Reminder from FTChinese.com: If you are interested in the content of FTChinese.com, please search for “FTChinese.com” in the Apple App Store or Huawei App Store, download the official app of FTChinese.com, and pay for subscription. Happy using!
After the assassination of Shinzo Abe, his political legacy—amending Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, rectifying the name of the Self-Defense Forces from a constitutional perspective, and lifting the ban on the right to collective self-defense has also become the mission that the Kishida Fumio government is committed to promoting. On July 10, Kishida stated in a TV program that he would advance parliamentary discussions centered on the four items of the Liberal Democratic Party’s draft amendment to the Constitution, including the inclusion of the Self-Defense Forces in Article 9 of the Constitution, and emphasized, ” We will challenge huge challenges with courage.”
The current Japanese constitution was promulgated on May 4, 1947. This is a constitution formulated under the supervision of the U.S. occupying forces, and its Article 9 states that the Japanese people wholeheartedly seek international peace based on justice and order, and forever renounce war, threat or use of force by national power as a solution to the international The means of dispute; for reaching the previous project, the army, navy, air force and other combat capabilities are not reserved. The belligerent rights of the state are not recognized. Therefore, the Japanese constitution is also called the pacifist constitution. The constitution guaranteed Japan’s peace for decades after the war, but to a large extent, Japan has also lost the national defense autonomy that a normal country should have. For the Japanese rightists, especially the extremists among the rightists, the “peace constitution” was imposed on Japan by the US military, which trapped Japan’s hands and feet and prevented Japan from becoming a normal country. Or repeal Article 9 of the Constitution, because it is this article that limits Japan’s military capabilities. Abe is their representative.
Abe came from a political family, and his grandfather Kishi Nobusuke served as prime minister as a war criminal. This is absolutely impossible in Germany, but it is normal in Japan. This alone is enough to show that Japan’s transformation of militarism after the war was very incomplete. His father, Shintaro Abe, was foreign minister. Abe inherited the right-wing ideology in their genes and served as prime minister twice, the longest-serving prime minister in more than 20 years. His ideal is to strengthen the country. To strengthen the country, we must first strengthen the army, and to strengthen the army, we must amend the constitution, especially for the key Article 9. Therefore, during Abe’s second term as prime minister in 2018, he put forward four proposals to amend the constitution, including the inclusion of the Self-Defense Forces in Article 9 of the constitution, and the other three are foils. After Abe stepped down as prime minister, there was no restriction on public office, and he devoted half his life to promoting the revision of the constitution. On April 3 this year, he also called for an early revision of the constitution, including an explicit provision for the Self-Defense Forces in Article IX.
Although the current Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is less right-wing than Abe, and his political views are different from Abe, he is also firm on the point of amending the constitution to make Japan a normal country. In an interview after he became prime minister in November last year, he expressed his intention to make constitutional amendments one of the points of contention in the Senate election in the summer of 2022. In December, he rarely attended the “Constitutional Amendment Realization Headquarters” meeting held at the headquarters of the Liberal Democratic Party. The whole party worked hard to realize the revision of the constitution, pointing out that the revision of the pacifist constitution “is an issue of very modern significance and must be realized as soon as possible”, and also said that the discussion in the parliament and the understanding of the people should be “two wheels” to promote the revision of the constitution.
Of course, to a certain extent, Kishida has to be firm on the revision of the constitution, because he is not the prime minister’s successor that Abe is most satisfied with. When the Liberal Democratic Party ran for prime minister last year, Abe supported Takaichi Sanae. As the chairman of the largest faction in the Liberal Democratic Party, although Abe resigned as the prime minister, he is still the most important politician in Japan. If Kishida wants to be stable as the prime minister, he has to move closer to Abe and win his support. Therefore, Kishida’s domestic and foreign affairs are basically the same as Abe’s past, and he has not stepped out of Abe’s shadow. After the Liberal Democratic Party won the Senate election, Kishida, the leader of the party, held a press conference at the party headquarters, saying that “I will inherit (Abe’s) thinking and work on the problems of kidnapping and amending the constitution, which cannot be achieved by myself.” Regarding the proposal to amend the constitution by the Congress, he stated that he “will advance our efforts to the stage of the proposal as soon as possible”, and believes that the election results reflect the “public opinion” towards the amendment of the constitution, expressing his determination to lead the discussion in the Congress as the party president. Kishida also excused the deterioration of Japan’s security environment caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war, and pointed out that “the defense will be fundamentally strengthened within five years.”
