An Inverse Defence of the Pacifist Constitution
HARA Yasushi / a former professor in the Sociology Department at Toyo University
February 12, 2004
Following the LDP and Minshuto, New Komeito's Research Commission on the Constitution have also decided to make the pacifist Article 9 a fair target of discussion in spite of the party's decision to retain the said Article in its convention last fall. This has led to an acceleration of the discussion on constitutional revision. The Koizumi government's dispatch of the Self-Defence Forces (SDF) to wartime Iraq has marked the end of more than a half-century of pacifist policy after WWII that has seen Japan refraining from involvement in wars outside the country. It is quite ironic that just such an abandonment of past policy has dragged the matter of constitutional amendment, which has previously been more or less off-limits, onto the centre stage of politics.
My honest reaction to the encroaching shadow of constitutional revision, as that of a writer who wishes to preserve the pacifist Constitution on the one hand, is that of ambivalence. This is because I have been deeply impressed, on the other hand, by the fact that Japan has finally elected to go through 'due process,' as is expected of a constitutional state.
Not only the government, but the Japanese society itself tends to forgo the proper proceedings when it carries out a task. Japan, whose limited area is comparable to that of only the one state of California, is teeming with a population of 130million, roughly half that of the U.S. In order to avoid undue social friction and retain a peaceful day-to-day existence in such an overpopulated condition, one cannot follow legal guidelines for doing everything under the sun, as that would leave one feeling claustrophobic. As a mostly homogeneous country, there is a tacit understanding amongst its populace, and this obviates the need for strict adherence to guidelines.
One cannot deny that such cleverness has nurtured the Japanese characteristic of avoiding 'due process.'
However, it simultaneously gives Japanese the excuse to sidestep facing a problem squarely and subsequently taking decisive action through much thought and discussion; it promotes collusion, a peace-at-any-price attitude, and other such social evils that force Japan to passively submit to the times; and finally, it is the primary factor that has been preventing the maturity of Japan as a democracy.
What has most straightforwardly embodied the Japanese traits described above is the application of Article 9. It began with the explanation that 'the SDF is not an army', and has recently morphed into its current interpretation, provided publicly by Prime Minister Koizumi; 'The SDF is an army.' The ruling party now insists that deployment of the SDF abroad is not in violation of the Constitution.
If one takes into account the fact that the spirit of the pacifist Constitution has been most miserably stripped of its essence through the lack of 'due process', one should perhaps welcome the recent inclination for discussing constitutional revision.
At the same time, one cannot rid oneself of the worry that discussion about constitutional revision might not go undergo solid 'due process.' This is the source of much ambivalence. In a political climate where Japan has not attained maturity as a democracy, there is no doubt that the discussion will inevitably lead to actual revision.
That Article 9 will be altered is apparent even now.
Japanese society is witness to infractions against the Constitution, not only in Article 9, but in other articles that relate to, amongst others, human rights and sexual equality. Violations against the Constitution are common phenomena.
If Japan in any case cannot abide by the Constitution, inverse logic leads to the following conclusion. The pacifist Japanese Constitution--with its lofty ideal--is a rarity that is well-suited to an international society where the increasing indispensability of globalization has made peace all the more valuable. One cannot but see no need to interfere with such a constitution.
The writer is a former professor in the Sociology Department at Toyo University. He is also a former writer for the Asahi Shimbun.
My honest reaction to the encroaching shadow of constitutional revision, as that of a writer who wishes to preserve the pacifist Constitution on the one hand, is that of ambivalence. This is because I have been deeply impressed, on the other hand, by the fact that Japan has finally elected to go through 'due process,' as is expected of a constitutional state.
Not only the government, but the Japanese society itself tends to forgo the proper proceedings when it carries out a task. Japan, whose limited area is comparable to that of only the one state of California, is teeming with a population of 130million, roughly half that of the U.S. In order to avoid undue social friction and retain a peaceful day-to-day existence in such an overpopulated condition, one cannot follow legal guidelines for doing everything under the sun, as that would leave one feeling claustrophobic. As a mostly homogeneous country, there is a tacit understanding amongst its populace, and this obviates the need for strict adherence to guidelines.
One cannot deny that such cleverness has nurtured the Japanese characteristic of avoiding 'due process.'
However, it simultaneously gives Japanese the excuse to sidestep facing a problem squarely and subsequently taking decisive action through much thought and discussion; it promotes collusion, a peace-at-any-price attitude, and other such social evils that force Japan to passively submit to the times; and finally, it is the primary factor that has been preventing the maturity of Japan as a democracy.
What has most straightforwardly embodied the Japanese traits described above is the application of Article 9. It began with the explanation that 'the SDF is not an army', and has recently morphed into its current interpretation, provided publicly by Prime Minister Koizumi; 'The SDF is an army.' The ruling party now insists that deployment of the SDF abroad is not in violation of the Constitution.
If one takes into account the fact that the spirit of the pacifist Constitution has been most miserably stripped of its essence through the lack of 'due process', one should perhaps welcome the recent inclination for discussing constitutional revision.
At the same time, one cannot rid oneself of the worry that discussion about constitutional revision might not go undergo solid 'due process.' This is the source of much ambivalence. In a political climate where Japan has not attained maturity as a democracy, there is no doubt that the discussion will inevitably lead to actual revision.
That Article 9 will be altered is apparent even now.
Japanese society is witness to infractions against the Constitution, not only in Article 9, but in other articles that relate to, amongst others, human rights and sexual equality. Violations against the Constitution are common phenomena.
If Japan in any case cannot abide by the Constitution, inverse logic leads to the following conclusion. The pacifist Japanese Constitution--with its lofty ideal--is a rarity that is well-suited to an international society where the increasing indispensability of globalization has made peace all the more valuable. One cannot but see no need to interfere with such a constitution.
