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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment