Marc, I think fears that the bill passed in the Upper House yesterday will lead to remilitarization are overblown. It is certainly an important issue, but it seems that a number of media outlets, esp. the dailies, are drawing the link to what could happen with insufficient caution.

In actuality, all that’s happened is that the rules for how a popular, nationwide referendum would be carried out have been set. I see no problem with that in and of itself. In fact, it seems a little odd to me that a constitutional article (Article 96) that could have such deep ramifications went unclarified for sixty years.

Ultimately, as in any democracy, it is the responsibility of Japanese citizens to vote in any referendum on constitutional revision and to be sure they know exactly what it is for which they’re voting. I don’t think those who would like to see Article 9 remain as it is are doing themselves many favors by using their energy fighting the bill that just passed.

Any actual change to the Constitution would not come for at least three years and might not necessarily look like Abe’s dreams. Popular support is just not behind any severe reworking or rejection of Article 9 right now.

As for Japan taking on more of it’s own defense, even a complete repeal of Article 9 wouldn’t necessarily lead to that. The trouble will be negotiations with the US and getting the SDF trained up. Presumably, getting the SDF in shape to take on all of Japan’s defense would involve close cooperation with the US and some overseas action, but it would, trickily, have to be accompanied by a reduction of the US presence in Japan. I’m not in a position to say what such a reduction might look like or how it would be carried out.

The referendum bill is a step toward constitutional revision, which, if it included a dramtic reworking of Article 9, would be a step towards Japan becoming more militarily active, which would be a step towards stepping out from under US protection. All of that may well happen, but, when it does, you’ll see it happen on your 3-D TV and be discussing it via the direct Internet connection through the implant in your skull.

Sounds like the ‘liberal’ worry of a militaristic Japan being built up through the revision of Article 9 to me. I just don’t think it’s going to be that easy to change…any amendment has to pass 2/3 of both houses and a referendum.

I think some revision to Article 9 would be good - but I think whatever gets through (if it does) will be so vague to allow for anything - sort of like we have now.

Great show, guys. I especially loved the bit about the special advisors / nanny state / advice about breast feeding and whatnot. I was chuckling. Incidentally, as I listened to the podcast today I was also goofing off with my electronic dictionary - flipping through the pages of the Asahi Shinbun. Thanks to your podcast, I understood my first Japanese political cartoon today.

朝日新聞５月１５日火曜日：pg. ２１（声 / Opinion）
The cartoon depicts a tree with a man’s head (smiling or wincing, not really sure) labeled 日本国憲法 MADE IN U.S.A. The tree man is being cut down by a familiar face wielding a chainsaw labeled 国民投票法. Behind this man is a sapling in a root bag, ready for transplant. The main stem of the sapling is a gun barrel. It’s labeled 新憲法. I got it. Just thought I’d post about it. I assume that there’s more than the Article 9 stuff being referred to in the cartoon, but I’m not that well versed in it. What are your thoughts?

I’ve been listening for a while, though haven’t commented. Thanks guys, there just isn’t any other resource on Japanese politics that compares to this.

That said, the major media keep going on and on about this new bill being the end of Japan’s pacifist constitution. Is this really true? I’m not sure that such a result is inevitable, or if it’s even correct to call it a pacifist constitution at this point. What I never hear about is whether or not Japanese would rather see their own forces defend the country rather that forward-deployed American forces. That has to figure in somehow.

We are still in the Ordinary Session, which started in January and lasts for 150 days. If more time is needed to work through bills (it always is), the Cabinet or 1/4 of the members of both houses can call an Extraordinary Session. Extraordinary Sessions may be extended twice.

A special session is held after a general election in order to vote for a new Prime Minister.