In Japan’s upper house election, the Liberal Democratic Party won 63 re-elected seats, thanks to Abe’s assassination. With the Liberal Democratic Party’s 13 seats, the Komeito party’s 13 seats, and the Restoration Association’s 12 seats, the “constitutional revision forces” in the Senate won a total of 95 seats, including non-re-elected seats, making a total of 179 seats, exceeding the total number of seats required by the Diet to propose constitutional amendments. Two-thirds of MPs have 166 seats. Japan’s constitution stipulates that the amendment of the constitution must be initiated by more than two-thirds of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and a referendum must be held, and it must be approved by more than half of the voters. From the point of view of the House of Representatives, according to Japanese media reports, the ruling coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito has 261 seats, far exceeding the “stable majority” of 244 seats, while 98% of the members of the Liberal Democratic Party agreed to amend the constitution, and the Komeito Party also agreed to some amendments to the constitution, and members of the Restoration Council 100% agree to amend the constitution, and the three parties alone agree to amend the constitution with more than two-thirds of the House of Representatives, or 310 seats. It can be seen that if the Kishida government now proposes to amend the constitution, it should not be a problem to obtain a two-thirds majority in the Diet.
In a modern democratic country, the revision of the constitution only with the consent of the Congress is not enough to reflect the will of the people. It must be submitted to a referendum to show the will of the people. Many countries have a referendum on constitutional amendments. Since the “constitutional revision forces” in the Japanese House of Representatives and the House of Representatives account for the majority, as far as current public opinion is concerned, if a referendum is held soon, the constitutional revision is likely to be passed theoretically. After the results of the Senate election were announced, Kyodo News immediately launched an emergency telephone public opinion survey across the country on the revision of the constitution. The results showed that the “constitutional revision forces” with a positive attitude towards the revision of the constitution maintained more than two-thirds of the seats, and the Japanese people believed that “we should step up efforts to revise the constitution.” 37.5% of the respondents said that they “need to amend the constitution in a hurry”, and 58.4% said that there is “no need to rush to amend the constitution”. Although the latter seems to be 21 percentage points higher than the former, which seems to be unfavorable for the passage of the constitutional amendment, two previous Asahi Shimbun surveys showed that support and opposition to the amendment were almost equal, or the latter was higher. For example, a survey in 2021 showed that 45% of the people supported the revision of the constitution, and 44% said it was not necessary; the poll in May this year again showed that 56% of the respondents believed that the revision of the constitution was “necessary”. 37% think it is “unnecessary”, the former is nearly 20 percentage points higher than the latter, which is exactly the opposite of Kyodo News’ poll results.
Some people may say that Kyodo News’ emergency poll reflects the current Japanese public’s latest views on constitutional revision, so it is more true. Having said that, this may just be a factor that hinders the people who oppose the revision of the constitution from voting, if “there is no need to rush to amend the constitution” is understood as opposing the revision of the constitution. Because people will think that there are more people who oppose the revision of the constitution than those who support it, and it doesn’t matter if I don’t vote. If many people who oppose the revision of the constitution hold this idea, there will not be too many people going to vote. On the contrary, there are fewer people who believe that “the revision of the constitution should be stepped up” than those who oppose revision of the constitution. They will have a sense of crisis and will be more active in voting.
In fact, we cannot interpret “there is no need to rush to amend the constitution” as an opposition to amendment of the constitution. Some of them may not be opposed to amendment of the constitution, but for various reasons, they think there is no need to rush to do it at this stage. Therefore, if the Japanese government now holds a referendum on constitutional amendment, these people are likely to support the amendment, especially considering the fact that two surveys by Asahi Shimbun show that those who support the amendment constitute the majority of the Japanese people. And “should step up the revision of the constitution” can be 100% understood as in favor of the revision of the constitution. It is not surprising that this kind of change in Japanese public opinion is favorable to the revision of the constitution. It is the result of years of agitation by the Japanese rightists, and it also reflects the changes in the geopolitical situation facing Japan.
However, will Kishida really rush forward to amend the constitution after Abe’s death, as he has shown? Or if Kishida delays the revision of the constitution, will Abe’s card still work? Objectively speaking, Kishida showed that he is the successor of Abe’s line, and it is his true idea to amend the constitution in accordance with Abe’s previous wishes, but it also has some kind of unavoidable element, because when Abe died, the Liberal Democratic Party was mourning, if Kishida does not make such a statement, and he is likely to be attacked by the Abe faction in the party. As far as Kishida is concerned, he does not want his prime ministership to continue to be under the shadow of Abe in the future, but has to find his own way. Abe’s death provides him with an opportunity to speed up his de-Abe. But this requires a process, and it must not show the meaning of “betraying” Abe at present. However, if the LDP moves forward with constitutional amendments now, it may do more harm than good. Because if the amendment is passed, the supporters of the Liberal Democratic Party, especially Abe, will not take credit for him; if it fails, it is undoubtedly his responsibility. His best course of action right now is to brake quietly. The Liberal Democratic Party now holds a majority in the Senate, and if his administration does not make major mistakes, he can basically spend the next three years safely, making him the second-longest prime minister in power after Abe in the late Heisei era. In the next three years, he will have time to step out of Abe’s shadow. Whether to proceed with the revision of the constitution at that time will be decided according to the situation. Even if the revision of the constitution is not made, he will not suffer any loss.
