The dinosaur is without a doubt one of the most powerful reptiles to walk the face of this earth. However, all that power accounts for nothing when it is being controlled by a miniscule brain. Why the dinosaur?
Post World War Japan has acted similarly to this dinosaur, a powerful nation lead by weak, passive, and unassertive leaders. It is extremely important to stress this because Japan cannot reform itself if its leaders continue to lead without any real responsibility and without the drive to force change. Post World War politics started fairly well in its infancy, by addressing the most pressing issue of revitalizing the Japanese economy, Japan has poured all its energy into the making and distribution of its wealth. But decades later, when the economy has pretty much reached its zenith at that time, leaders and politicians have already become too complacent to change anything and have contented themselves with policies that can only address the distribution of wealth, therefore making strong leadership and unnecessary thing.
This poses a problem because as a powerful nation, Japan should attempt to play an important role as an international actor by shouldering some kind of responsibility, because gone are the days when it only had to take care of itself. But what stands in the way of Japan in reforming itself and playing and important role in the international society, is the inability to have a leader that would enforce cohesion in policy making, rather then lead by consensus. Just by looking at the prime minister lineups of the past few years, one can tell that none of them were real leaders, even if some of them did have some bright ideas. This is mainly because of the manner through which power is handled, and that it is diffused almost equally among all parties of interests. This has ultimately lead to the lack of cohesiveness in policy making because anyone with any amount of power can put forth their respective issues whether it is pressing or not, or delay legislature. By consolidating democratic power under those that are put in charge and by giving them more responsibility, it becomes more possible to deliberate and make decisions more efficiently. This is the essence of political reform.
The prospect of such a reform is dependant on the key players of the various political parties that exist in Japanese politics. Those that share this belief in appropriating more responsibilities to the position of prime minister will most likely push for it, as it is the most obvious problem that is plaguing Japanese politics. Japan cannot face crises after crises without someone with a strong hand that can shepherd them out of it, and I think that the Japanese people and a few politicians are coming to this realization as well.
Normally, or in common democracies, the popular parties hold power for as long as they are held popular in the eyes of the voters. and should that very party lose popularity, it contributes and benefits opposition parties and eventually results in the ruling party's fall from power. The exception to this however are countries with uncommon democracies, Japan being one of them.
According to Ethan Scheiner, one party dominance is not a troubling aspect of politics, because naturally people will want one party to rule for as long as they are supportive of its policies. However, what becomes troubling is when a single party consistently dominates the political scene regardless of how popular it is with the voters. Therefore, in some ways it is called an uncommon democracy because of the fact that democracy in this case is not functioning as it should with regards to politicians or parties holding power based on popularity. This suggests a fundamental malfunction in the democratic process.
Unlike other countries that have had uncommon democracies, Japan is experiencing a failure of party competition wherein despite the unpopularity of the ruling party, no opposition parties have been able to step up to the plate and take a successful swing at the ruling party. In Ethan Scheiner's talk on uncommon democracies he illustrates some pretty surprising figures just to emphasize how unpopular the LDP is despite its ruling status. 55% or more than half of the public have no political affiliation - maybe due to political apathy, 44% or almost half of the public dislike the public, and a minuscule 20-30% of the public sincerely support the LDP. bottom line is, the LDP has still been able to hold power despite very low approval ratings.
This brings us to the question why? why has there been a failure of party competition despite the unpopularity of the ruling party? why has Japan failed where other countries with similar uncommon democracies have succeeded in replacing the ruling party? The underlying reason for this failure is highly related to the success rates of opposition candidates, more specifically in the sub national level - local government. Ethan Scheiner illustrates his theory using the following diagram as the reason behind the failure of candidates on the sub national level:
Clientelism + Financial Centralization I I Failure of opposition parties who do not belong to the national government at sub national office elections
Before explaining how all these ideas are interrelated, it is important to understand the definitions of some of these terms. Clientelism is defined from a political perspective as a social organization characterized by a "patron-client" relationship wherein the powerful and rich patron - politician - promises things such as jobs, infrastructure, reforms, protection etc. in exchange for loyalty from the client - voter - in terms of votes or support. And fiscal centralization is the consolidation of all decision making powers pertaining to finance and the consolidation of financial assets under once central control, in this case the national government.
