Today marks the 71st anniversary of the enforcement of the Constitution. This should be an occasion for each and every citizen to think of how the Constitution should be in a new era.
The international situation surrounding Japan has changed dramatically. Japanese society also faces diverse challenges, in line with its rapidly aging society with a declining birthrate and technological innovation.
There have arisen situations and other new challenges that the Constitution, kept unchanged since its establishment shortly after the end of the World War II, cannot deal with in its present form.
It is reasonable for the Constitution to be reviewed regularly as the law that sets the fundamentals of the governance of the nation.
Discuss LDP's proposal
On last year's Constitution Day, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is also the president of the Liberal Democratic Party, held up as his political agenda the revision of Article 9, so as to establish a provision defining the constitutional grounds for the Self-Defense Forces.
The LDP accelerated its relevant intraparty discussions and compiled this March its opinions on constitutional revision with respect to four items, including the amendment of Article 9 and the creation of a clause to deal with emergencies. It is commendable that the party has narrowed down the items for revision and has brought forward concrete draft provisions.
As the Abe Cabinet has stalled, however, the momentum for constitutional revision has also flagged.
The opposition parties, intensifying their confrontational stance against the Abe Cabinet, have not agreed to hold meetings of the commissions on the Constitution in both houses of the Diet. It is highly questionable for the opposition parties to refuse the discussions by linking the issue to political maneuvering.
It is the role of the commissions to work out a conclusion by discussing the draft revision sincerely, while listening to minority opinions.
It would be rational for the opposition parties to make clear their views on the LDP's draft revision at the commissions. They should explore common ground and correct problem areas, if any. Such constructive discussion is called for.
How the right of self-defense, which a nation is entitled to possess, should be given status in the Constitution is a long-pending issue.
The SDF's roles in keeping peace, and in stabilizing conditions in areas around Japan have increased their importance.
According to an opinion poll taken by The Yomiuri Shimbun, those who regard the SDF as "constitutional" stand at 76 percent, while those who consider it "unconstitutional" hover only at 19 percent.
Many constitutional scholars have taken the stance that the SDF is "unconstitutional." The present situation, in which most junior high school textbooks refer to the argument that the SDF is unconstitutional, must be rectified.
Assuring the SDF's legitimacy and sweeping away the argument that calls it unconstitutional is of significance.
The LDP has worked out an idea of creating in Article 9 a new clause to stipulate the retention of the SDF as "an organization with the power" to take necessary self-defense measures.
It is feared that fruitless discussions on whether the SDF is regarded as "war potential," which is banned by Paragraph 2 of Article 9, will continue. This can be a realistic judgment made by the LDP to prioritize forming a consensus with other parties.
Former LDP Secretary General Shigeru Ishiba has advocated a proposal to delete Paragraph 2 and position the SDF as "military forces." It is important for the LDP to deepen its discussions and consolidate its opinion.
Term extension logical
Regarding the nation's response to an emergency, the LDP proposed establishing a special case allowing Diet lawmakers' terms to be extended in the event of a large-scale disaster.
The proposal also included a provision that the government could establish emergency ordinances to protect people's lives and property. These would be a necessary measure to ensure democracy functions properly.
Komeito and the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan also have shared the opinion there is some leeway for considering extending lawmakers' terms following a major disaster. Shouldn't these parties narrow down their concrete draft clause, based on the LDP's proposals, at commissions on the Constitution?
The items subject to revision are not limited to the four items proposed by the LDP. The roles of both chambers of the Diet also need to be reviewed.
When there was a so-called divided Diet, in which the two Diet chambers were controlled by different parties, the upper house -- in which opposition parties held a majority of seats -- wielded the power to decide whether important legislation and personnel appointments subject to Diet approval passed or failed. It must not be forgotten that this situation led to Diet turmoil and gridlock in national politics.
Efforts must be made to rectify the "too powerful" upper house such as by lowering the requirement for the lower house to pass bills for a second time -- when they are rejected by the upper house -- from the current two-thirds majority to a majority of the members.
The LDP proposed amending the top law so that at least one upper house member is chosen from every prefecture in elections held every three years. This is intended to eliminate merged constituencies for upper house elections.
If upper house lawmakers are positioned as representatives of their regions, reducing this chamber's authority will be unavoidable.
Wider discussions vital
A high hurdle ahead is that constitutional revision can be initiated only after securing approval by at least two-thirds of lawmakers in each Diet house and then support by a majority in a national referendum.
Forming a broad consensus among political parties, including those in the opposition camp, would carry heavy significance in terms of broadening public support for amending the top law.
Political parties and individual lawmakers should clearly indicate their positions on the Constitution and make efforts to explain their views to supporters in easily understood language.
Other nations constantly review the provisions of their constitutions to make them fit changing domestic and international situations and strive to make them function effectively.
It is desirable that the Japanese people understand the significance of realizing constitutional amendments, and that the parts out of sync with reality are changed. Discussions on this issue should steadily move forward.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, May 3, 2018)
Read more from The Japan News at https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/