The writer is a former professor in the Sociology Department at Toyo University. He is also a former writer for the Asahi Shimbun.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
逆説的平和憲法擁護論
原 康 / 元東洋大学社会学部教授
2004年 2月 12日
自民、民主両党に続き、憲法第９条を堅持すると昨年秋の党大会で決めたばかりの公明党も党の憲法調査会で第９条も議論の対象とすることを決め、改憲論議が加速されている。小泉政権が戦時下のイラクに自衛隊を派兵し、外国の戦争に荷担しないという戦後半世紀を超える平和政策を放棄したことが、それまでタブーとされてきた改憲論議を政治の表舞台に引き出してきたのは、極めて皮肉である。
平和憲法を擁護したいと願う筆者の立場からは、こうした改憲への動きをアンビバレントな気持で注目している、というのが正直な気持ちである。それは、日本もようやく、法治国家らしく due processを踏む気になったのか、という感慨を持つからである。
日本では、政治だけでなく社会全体が、物事を進めていく場合に、正当な手続きを経ずに決めることが多い。アメリカのカリフォルニア一州ほどしかない狭い国土の中で、アメリカの人口の約半分もの一億三千万人がひしめき合って住んでいる日本では、無用な摩擦を避け、平安な生活を保つためには、何から何まで法律でしばることは息苦しい。お互いに適当にやっていけば、お互いに日本人なのだから、以心伝心で行ける。そうした智恵がdue processを避ける日本的な特性を育て上げたことは否定できない。
しかし、これは同時に、問題を真正面から受け止め、考え、議論して決めていくという意志決定方式から逃れる口実を与え、事なかれ主義やなれ合い、長いものには巻かれろで、時勢に流されていくという弊害を日本社会に植え付け、さらには、日本の民主主義の成熟を遅らせている最大の要因となっているのである。
こうした日本社会の体質を最も端的に象徴してきたのが、憲法第九条の運用である。「自衛隊は軍隊ではない」という説明から始まって、いまは「自衛隊は軍隊だと思う」と小泉首相が公言するまでに解釈が変貌してきた。そして、自衛隊の海外派兵まで憲法違反ではない、と政府与党は主張している。
つまり、due processを踏まなかったためにここまで平和憲法の精神が形骸化されてしまった悲惨さを考えると、改憲を議論しようという動きが出たことは歓迎すべきかも知れない。
しかし、改憲論議がしっかりしたdue processを踏むのだろうかという、不安も捨てきれない。ここがアンビバレントなところである。成熟しきれない日本の民主主義の風土の中では、改憲論議はそのまま憲法改変につながっていくことは間違いない。第九条に手が加えられるだろうことはいまから明白である。
日本社会では第九条だけではなく、人権、男女平等などその他の憲法条項も規定通りに守られては来ていない。憲法違反は日常化しているのである。
もし、守られないなら、戦争放棄というグローバリゼーション必至の国際社会に対応する世界ではまれな崇高な理想主義を掲げた日本の平和憲法は、そのままにしておいても一向に差し支えない、と逆説的だが、思わざるを得ない。
（筆者は元東洋大学社会学部教授。元朝日新聞記者。）
平和憲法を擁護したいと願う筆者の立場からは、こうした改憲への動きをアンビバレントな気持で注目している、というのが正直な気持ちである。それは、日本もようやく、法治国家らしく due processを踏む気になったのか、という感慨を持つからである。
日本では、政治だけでなく社会全体が、物事を進めていく場合に、正当な手続きを経ずに決めることが多い。アメリカのカリフォルニア一州ほどしかない狭い国土の中で、アメリカの人口の約半分もの一億三千万人がひしめき合って住んでいる日本では、無用な摩擦を避け、平安な生活を保つためには、何から何まで法律でしばることは息苦しい。お互いに適当にやっていけば、お互いに日本人なのだから、以心伝心で行ける。そうした智恵がdue processを避ける日本的な特性を育て上げたことは否定できない。
しかし、これは同時に、問題を真正面から受け止め、考え、議論して決めていくという意志決定方式から逃れる口実を与え、事なかれ主義やなれ合い、長いものには巻かれろで、時勢に流されていくという弊害を日本社会に植え付け、さらには、日本の民主主義の成熟を遅らせている最大の要因となっているのである。
こうした日本社会の体質を最も端的に象徴してきたのが、憲法第九条の運用である。「自衛隊は軍隊ではない」という説明から始まって、いまは「自衛隊は軍隊だと思う」と小泉首相が公言するまでに解釈が変貌してきた。そして、自衛隊の海外派兵まで憲法違反ではない、と政府与党は主張している。
つまり、due processを踏まなかったためにここまで平和憲法の精神が形骸化されてしまった悲惨さを考えると、改憲を議論しようという動きが出たことは歓迎すべきかも知れない。
しかし、改憲論議がしっかりしたdue processを踏むのだろうかという、不安も捨てきれない。ここがアンビバレントなところである。成熟しきれない日本の民主主義の風土の中では、改憲論議はそのまま憲法改変につながっていくことは間違いない。第九条に手が加えられるだろうことはいまから明白である。
日本社会では第九条だけではなく、人権、男女平等などその他の憲法条項も規定通りに守られては来ていない。憲法違反は日常化しているのである。
もし、守られないなら、戦争放棄というグローバリゼーション必至の国際社会に対応する世界ではまれな崇高な理想主義を掲げた日本の平和憲法は、そのままにしておいても一向に差し支えない、と逆説的だが、思わざるを得ない。
（筆者は元東洋大学社会学部教授。元朝日新聞記者。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