Another important factor to be discussed before tying up all these concepts is the "quality" of the candidate. The success of a candidate is highly dependent on the quality of the candidate in question, and quality here is defined as experience - that is political experience, like holding a position in the sub national level. A key reason for the failure of opposition parties against the LDP is the fact that the LDP has more "quality" candidates running, whereas candidates for the opposition parties are rather weak and inexperienced.
So how does everything come together? Ok, so an experienced candidate will mostly likely have ties or connections to politicians in the national level, this is common trait between the "quality" candidates of both the LDP and opposition parties. The difference here is that LDP candidates can make promises to voters using the LDP's fiscal centralization, and that is their trump card. This is where clientelism emerges, in the sense that the candidate will play the role of the "patron" who if elected will have access to the financial power under the control of the LDP and then be able to sponsor projects that will benefit the locals. candidates use this as a threat in some way making voters or the clients and sponsors think that if they do not provide their full support they may find themselves lacking in terms of finance, so voters in most cases will feel inclined to vote this particular candidate into power. This factor is multiplied in rural areas that are in need of development. The LDP has been consistently successful in terms of candidacy for offices governing rural areas simply because these areas are in dire need of development that can be successfully funded through the LDP's control of government finances.
The bottom line is, no matter how you look at, the LDP's influence especially in terms of financial benefits and its control over to whom or where it is doled out is extremely strong. This factor along with the fact that the LDP has more incumbents or experienced candidates running for different sub national offices heavily determines the outcomes of office elections on the national level.
As hopeless as it seems for Japan to reform its electoral system, Ethan Scheiner offers a small ray of hope in terms of some of his recommendation for possible ways for the opposition to topple the LDP once and for all. One would be an occurrence of a defection from the LDP of some of its key players which would destabilize it. Another important factor success would be the financial decentralization, which would remove the LDP's hold over government finances. And lastly, the opposition should take advantage over the growing anti-clientistic sentiments.
Following Japan's utter defeat and surrender to the allied forces, occupation forces quickly amended Japan's meji constitution. The most notable provisions of this new constitution would be the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies and Article 9 or the "peace clause" which stipulates that Japan renounces war and will no longer maintain a military force of any kind.
Despite efforts to amend the constitution, they have all ended in failure chiefly because of the constitution's rigidity. The difficulty in the amendment of the constitution lies in the fact that any amendment will require the approval of two-thirds of both houses of the national Diet. When even the opposition parties - who occupy one-third of the Diet seats - along with a majority of the LDP are content with the status quo, it not hard to see why the constitution has been so resistant to change.
So what is the underlying controversy that has led amendment attempts in the first place? That would be article 9 or the "peace clause". Japan currently has its own "defense force" which of course is for the sole purpose of defending Japan's borders from external aggression, and many believe that it is one of the world's most formidable defense forces. Now the problem here lies in the fact that it is unconstitutional to have such a force for defense or otherwise. To many Japanese, not just the conservative, this idea seems absurd. The only way to legitimize this practice, would be to amend article 9 to include a clause that would allow for a Defense force. Aside from the legitimization of its armed forces, Japan faces criticism from people who claim that it should act like a "normal" country of great wealth and influence by participating in overseas peace-keeping missions and seeking a permanent seat in the U.N's security council.
Aside from the difficulty of the amendment process, propositions to amend article 9 has been met by plenty of resistance and concern from both neighbouring countries and some of the Japanese. There is a concern that Japan might slip back into its militaristic past. This does not bode well with the Japanese who are in fear of having their civil rights and liberties affected in any way. Even non-government organizations such as "save article 9" have increased activity in response to the possibility of a constitutional amendment. Despite Japan's fractured left-wing, they have been unified against any attempt to revise article 9.
Another factor that may have contributed to the resistance in any amendment to article 9 would be the Japanese economy. Without a military force to spend on, Japan is free to focus on an increase in economic activity. The approval of a military force in the face of the current economic crises would mean another mouth to feed, that is the military's mouth.
Personally, I feel that the Japanese constitution in view of its amendment policy is a double edged sword. It has the potential to protect the interest of the Japanese from unwanted changes, and the potential to harm Japan by making it difficult to enforce changes that may be deemed necessary.
Although Kurosawa was quite the "out of the box" thinker, I'm almost certain that he would not have considered that one of his masterpieces would remain open to so much interpretation even on the political level.
