Are We Any Closer to a Two-Party System?
FUKUHARA Koichi / former Professor of Iwate University
December 24, 2003
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) won the general election in November with an absolute majority. The Democratic Party, while losing the election, advanced significantly by adding 40 seats and exceeding the LDP by 1.4 million votes in proportional representation. Taken together with the defeat of the Communist Party, Social Democratic Party and New Conservative Party, many view the results favorably, claiming we have gotten that much closer to a two-party political system. But it is premature to draw such a conclusion on these election results.
First of all, many of the LDP members elected in the single-seat constituencies depended on the support of the Komeito Party, without which the LDP would not have been able to remain in power. A situation in which the third-largest party backed by a powerful religious organization and systematic voting practices holds the casting vote is hardly the image of a two-party political system.
Secondly, by launching a "Manifesto" campaign of political agendas the Democratic Party may have succeeded in presenting the election as one in which voters must "choose a political system." However, the LDP was vague in its campaign promises on important issues including road construction, the pension system and budget allocation to local governments, and as soon as elections were over, differences between the Prime Minister and LDP legislators became apparent in the process of formulating a supplementary budget. Then again, although on the offensive, whether the Democratic Party will be able to maintain internal unity once time comes to actually implementing its policies is extremely suspect.
Above all, the fact that voter turnout was the second-lowest on post-World War II record is a clear indication that the Democratic Party's slogan of "choosing a political system" failed to win the enthusiastic sympathy or support of voters.
In Japan, a change of government between two major political parties as in the American and British systems is considered an ideal form of democratic politics, but it is a dream that has yet to materialize half a century after the enactment of the present Constitution.
The "1955 System" that came into being as a result of the unification of the Socialist Party and amalgamation of the conservative camp clearly defined the structure of two-party confrontation that pitted conservatives against reformists. However, in terms of the balance of power, the Socialist Party actually reached its peak in the general elections of 1958, where it won 166 seats against the LDP’s 287, and the reality of the system was described variously as a "1.5-party system," "multi-party opposition" and "single-party domination."
The collapse of the "1955 System" in 1993 and subsequent formation of the non-LDP coalition government of Prime Minister Hosokawa Morihiro were followed by a series of experimental combinations in government coalitions. During this period, the New Frontier Party advanced in the Upper House elections in 1995, closing in on the LDP by winning 40 seats against the LDP's 46, only to retreat to 156 seats against the LDP's 239 in the Lower House Elections in 1996 and was dissolved the following year due to political infighting.
Any political party that is too hasty in expanding popular support to catch up with the LDP risks diluting the integrity and character of its principles and policies, and end up imploding as its internal unity is compromised. Under a cultural climate that favors consensus over confrontation and settling for gradual change, it may be possible to shake the foundations of "single-party dominance," though toppling such a system would be difficult indeed.
In a multilateral society characterized by diverse values and entangled interests, the benefits of a political system responsive to popular opinion as well as being flexible should rather be expected of a coalition government, and the current coalition government between the LDP and Komeito may well be a typical success case.
Public focus nevertheless remains on a two-party system due to a longing for a more powerful and stable political power that would lead the reforms under severe internal and external circumstances. At the same time, it is significant that the dual voting system of single-seat constituencies and proportional representation introduced in 1996 proved its effectiveness in concentrating votes to major parties, propelling the Democratic Party to prominence.
The opportunity for change in Japanese politics will arrive only when the Democratic Party solidifies its new footing and manages to present voters with persuasive policies on issues such as constitutional reform, the future of the Japan-U.S. alliance, the system of local government and reforms in the taxation, budget and financial systems that will arise during the Upper House elections next summer through the next general election, along with attractive candidates.
The writer is former Professor of Iwate University and former Chief Editorial Writer of Kyodo News Agency.
First of all, many of the LDP members elected in the single-seat constituencies depended on the support of the Komeito Party, without which the LDP would not have been able to remain in power. A situation in which the third-largest party backed by a powerful religious organization and systematic voting practices holds the casting vote is hardly the image of a two-party political system.
Secondly, by launching a "Manifesto" campaign of political agendas the Democratic Party may have succeeded in presenting the election as one in which voters must "choose a political system." However, the LDP was vague in its campaign promises on important issues including road construction, the pension system and budget allocation to local governments, and as soon as elections were over, differences between the Prime Minister and LDP legislators became apparent in the process of formulating a supplementary budget. Then again, although on the offensive, whether the Democratic Party will be able to maintain internal unity once time comes to actually implementing its policies is extremely suspect.
