic Party (SDP) as a coalition member. Out of deference to the party, Kan leaned heavily toward a policy of protecting Japan’s “peace constitution” -€ an action that continues to bind Japan hand and foot to this day, preventing it from becoming a “normal” nation.
　　　Despite such a sorry state of affairs attributable to the prime minister, Japanese politics still embraces great vitality and possibilities. It is no time to despair. On June 7, bipartisan parliamentarians mainly from the ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and the no. 1 opposition Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) took the initiative in forming the “League of Parliamentarians for Revision of Article 96 of the Constitution,” immediately holding its first session.
　　　The LDP is represented by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who serves as senior advisor of the newly formed league; Keiji Furuya, as representative director; and Hirofumi Shimomura, as secretary-general. In addition, there are such senior LDP members as Hirofumi Nakasone, Yuji Yamamoto, Ichiro Kamoshita, Seiichi Eto, Katsunobu Kato, and Tomomi Inada. Meanwhile, the DPJ is represented by more than several dozen interested parties, including Sakihito Ozawa, who serves as representative director, and Akihisa Nagashima, the secretary general. The group worked vigorously over many months to entice more than 101 Lower House members and more than 51 Upper House members to join the bipartisan league in preparation for presenting original legislation for the revision of Article 96, managing to secure, as of the end of May, more than 200 parliamentarians. It would appear logical to expect a real political sea change to start from here, aimed at a genuine rejuvenation of Japan.
　　　Over the decades, the flaws in the Japanese constitution have been pointed out more than enough by a variety of individuals, Japanese and foreign. In connection with the recent Great East Japan Earthquake, it must be said once again that, for some baffling reason, the Japanese constitution does not include regulations pertaining to a national emergency. The existing constitution has lured the Japanese into an abyss where they slumber away under a false sense of security endangered by the myth of an everlasting peace. The constitution does not contain regulations regarding a national emergency, because its authors obviously never anticipated an emergency to ever confront Japan.

A Constitution Devoid of Any “Japaneseness”
　　　It is the fundamental responsibility of any state to protect its people and defend their homeland. However, permeating through the present Japanese constitution is a notion that the international community will protect and defend Japan against adversaries -€ even if the Japanese and their state do not. As the Japanese constitution says in its preamble:“We have determined to preserve our security, and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world.”The concept of our national and civic defense thoroughly counts and relies on the benevolence and mercy of other nations surrounding us.
　　　Sadly, the Japanese posture of turning to the goodwill of the international community for its security is further amplified in Article 9: “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat of use of force as means of settling international disputes…The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”
　　　While expressing sympathy over the national disaster that befell Japan, Russian and South Korean politicians are making visits to the Russian-held Japanese northern territories as if they were their own. On Japanese territorial waters around the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, Chinese helicopters fly abnormally close to Japan Maritime Self Defense Force escort vessels, representing a menace to them. On the Eurasian continent, a fierce historic conflict is evolving among various key players, centering around the U.S., India, China and Russia. Amid such circumstances, a nation incapable of defending and protecting its homeland on its own is disdained and will inevitably be taken advantage of.
　　　It should hardly be necessary to point out now, but allow me to emphasize that the present Japanese constitution really is not what we have authored. That explains why the constitution absolutely lacks “Japaneseness.”
　　　Allow me to refer to Chapter III of the constitution, for example -€ “Rights and Duties of the People” -€ in which “rights” (16 references) and “freedom” (nine references) are cited numerous times. On the other hand, “duty” and “responsibility” are mentioned only three times each. The emphasis on rights and freedom, while slighting duty and responsibility, clearly runs counter to authentic Japanese values. Witnessing Japanese victims behave with dignity and compassion for others, the world marveled at their distinctly Japanese manners, giving unstinted praise. A people capable of continuing to retain a centuries-old culture of such dignity and compassion mixes like oil and water with a constitution that primarily harps on rights and freedom.
　　　Also in the same chapter, the present constitution fails to refer to the importance of the family at all, stressing the importance of the individual citizen’s rights and freedom instead. The latest national disaster has just given most Japanese a chance to recognize anew the value of family ties. Against such a backdrop, the constitution should certainly not be allowed to remain as is, effectively denying family values and encouraging every Japanese to see himself as an individual, rather than as a member of his family.
　　　The primary reason why all of the 103 articles of the present constitution, with all its serious flaws, have remained unrevised the past 64 years is Article 96, which this time has prompted bipartisan parliamentarians to form a league to focus on its revision. This article dictates that amendments to the constitution require a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each house of the Diet, followed by an endorsement by a simple majority of the voting population in a general referendum
　　　Since the end of the war, however, there has not been a single political party, nor a coalition administration, that has had more than two thirds of the seats in both houses of the Diet. And the prediction is that there won’t be any, anytime soon. If so, does that mean the Japanese will forever have to entrust their nation, imperial household, families, education, and national defense, among other things, to the dictates of this constitution authored by the Americans? Such a stricture will make Japan different from what it genuinely is. To restore the real Japan, we must author our own constitution on our own standards concerning the state, society, and the family. Behind the recent birth of the parliamentarian league is an earnest desire on the part of bipartisan members of the Diet to revise Article 96.

Indifference and Lack of Responsibility Towards the Constitution
　　　The deliberations would expand endlessly if participants were allowed to put every pertinent issue on the table, and would most likely make any revision of the constitution next to impossible. In this regard, I believe the league has adopted the right method by narrowing the point of deliberation to just the procedures of implementing a revision of Article 96. It is right also in light of democratic values. From a democratic perspective, the premise that an absolute majority, i.e., more than two thirds, must support the legislation to materialize the desired revision simply does not make sense, as it implies only a one-third vote can block the legislation.
　　　Switching from an absolute majority to a simple majority -€ from a two-third vote to a one-half vote -€ will make the majority rule more democratic and more fair, helping bring the constitution closer to the people in the true sense of the word. Because of the “absolute majority rule” in the past, the possibility of a constitutional revision, in fact, has remained endlessly close to zero, alienating the people. In some ways, such a situation has engendered indifference and a lack of responsibility towards the constitution among the Japanese.
　　　In the Diet, the Constitution Research Council, headed by Taro Nakayama, an influential LDP member of the Lower House, held deliberations for five years. And yet, the projected revision of the constitution has not seen the light of day. Then in May 2007, the National Referendum Law, needed to revise the constitution, was enacted, leading to the birth of a permanent ad hoc organ in the two houses of the Diet -€ the Constitution Research Panel (CRP). Ordinarily, issues relating to legislation for constitutional revision should have been debated at these panels. However, the panels were only nominal and failed to perform their proper functions. It was only in 2009 that the Lower House belatedly adopted regulations governing its CRP, which then finally began its deliberations. The Upper House was even worse. Until May 18 this year, there were no regulations governing its CRP. Not a single session has been held in four years. Particularly un-enterprising has been the governing party -€ namely, the DPJ -€ which has turned its back on issues pertaining to constitutional revision over the past five years.
　　　But the DPJ’s posture is undergoing a change, finally. On May 10, the party assigned former Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara to head its Constitution Research Council.
　　　It is critically important to explore the way for Japan’s wholesale rejuvenation by getting back to the fundamentals of the nation, particularly because domestic politics tends to remain infinitely stagnant in a power vacuum such as today’s. All the more reason for the bipartisan parliamentarians, with members of the two biggest parties -€ the DJP and the LDP -€ in the vanguard, to try and do their utmost to implement a revision of Article 96.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 463 in the June 9, 2011 issue of The Weekly Shincho.)