The Japanese Constitution celebrated its 80th anniversary in three days. What is the reason behind the fact that it has not been revised even once during this period? We asked Professor Shiro Sakai of the University of Tokyo and Professor Sota Kimura of Tokyo Metropolitan University, who specialize in Japanese politics and constitutional law, respectively, to give their opinions, including their outlook on future constitutional revision debates.
◇We need to move away from “war or peace” = Professor Shiro Sakai of the University of Tokyo
-Why was the Constitution not amended?
It is extremely rare internationally that the Constitution has remained unchanged word for word for 80 years. One explanation for this is that the people had a strong sense of protecting the Constitution, but I have always had doubts about that explanation. An analysis of postwar public opinion polls reveals that there was not a long period of time when there were clearly more people opposed to constitutional amendment than supporters.
-Then why wasn't it revised?
One reason is that compared to other countries, Japan's constitution is very concisely written. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation and leaves much to the law. Therefore, even if the system needs to be changed in response to changes in the times, it can be done simply by amending the law. The other reason is that the people have accepted major changes that could be suspected of being an interpretation of the constitution. At the time of the establishment of the Self-Defense Forces, mainstream constitutional scholars said it was unconstitutional. However, the people gradually accepted the Self-Defense Forces. This was not because the Japanese loved the Constitution, but because they were not very interested in it.
-Do you think that constitutional amendment will ever happen?
Politicians, bureaucrats, and academics have a strong awareness of the need to reconcile the Constitution with reality. It's natural that they don't care about voters. This is because it does not affect daily life much. Therefore, in order to solve the problem, politicians must take the initiative. Voters will become more aware of the issue only when the Constitution is proposed by the Diet.
-What is the possibility of constitutional amendment under the Takaichi administration?
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is active in amending the constitution. Traditional conservatives want to change the imposed constitution, even if just a little. Moreover, the reshuffling of the coalition government is significant. Although Komeito was classified as a force that supported constitutional amendments, it acted as a brake, but the Japan Restoration Party acted as an accelerator. There are many opposition parties that are active in constitutional revision, including the Democratic Party of the People and the Participating Parties. Looking at the balance of power in the National Assembly, the possibility that constitutional amendment will be put on the political agenda has increased compared to before.
-What are your orders for the constitutional debate in the Diet?
What I am dissatisfied with is that the debate tends to be framed as a conflict, ``war or peace?'' This position is not very essential as a constitutional theory. The position should be ``constitutionalism or non-constitutionalism.'' The original purpose of a constitution is to limit power. It is the establishment of constitutionalism. The main point of constitutional theory is how to use the constitution to control the already existing military organization. Many constitutional scholars have called the security legislation unconstitutional. It's been like that for about 10 years. Is that okay? We should improve the consistency between the Constitution and reality. Either we should abandon the Self-Defense Forces and become a country with no attitude, or we should leave the Self-Defense Forces behind, bring the constitution closer to reality, and establish constitutionalism.
◇A discussion that does not involve constitutional amendment = Professor Sota Kimura of Tokyo Metropolitan University
-Why has the Constitution not been amended?
There are several. First, there is a wide consensus that the basic principles of the Japanese Constitution are valid, including those who advocate constitutional revision, and that there is no need to change the fundamentals. Furthermore, the Liberal Democratic Party has rejected restrictions on the right to dissolve the House of Representatives and the establishment of a Constitutional Court, and was a strong supporter of the Constitution on these points. Furthermore, the most controversial issue, the idea of amending Article 9 to allow for the dispatch of troops overseas, did not receive sufficient support. Around the 1990s, there was a debate about why Japan, an economic superpower, should not make international contributions, but in recent years, at least the Japanese people believe that Japan's national power is not great, and there is a strong momentum to question why Japan should contribute. With slogans like "Japanese First" attracting attention, arguments for amending the constitution to allow for the dispatch of troops overseas are difficult to support. Even compared to 10 years ago, interest in constitutional amendment has declined.
-In 2018, the Liberal Democratic Party compiled a four-point constitutional amendment proposal consisting of (1) specifying the Self-Defense Forces, (2) creating a state of emergency clause, (3) eliminating the joint districting of the House of Councilors, and (4) improving the educational environment.
Particularly troubling is the proposal to create an emergency ordinance with the same force as law, which is extremely dangerous. In some areas, people who can simulate what would happen if constitutional amendments were implemented have not led the party's internal discussions.
-Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated, ``I would like to approach the party congress next spring with a clear outlook for the Diet's initiative.''
The prime minister is surprisingly lacking in leadership. The four constitutional amendments have been debated for nearly 10 years, but public opinion has not reacted much. If they wanted to revise the constitution, they would have narrowed it down to four items so that they would appeal widely to the people, but they have not done so at all. I don't think the Prime Minister is that interested in these four items. This is just PR aimed at supporters of constitutional amendment, but it does not seem like they are actually trying to move forward with it.
-There are many opposition parties who are cautious and opposed to constitutional amendment.
The constitutionalists have been confronting the constitutional reformers who are trying to cross the line of exclusively defense, but as former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe compromised and decided to enshrine the Self-Defense Forces in the constitution without breaking the line of exclusively defense, the arguments of the constitutional reformers and the defenders have become almost the same. The decline in support for the Constitutionalists is thought to be due in part to the fact that it has become unclear what they are opposing.
-Will constitutional amendment proceed?
If there are four points to discuss, it would be to eliminate the merger of districts. As we discuss other items, we conclude that the current law is sufficient. Although there are only a few target prefectures, I hope the people will use their imagination a little more. It is difficult to address the issue of disparity in votes by increasing the number of seats.
-What do you want from the ruling and opposition parties?
When it comes to emergency response and area consolidation issues, I would like them to first conduct thorough simulations to see how they can be solved using the current law, and then discuss the constitution. If we do so, I think we will be able to have a more in-depth discussion on whether or not constitutional amendment is necessary.