I find that Rashomon can be used as a framework with various sub-frameworks in the analysis of Japanese politics. For one, the psychological overtone of Rashomon can be used to analyze Japan's political development and its transition from the Meji restoration period to the current post world war II politics. According to the commoner in the Rashomon storyline, that human nature is about survival, selfishness, and the pursuit of interests, which was his reason for the different eyewitness accounts that became the major driving point of the story plot.
How is this commoner's wisdom relevant to the discussion of Japanese politics and its development? The reason that truth is subjective, is that the means through which is recalled or perceived is always dependent on a person's interest. Just as the truth can be twisted here and there to suit the eyewitnesses interests, politics is just as susceptible to change in accordance to the nation's values which ultimately dictate interests.
I'll try to illuminate. Prior to Japan's modernization during the restoration period, the value system was one that emphasized group cohesiveness - for the good of the group ideology - and a national goal of "catching up with the western powers". These values and sentiments affected Japan's interests when it came to policy making. Policies then were made to accommodate such sentiments. This brought about the introduction of western ideologies such as social Darwinism - the ideology that might is right - and technologies that aimed at promoting Japan's position in its race for power and competition against the west. The reason these alien infusions were resisted very little, was due to the afore mentioned value system or interest, in layman's terms, " We should suck it up since its good for national progress ". Also, policy making was dramatically changed with the introduction of the bureaucratic system of governance since it emphasized efficient and rational decision making that is free of human sentiments. This caused alot of internal friction because rural groups started feeling left out and sacrificed for the sake of development. Furthermore, it was bureaucratic thinking that made it so easy for Tojo to declare war against the west without consideration of the implications or consequences that would follow. Following so far? bear in mind that national and political interests have played a major role so far in decision making.
After Japan's defeat in 1945, Occupation forces introduced their own form of liberal politics in the form of the occupational constitution that stipulated the importance of human rights. This event in turn caused a shift in the value system which will eventually affect the interest of leaders, thereby affecting policy making. Postwar national value dropped the whole idea of ultra national ideologies for more practical concerns, such as competing with the west in the economic front rather than the military front. Japan's politics today is the result of that shift in interests. The introduction of democracy and loyalty to one's own group is another reason that Japan is experiencing divided politics in this day and age. We have socialists group that are content with the peaceful conditions that Japan is in now, and then we have conservatives that are interested in restoring Japan to its former glory as a military power. The reason that is vital for observers like us, is because it gives us the ability to analyze the decision making of parties with their own view of what a true Japan should function like by first examining the interest of these respective parties.
Back to the movie, like I said earlier we can use Rashomon to interpret Japanese politics using Rashomon's different levels of interpretation as frameworks. The most popular framework would be using Rashomon's unfolding story as an allegory for the events that lead to Japan's defeat in 1945. Now we have the Samurai and his wife, representing Japan's values and Japan herself respectively - since Japan is in essence married to its values. Lets say the Samurai represents Japan's traditional ultra-national and group cohesiveness values. In the progression of the story, the bandit is introduced as a rapist and a threat to the Samurai's sense of honor, so we shall call the bandit, The West - because he represents the freedom that he enjoys in the wild as a bandit or "democracy". Now, the wife is torn between two men, and this causes conflict and violence, likewise, the introduction of western concepts and ideologies to Japan has brought it its share of internal conflict. The end result of the conflict both in the Samurai's case and Japan would be defeat, with the bandit or the west still standing.
- A Relation based on Similarities and Differences -
In our everyday lives, we instinctively compare things in order to aid the decision making process. I cannot for the life of me remember how many hours I've spent comparing dresses at a store till I finally chose one that was deemed most pleasing based on a comparative fashion criteria that takes into account all of sorts of things such as current clothing trends, comfort, pricing, etc. Coke and Pepsi? Apples and Oranges? Tomaeto and Tomato? How do we differentiate and understand these constructs without a comparative analysis?
Comparative analysis may very well work for the mundane and trivial things in our everyday life, but is it scientific enough to be used in the field of politics? well according to Todd Landman, author of Issues and Methods of Comparative politics, comparative politics can be scientific despite certain imperfection in the approach brought about purely by potential human error when making the analysis. I am still however in agreement with one of the premises in Landman's publication. Comparative politics fulfills the need to understand the complex and multi-faceted world of politics, its various machinations, and its relevance to the larger world.
