Analysis: A significant step toward revising the nation’s postwar pacifist constitution

In a historic step toward the first revision of the country’s postwar pacifist constitution, Japan’s Diet (parliament) enacted a bill on Monday setting the rules for a national referendum required for any constitutional changes, on the strength of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)-led coalition’s majority in both houses of the Diet.

Since taking office last September, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has advocated a more assertive foreign policy and further strengthened security alliance with the United States, Japan’s most important ally. He has also called for a “departure from the postwar regime” and vowed to seek revisions of the constitution as his top-priority goal to allow the nation to play a greater role in the international security arena, especially in step with the U.S. Abe has specifically expressed a strong desire to see the constitution, which took effect in 1947, revised within five years.

To be sure, the national referendum law marks a significant step toward revising the constitution. But it remains to be seen whether the constitution will actually be revised as early as Abe wants. Japanese public opinion is evenly split over changing the nation’s supreme law.

Any constitutional revisions are still at least three to four years away because the referendum law is to actually come into force three years after its proclamation. In addition, there are two high hurdles to be cleared before the constitution can be changed — approval in both houses of the Diet with support from a two-third majority of members and then endorsement in a national referendum with support from more than half of eligible voters.

The LDP-New Komeito coalition voted for the referendum bill on Monday at a plenary session of the House of Councilors, the upper house of the Diet. Four major opposition parties — the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the Japanese Communist Party (JCP), the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the People’s New Party — voted against it. The House of Representatives, the lower house of the Diet, had passed the referendum bill on April 13.

Abe said at a liaison meeting of the government and ruling parties, “With the constitution’s Article 96 showing amendment procedures, the ruling parties have been able to fulfill their responsibility.” Opposition parties called the move “a stain in constitutional politics.” Several hundred civic group and labor union members staged a protest near the Diet building, saying they cannot tolerate revision of the constitution’s war-renouncing Article 9.

Under Article 96 of the constitution, any amendments must be proposed with support of a two-thirds or more of both houses of the Diet and then be approved in a national referendum with a simple majority vote. Procedures for such a referendum are not stipulated in the constitution.

The coalition between the LDP and New Komeito, a centrist party backed by the lay Buddhist organization Soka Gakkai, is far short of a two-thirds majority in the less powerful upper house. This situation will not change, regardless of the outcome of that Diet chamber’s election this summer. Therefore, the ruling coalition will very likely need help from members of the opposition parties to obtain the required two-thirds of all votes in both houses of the Diet.

Sixty years after the constitution took effect in 1947, Japan has not had a law concerning a national referendum on constitutional amendments because there was strong opposition to enacting such a law amid solid public support for the constitution. But public opinion has become more favorable for constitutional amendments in recent years.

The ruling coalition between the LDP and New Komeito and the largest opposition DPJ introduced their own national referendum bills to the Diet in May 2006 and attempted in vain to reconcile them.

Although negotiators from the ruling coalition and the DPJ sought to reconcile their differences and reach an agreement on a unified national referendum bill, DPJ leader Ichiro Ozawa instructed his party negotiators not to budge even an inch. The ruling coalition gave up on negotiations with the DPJ and railroaded its referendum bill through the lower house on April 13 and sent it to the upper house.

Ozawa, himself a long-time staunch advocate of constitutional reform and former LDP bigwig, has hardened his stance on the referendum bill issue since ultra-conservative Abe declared in his New Year’s press conference in early January that he will make revising the constitution a key issue in the upper house election in July.

Although many members of his own party favor enacting a national referendum bill — and even revising the constitution — Ozawa feared that cooperating for the passage of the bill would only benefit the coalition ahead of the crucial election. In addition, the DPJ leader did not want to undermine a united front among the opposition parties against the ruling coalition in the run-up to the poll. The other, smaller opposition forces, including the Socialist and Communist parties, are vehemently opposed to any constitutional revisions. They urged the DPJ to oppose any referendum bill.

The referendum law calls for a referendum to be held only for the purpose of constitutional revisions and defines eligible voters as Japanese citizens aged 18 and older, in principle. It also stipulates that civil servants’ participation in political activities will be limited and that government workers and teachers will be banned from taking part in campaigns related to the constitutional revision issue. It sets no requirements for minimum voter turnout that, if not achieved, would nullify the referendum, as called for by some members of the opposition camp.

Despite the DPJ’s decision to oppose the bill partly because of what it calls insufficient deliberations, Hideo Watanabe, a DPJ member and former posts and telecommunications minister, cast an approving vote in the upper house plenary session. He told reporters later that he did so because he felt there was something “impure” in the DPJ’s campaign strategy of opposing the bill. “I will accept punishment” for going against the party decision, he added. Four other DPJ members were absent for the plenary session, citing “business” or “ill-heath.”

Now that the referendum law has been enacted in the current Diet session, as widely expected, the focus of attention will shift to debates by panels to be set up to screen constitutional amendment bills. The standing panels are to be established in both houses of the Diet under the referendum law. The new panels will likely be established during an extraordinary Diet session scheduled to convene following the upper house poll in July. The new panels will screen draft bills submitted by Diet members on amending the constitution. But the referendum law stipulates that the new panels’ authority to screen draft bills or submit amendment bills to the Diet will be suspended for three years, until the referendum law is actually put into force.

Hisane Masaki is a Tokyo-based journalist, commentator and scholar on international politics and economy. This article originally appeared at OhMyNews.