Because the constitutional amendment is a big deal after all. The Japanese Peace Constitution has been in operation for more than 70 years and has won the hearts of the people. Judging from the above-mentioned survey by Kyodo News, there is still relatively strong opposition to the constitutional amendment among the people. Even within the LDP, not every lawmaker supports constitutional revision. The coalition ruling Civic Party and the Liberal Democratic Party’s radical constitutional revision forces also differed, and proposed “constitutional addition”. His party leader, Yamaguchi Nazuo, emphasized that “Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, do not need to be changed. It is an important provision for defining the right to self-defense.” Regarding the Self-Defense Force, he said that “the majority of the people approve it, and it is not impossible without constitutional amendments.” work situation”. As for the opposition parties, the majority oppose the revision of the constitution. Therefore, if the Liberal Democratic Party forcefully pushes the revision of the constitution now, although the possibility of passing it is not impossible as pointed out in the previous analysis, in case of setbacks, it will undoubtedly be a heavy blow to the Kishida government.
The problem is that although the revision of the constitution is Japan’s internal affairs, it affects the nerves of neighboring countries and will have a significant impact on the geopolitics of Northeast Asia. Chinese state media has called Japan’s constitutional revision a change to the geopolitical status quo in Asia. To some extent, Japan’s pacifist constitution has shaped the current pattern of Asia, especially East Asia, and guaranteed peace in East Asia. If Japan amends the constitution, it will make the East Asian countries that have been invaded by Japan in the past, especially China and South Korea, uneasy. Since Japan has not thoroughly reflected on its history, the two countries believe that Japan’s constitutional amendment will remove constitutional obstacles to Japan’s military expansion. Needless to say, China’s opposition, the South Korean government is seeking to improve relations with Japan under the pressure of the United States, and Japan’s constitutional revision will certainly arouse a strong reaction from South Korea, and the relationship between South Korea and Japan will go backwards on the current basis. It can be said that Japan’s constitutional revision will inevitably stimulate neighboring countries to accelerate the pace of military expansion.
Amending the constitution also involves US interests. Although the “Washington Post” recently published an editorial that the United States should support Japan’s constitutional amendment to confront China, if the United States allows Japan to do so for this purpose, it is difficult to predict whether it will be good or bad for the United States. Who made Japan an abnormal country? Japan’s constitutional amendment also makes it clear that it is also to get rid of the control of the United States. The Japanese right wing regards China as its enemy, but it may not necessarily like the United States. The United States naturally understands this, so it uses the pacifist constitution and garrison to tie Japan, and uses the US-Japan security treaty to protect Japan’s national security. If the Kishida government pushes the amendment to the constitution, it still has to pass the U.S. test, and the U.S. may not approve it.
Some Japanese scholars, especially leftist constitutional scholars, and some political parties believe that only the constitution can justify the name of the Self-Defense Forces and guarantee the lifting of the ban on collective self-defense. The Japanese government, especially the Abe government, has already made the Self-Defense Force a formal national army through the so-called legal interpretation method. Except that it has no name, the Self-Defense Force is no different from the military of other countries, and Japan’s military strength is also higher than that of most countries. are strong. During the Gulf War in 1992, the Japanese Diet passed the “United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Cooperation Act”, and the Self-Defense Forces participated in overseas peacekeeping operations for the first time. In October 2001, the Japanese Senate passed a bill allowing the Self-Defense Forces to provide assistance in the war against terrorism, giving Japan a legal basis for sending troops overseas. This is the first time Japan has been allowed to send troops overseas since World War II. In 2015, the Abe government issued a series of security bills related to the exercise of the right to collective self-defense, which means that the military security policy of lifting the ban on the right to collective self-defense, revising the guidelines for Japan-US defense cooperation, and expanding the overseas military activities of the Self-Defense Forces is guaranteed at the legal level. Japan’s long-standing national policy of exclusively defensive defense has actually been subverted.
Therefore, some foreign experts believe that whether Japan can pass the constitutional amendment is not the crux of the issue, but the act of amending the constitution itself. If Japan amends the constitution, it is to show the world that it wants to abandon the post-war system through this measure, because it believes that the pacifist constitution and Japan’s post-war system guaranteed by the pacifist constitution were imposed on Japan by the United States, and now it is time to return it to the Americans It’s time. The harm it brings, then, is to create tension in East Asia. This is not to say that Japan’s constitutional revision will inevitably lead to another war of aggression against Asian countries as it did 70 years ago – today’s Japan has no such strength, and should not have the will – but because Asian countries do not trust Japan . Japan’s Constitutional Amendment will stimulate Asian countries, especially East Asia, to expand their arms and prepare for war. The world is inherently unstable, and amending the constitution will only exacerbate the injustice. Therefore, for the sake of peace in Asia, the Kishida government had better not touch the issue of constitutional revision.