Above all, the fact that voter turnout was the second-lowest on post-World War II record is a clear indication that the Democratic Party's slogan of "choosing a political system" failed to win the enthusiastic sympathy or support of voters.
In Japan, a change of government between two major political parties as in the American and British systems is considered an ideal form of democratic politics, but it is a dream that has yet to materialize half a century after the enactment of the present Constitution.
The "1955 System" that came into being as a result of the unification of the Socialist Party and amalgamation of the conservative camp clearly defined the structure of two-party confrontation that pitted conservatives against reformists. However, in terms of the balance of power, the Socialist Party actually reached its peak in the general elections of 1958, where it won 166 seats against the LDP’s 287, and the reality of the system was described variously as a "1.5-party system," "multi-party opposition" and "single-party domination."
The collapse of the "1955 System" in 1993 and subsequent formation of the non-LDP coalition government of Prime Minister Hosokawa Morihiro were followed by a series of experimental combinations in government coalitions. During this period, the New Frontier Party advanced in the Upper House elections in 1995, closing in on the LDP by winning 40 seats against the LDP's 46, only to retreat to 156 seats against the LDP's 239 in the Lower House Elections in 1996 and was dissolved the following year due to political infighting.
Any political party that is too hasty in expanding popular support to catch up with the LDP risks diluting the integrity and character of its principles and policies, and end up imploding as its internal unity is compromised. Under a cultural climate that favors consensus over confrontation and settling for gradual change, it may be possible to shake the foundations of "single-party dominance," though toppling such a system would be difficult indeed.
In a multilateral society characterized by diverse values and entangled interests, the benefits of a political system responsive to popular opinion as well as being flexible should rather be expected of a coalition government, and the current coalition government between the LDP and Komeito may well be a typical success case.
Public focus nevertheless remains on a two-party system due to a longing for a more powerful and stable political power that would lead the reforms under severe internal and external circumstances. At the same time, it is significant that the dual voting system of single-seat constituencies and proportional representation introduced in 1996 proved its effectiveness in concentrating votes to major parties, propelling the Democratic Party to prominence.