Landman accurately outlines the four main objectives of comparative politics - these objectives are reinforced in other comparative studies as well - as follows. Contextual descriptions allow scientists to describe and identify other countries. The process of classification, is essentially the means through which empirical evidence is organized, thereby simplifying the complex world of politics. Hypothesis testing function of comparative politics is the process of eliminating other explanations of about particular events, actors, structures, etc. in order to arrive at a more generalized theory. and lastly, the function of prediction, that is born from comparison and generalizations, works by foreseeing certain political outcomes, events, or trends based on gathered comparative data.
Now, i am no political scientist, but I can definitely find uses for comparative politics even if it is used crudely, of all the functions of comparative politics, I personally find comparative politics' function of prediction most intriguing. Instead of using countries, let me use the two dominant political parties in the United States, that is the Democratic party and Republican party as an example. Forgive me for being crude, but based on my understanding, US politics for the past several years have focused on either the national economy or national security. Based on the ruling party, policy making is usually centered around the previously mentioned issues. With this, we can roughly predict in the foreseeable future which political party would be most popular with citizens regardless of political affiliation. George W. Bush Jr.'s administration was marked by the 9/11 attack and the threat to national security that dictator's like Saddam Hussein posed. His policies on stringent national security and an increase in military budget were widely supported during that time. Now, even before the election of Barack Obama as the next U.S president, it was roughly predicted by many. The Democrats practice would I believe is called Democratic capitalism and focuses greatly on the US economy. With promises of an economically stronger state especially during a time when the US economy is fragile and is now in recession, it was easy to see which political party would eventually win the race.
- A Foggy Future -
Japan is by all means a nation with a rich culture and history, a strong and collective sense of nation, and has for years inspired the intrigue of many people. But what would inspire a political scientist's intrigue in the Japanese polity? According to J.A.A Stockwin, Japan has undergone many transformation in a short amount of time that its political system has failed to adapt. For years, the ruling political party in Japan has been the Liberal Democratic Party or the LDP, despite Japan's attempts to reform its political system through the reforming of electoral system and such, it has still failed to do so as seen by the LDP's monopoly of political power. Despite the discontentment of the people with the LDP, things are still unchanged. Thus there is a division that is subtle, yet deep.
There is no harm in attempting to use comparative politics to better understand Japanese politics, but according to Stockwin, it would be quite inadequate to analyze Japan's political situation using the current norms based on international orthodoxies, simply because Japan is uniquely unique. Japan is now in a transitional phase attempting to shed itself from the old, although political scientists wish to predict what sort of system will take over, it will prove quite difficult especially with the above mentioned conditions. In this transitional phase, Japan is still facing unresolved issues before it can change. Stockwin outlined six "crises" - he did not wish to use the word, however due to a lack of a better word it was unavoidable - that are currently tying Japan down and may be linked to its divided politics.
The crisis of political power, is the issue of not having a stable and flexible political party system that would replace the LDP, and halt its monopoly on political power. There is the crises of bureaucracy, which encompasses the criticizing of the bureaucracy for mishandling important economic issues and the rising of corruption scandals. The crises of Political Apathy and lack of confidence in government, which illustrates the decline in voting turnout due to contingent circumstances in political transition. The crises of Economic management entails that the maturation of Japan's economy has led to a number of problems such as the deployment of industries overseas in order to cut costs, Japan's indebtedness which has led to the collapse of a number of financial institutions, and finally an increase in unemployment rate. The crises of popular satisfaction with life chances resulted in Japan's lagging standard of living with regards to components like homes and personal freedom despite it being the second largest economy in the world. The final hurdle would be the crises of constitution and world role. Will Japan play the role of the peaceful negotiator as dictated by its constitution article of peace, or will it play the role of a military power as it once was? The revision of the constitution is nonetheless a more pressing issue for Japan, as it may have national and international ramifications.
Concerning the prediction of what sort of system will likely replace the old, in my opinion is largely dependant on how Japan will deal with the above mentioned issues. The manner through which it is resolved is of great importance in understanding Japan's polity and predicting political trends that may arise. Therein lies the need to study Japanese politics, in an attempt of unfogging the future.
