Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-g9frx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-17T07:09:39.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Constitution Must Be Defended: Thoughts on the Constitution's Role in Japan's Postwar Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Revision of the Japanese Constitution is a heated topic, associated with nationalistic sentiment. Conservatives insist the constitution was imposed by the US occupation and call for an “autonomous constitution” created without foreign interference. This article critiques this discourse within the historical context of modern democracy. I emphasize the need to distinguish two questions: whether a constitution was established democratically and whether it has contributed to enhancing democracy. I highlight the importance of the second question. The Constitution of Japan may not have democratic origins, but it has enhanced democracy. The article provides a historically rooted and theoretically solid framework for constructive discussions of constitutional revision as the Abe administration prepares to submit its proposal for revision.

憲法改正は、その制定から現在にいたるまで、ナショナリスティックな感情と密接に関連した問題として活発に議論されてきた。自民党を中 心とする保守派は、現行憲法を、日本の主権が制限されているときにアメリカ占領軍によって作られた「押しつけ憲法」として批判し、国民の同意に基づいた自主憲法の制定を主張している。本稿では、民主主義の理念と一見合致する、この自主憲法制定という言説を歴史的なコンテクストの中で批判的に検証する。本稿で特に強調したいのは、憲法の制定及び維持に関する以下のふたつの問いを明確に区別することである。ひとつは、憲法が民主主義的に制定されたのかどうか、という問いであり、もうひとつは、その憲法が民主主義に貢献してきたのか、という問いである。現行憲法を議論する際、我々はひとつめの問いに注意を払いがちであるが、本稿では、ふたつ目の問いの重要性を主張する。日本国憲法は民主主義的には制定されなかったが、戦後の歴史を通じて民主主義へ貢献してきたことは疑いのない事実であり、この点において日本国憲法は擁護されるべきである。このような主張を通して、憲法改正議論に関する、歴史的に責任のある、かつ理論的に強固な枠組みを構築する。

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2018

References

Notes

1 Regarding the sudden popularity of books on Nippon Kaigi, see Saito Masami, Nogawa Motokazu, and Hayakawa Tadanori, “Dissecting the Wave of Books on Nippon Kaigi, the Rightwing Mass Movement that Threatens Japan's Future,” The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 16, Issue 19, Number 1 (2018).

2 Oishi Yoshio, Kenpō kaisei no hitsuyōsei (Tokyo: Yūshindō, 1962), 42.

3 On Abe's general ideas about the nation, the state, and patriotism, see Abe Shinzō, Utukushii kuni e (Tokyo: Bungei Shunjūsha, 2006).

4 See the organization's website. On Nippon Kaigi's history and activities, see Aoki Osamu, Nippon Kaigi no shōtai (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 2016); and Kanno Tamotsu, Nippon Kaigi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Fusōsha, 2016). The APJ has also published insightful articles on the organization: David McNeill, “Nippon Kaigi and the Radical Conservative Project to Take Back Japan,” Volume 13, Issue 48, Number 4 (2015); Sasagase Yuji, Hayashi Keita, and Sato Kei, “Japan's Largest Rightwing Organization: An Introduction to Nippon Kaigi,” Volume 13, Issue 50, Number 5 (2015); and Sachie Mizohata, “Nippon Kaigi: Empire, Contradiction, and Japan's Future,” Volume 14, Issue 21, Number 4 (2016).

5 Koseki Shōichi, Shin-kenpō no tanjō (Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 1989). See also Koseki, Heiwa kokka Nihon no saikentō (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2013); “The Case for Japanese Constitutional Revision Assessed,” translation by Richard Minear, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 4, Issue 12 (2006).