The opportunity for change in Japanese politics will arrive only when the Democratic Party solidifies its new footing and manages to present voters with persuasive policies on issues such as constitutional reform, the future of the Japan-U.S. alliance, the system of local government and reforms in the taxation, budget and financial systems that will arise during the Upper House elections next summer through the next general election, along with attractive candidates.
The writer is former Professor of Iwate University and former Chief Editorial Writer of Kyodo News Agency.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
二大政党制に近付いたのか
福原亨一 / 元岩手大学教授
2003年 12月 24日
11月の総選挙で自民党は単独過半数を確保して勝利した。民主党は敗れたものの、40議席増と躍進し、比例代表の得票は自民党を140万票上回った。共産党、社民党、保守新党の敗退と合わせて、二大政党制の実現が近付いたと評価する声が多い。しかし、この選挙結果から二大政党制が近いと結論するのは早すぎる。
第一に、自民党の小選挙区当選者の相当数は公明党の選挙協力に依存し、それなしには自民党の政権維持は難しかった。強い宗教的基盤と固い組織票を誇る第三党が、キャスチングボートを握る状況は二大政党制のイメージとかけ離れている。
第二に、民主党は「マニフェスト合戦」を仕掛け「政権選択の選挙」の演出に成功した。しかし、自民党の道路、年金、中央・地方の財源配分など重要課題に対する公約はあいまいで、選挙後の予算編成でたちまち首相と自党議員との食い違いが露呈された。攻めに回った民主党も、いざ政策の実行となれば党内の結束を保てるか、極めて怪しい。
なによりも今回の投票率が戦後二番目の低さにとどまった事実が、民主党の「政権選択」のかけ声が選挙民の強い共感、支持を得てはいなかったことを端的に示している。
わが国では、米英両国のような二大政党間の政権交代が民主政治の望ましい姿と意識されているが、現行民主憲法が施行されて半世紀過ぎてもその夢は実現したことがない。
社会党統一と保守合同で生まれた「55年体制」は、保守対革新の二党対立の構図をくっきり描き出したが、現実の勢力比は58年総選挙の『自民287、社会166』が社会党のピーク、実態は「1.5大政党制」「野党の多党化」「一党優位制」などと表現されてきた。
1993年に55年体制が崩壊、非自民連立の細川内閣が生まれてからは、さまざまな組み合わせの連立が試みられた。この間、新進党は95年参院選で『自民46、新進40』まで迫ったが、翌96年衆院選で『自民239、新進156』に後退、党内抗争で翌年には解党した。
自民党を追って支持層拡大を急げば、理念、政策の個性、特色が薄まり、内部の結束が乱れて足元が崩れやすい。対決よりコンセンサスを好み、漸進を良しとするわが国の風土で、「一党優位」を揺るがすことはあっても、覆すことは実に難しい。
価値観が多様化し利害の錯綜する多元社会では、世論を反映した機動的な政治の妙味は連立政権にこそ期待すべきで、今の自公連立政権はその成功例といえるかもしれない。
それでもなお二大政党制が注目されるのは、厳しい内外環境の中で改革をリードする、より強く安定した政治力が待望されるからだ。同時に1996年から導入された小選挙区比例代表並立制の「大政党への投票集中」機能が効いて民主党を押し上げたことも大きい。
民主党が新しい足場を固めた上で、来年の参院選から次の総選挙にかけて争点になる憲法改正、日米同盟、地方制度と税財政改革など重要課題について説得力のある政策と魅力ある候補者群を揃えることができれば、そのとき初めて日本の政治に新局面を切り開く可能性が広がるだろう。
（筆者は元岩手大学教授、元共同通信論説委員長）
第一に、自民党の小選挙区当選者の相当数は公明党の選挙協力に依存し、それなしには自民党の政権維持は難しかった。強い宗教的基盤と固い組織票を誇る第三党が、キャスチングボートを握る状況は二大政党制のイメージとかけ離れている。
第二に、民主党は「マニフェスト合戦」を仕掛け「政権選択の選挙」の演出に成功した。しかし、自民党の道路、年金、中央・地方の財源配分など重要課題に対する公約はあいまいで、選挙後の予算編成でたちまち首相と自党議員との食い違いが露呈された。攻めに回った民主党も、いざ政策の実行となれば党内の結束を保てるか、極めて怪しい。
なによりも今回の投票率が戦後二番目の低さにとどまった事実が、民主党の「政権選択」のかけ声が選挙民の強い共感、支持を得てはいなかったことを端的に示している。
わが国では、米英両国のような二大政党間の政権交代が民主政治の望ましい姿と意識されているが、現行民主憲法が施行されて半世紀過ぎてもその夢は実現したことがない。
社会党統一と保守合同で生まれた「55年体制」は、保守対革新の二党対立の構図をくっきり描き出したが、現実の勢力比は58年総選挙の『自民287、社会166』が社会党のピーク、実態は「1.5大政党制」「野党の多党化」「一党優位制」などと表現されてきた。
1993年に55年体制が崩壊、非自民連立の細川内閣が生まれてからは、さまざまな組み合わせの連立が試みられた。この間、新進党は95年参院選で『自民46、新進40』まで迫ったが、翌96年衆院選で『自民239、新進156』に後退、党内抗争で翌年には解党した。
自民党を追って支持層拡大を急げば、理念、政策の個性、特色が薄まり、内部の結束が乱れて足元が崩れやすい。対決よりコンセンサスを好み、漸進を良しとするわが国の風土で、「一党優位」を揺るがすことはあっても、覆すことは実に難しい。
価値観が多様化し利害の錯綜する多元社会では、世論を反映した機動的な政治の妙味は連立政権にこそ期待すべきで、今の自公連立政権はその成功例といえるかもしれない。
それでもなお二大政党制が注目されるのは、厳しい内外環境の中で改革をリードする、より強く安定した政治力が待望されるからだ。同時に1996年から導入された小選挙区比例代表並立制の「大政党への投票集中」機能が効いて民主党を押し上げたことも大きい。
民主党が新しい足場を固めた上で、来年の参院選から次の総選挙にかけて争点になる憲法改正、日米同盟、地方制度と税財政改革など重要課題について説得力のある政策と魅力ある候補者群を揃えることができれば、そのとき初めて日本の政治に新局面を切り開く可能性が広がるだろう。
（筆者は元岩手大学教授、元共同通信論説委員長）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