6 In English sources, the following works highlight Japanese people's – especially ordinary people's – active and spontaneous involvement in the democratization reform and the making of the Constitution. John Dower, Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2000); Ray Moore and Donald Robinson, Partners for Democracy: Crafting the New Japanese State under McArthur (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). The account by Charles Kades, chief of the Government Section, provides an interesting insight into the negotiations between the two sides. See Kades, “The American Role in Revising Japan's Imperial Constitution,” Political Science Quarterly, Volume 104, Number 2 (1989).

7 Walter Benjamin, “Critique of Violence,” in Selected Writings Volume 1, 1913-1926, eds. Marcus Bullock and Michael W. Jennings (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996).

8 Étienne Balibar, “The Nation Form: History and Ideology,” in Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities, eds. Étienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein (London: Verso, 1991), 93-94.

9 Literary critic and novelist Kurokawa Sō explains this contradiction in detail. See Riaritī kābu: “senmu” to “sengo” no aida ni hashiru (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1994), Chapter Eight.

10 Sugita Atsushi, “Tekisuto/jissen to shite no konsutitūshon,” in Heiwa kenpō to kōkyō tetsugaku, eds. Chiba Shin and Kobayashi Masaya (Kyoto: Kōyō Shobō, 2007). My argument here resonates with some legal and constitutional scholars' discussions of consent as a crucial legitimator for a government. It is possible to explain the Constitution as practice as the process by which the people have built consent to be ruled by the Constitution, thereby consolidating a democratic political structure. See Walter Murphy, “Consent and Constitutional Change,” in Human Rights and Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh, ed. James O'Reilly (Dublin: The Round Hall Press, 1992). I thank Lawrence Repeta for suggesting this link.

11 Ian Shapiro, The State of Democratic Theory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 3.

12 See the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare's website.

13 I have discussed the issues of the right to live in peace in detail elsewhere. See Tomoyuki Sasaki, Japan's Postwar Military and Civil Society: Contesting a Better Life (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), Chapter Three; and “Whose Peace: Anti-Military Litigation and the Right to Live in Peace in Postwar Japan,” The Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Volume 10, Issue 29, Number 1 (2012).

14 For a translation of Nagoya High Court's decision, see “Mōri v. Japan: The Nagoya High Court Recognizes the Right to Live in Peace,” trans. Hudson Hamilton, Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal Vol. 19, Issue 3 (210).

15 We should note that presenting this type of extended family as typical of the Japanese family is in itself an ideological statement. In reality, nuclear families had exceeded 50 percent of total households already in the 1920s. According to the latest survey conducted by the Ministry of Labor, Health, and Welfare, as of 2017, the three-generation household accounts only for 5.8 percent. The largest category of households in contemporary Japan is the nuclear family household (29.5 percent), followed by the single-person household (27 percent) and the household of a married couple with no children (24 percent). See the Ministry's Kokumin seikatsu kiso chōsa no gaiyō. The data is available online.

16 See the Liberal Democratic Constitutional Reform Promotion Headquarters' website, 28-29.

17 See the Liberal Democratic Constitutional Reform Promotion Headquarters' website. Lawrence Repeta offers a detailed overview of the LDP draft for the revised Constitution and points out its challenge to liberal democracy. The article includes a translation of the LDP Preamble. See Lawrence Repeta, “Japan's Democracy at Risk – The LDP's Ten Most Dangerous Proposals for Constitutional Change,” Volume 11, Issue 28, Number 3 (2013).

18 See the website by “Ten Million People Network to Realize Constitutional Revision.”

19 Maruyama Masao, “The Theory and Psychology of Ultra-Nationalism,” in Thought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics, ed. Ivan Morris (London: Oxford University Press, 1963).

20 On precarity in today's Japan, see Anne Allison, Precarious Japan (Durham: Duke University Press, 2013); “Precarity and Hope: Social Connectedness in Postcapitalist Japan,” in Japan: The Precarious Future, eds. Frank Baldwin and Anne Allison (New York: NYU Press, 2015).

21 Neil Davidson, “Putting the Nation Back into the ‘International,‘” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22:1 (2009).