Anatomy of apathetic cynicism regarding the choice of Abe’s successor
KAWATO Akio / Former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan
September 17, 2020
Yoshihide Suga was elected as the new Prime Minister in the National Diet on September 16th. Amid all the news, something doesn’t quite feel right. It looks as if the media were going out of their way to make a fuss, knowing that there is some fundamental problem behind it all.
Isn’t the fundamental problem that the Japanese system of governance is all but dead? The Japanese public got fed up with the politics and actors of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and gave birth to the government of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in 2012. Disillusioned by the DPJ government when it raised the consumption tax, they kicked it out of power in 2012. In other words, the Japanese system of governance was perceived to be all but dead as both the LDP and DPJ had proved themselves unfit to govern. The Abe administration, back in power in 2012, did its best to keep the LDP out of the limelight and execute what became known as “Kantei” (Prime Minister’s Office) –led politics.
As the Abe administration stayed in power year after year, the LDP gradually worked its way to the fore, with many of its members and Abe’s supporters eager to get their share of the “dividend of governing” and seen to be acting with excessive zeal, often to the government’s detriment. Despite that, the LDP continued to win election after election. This was probably because most of the voters felt that they were voting not so much for the LDP but, subconsciously, for “Abe and his company”. Perhaps they were entertaining a vain hope that Abe and his men would deliver the things the voters wished without any additional burden.
With all of this, once Prime Minister Abe expressed his intention to step down, the LDP leaders started exercising what they see as their prerogative to decide things as they like, and presuming to name Abe’s successor through the maneuvers of the now defunct, Zombie-like “habatsu” (factions). Rather than electing the successor to the prime minister, this sounds like subjecting the whole of Japan to the succession ritual of the headship of some “family”.
No wonder this is viewed with apathetic cynicism.
The public wants to elect the prime minister directly. But that cannot be done unless the Constitution is amended. Besides, direct election has the risk that some outlandish populist may be elected by those people who adamantly believe that one outstanding leader would solve all the problems facing the nation. That must be avoided. We need to ensure that people with sufficient experience and performance record will emerge as candidates as a result of the “scrutiny” by the public and the media. If primary elections are conducted in each political party to elect the party leader, and the general election takes place as a contest among these elected party leaders, it should be possible to elect as prime minister some appropriate personality in a manner reflecting the popular will within the framework of the present Constitution. Was it not just the internal convenience of the LDP that prevented the choice of such a path?
A larger problem lurks behind the apathetic cynicism generated by this choice of successor. Not just in Japan, but also all around the world, the existing framework of political parties has become obsolete and immobile. To be specific, the scheme whereby the LDP and the former DJP forces are pitted against each other reflects the conflict between capitalism and socialism in the postwar Cold War years and is a relic of the past in this age when the Soviet Union has long since collapsed. Both forces should dissolve themselves and reformulate parties along a different axis of opposition.
In the United States, the Republican and Democratic Parties should be dissolved and reformulated into two major parties along the axis of low income versus high income. At present, the political structure is distorted. The Republican Party counts on the votes from the impoverished white, but adopts policies that benefit big business, such as substantial reduction of corporate tax. The Democratic Party depends largely on the support of the impoverished youth and minorities, but seeks generous political donations from big business. In Britain, Germany and France, the existing political structures are collapsing with squeaking noises.
There is a more fundamental problem in this day and age where every adult has the right to vote, and it is no longer possible to pull the votes together through organizations such as labor unions and agricultural cooperatives, and every single voter has his or her own views on a host of issues. It has become extremely difficult to manage or pull together the society in any given direction. Democracy reared in modern Europe has achieved great success in elevating the right of each individual citizen, but, precisely because of that, it has given rise to a variety of hitches that stand in the way of the smooth functioning of democracy. This huge paradox should be the subject of elevated debates worldwide in search of resolution.
It is also surprising that, in this recent process of choosing Japan’s new leader, foreign policy hardly figures as a subject of debate. Details aside, whether the prospective leader would have the capacity to present Japan’s position and interests clearly to his or her foreign counterparts and persuade or make deals with them should have been an important criterion for judgment. Let us hope that this is not asking for the moon!
Akio Kawato is a Columnist at Newsweek Japan. This article appeared in the September 15 edition of Newsweek Japan.
Isn’t the fundamental problem that the Japanese system of governance is all but dead? The Japanese public got fed up with the politics and actors of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and gave birth to the government of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in 2012. Disillusioned by the DPJ government when it raised the consumption tax, they kicked it out of power in 2012. In other words, the Japanese system of governance was perceived to be all but dead as both the LDP and DPJ had proved themselves unfit to govern. The Abe administration, back in power in 2012, did its best to keep the LDP out of the limelight and execute what became known as “Kantei” (Prime Minister’s Office) –led politics.
As the Abe administration stayed in power year after year, the LDP gradually worked its way to the fore, with many of its members and Abe’s supporters eager to get their share of the “dividend of governing” and seen to be acting with excessive zeal, often to the government’s detriment. Despite that, the LDP continued to win election after election. This was probably because most of the voters felt that they were voting not so much for the LDP but, subconsciously, for “Abe and his company”. Perhaps they were entertaining a vain hope that Abe and his men would deliver the things the voters wished without any additional burden.
With all of this, once Prime Minister Abe expressed his intention to step down, the LDP leaders started exercising what they see as their prerogative to decide things as they like, and presuming to name Abe’s successor through the maneuvers of the now defunct, Zombie-like “habatsu” (factions). Rather than electing the successor to the prime minister, this sounds like subjecting the whole of Japan to the succession ritual of the headship of some “family”.
No wonder this is viewed with apathetic cynicism.
The public wants to elect the prime minister directly. But that cannot be done unless the Constitution is amended. Besides, direct election has the risk that some outlandish populist may be elected by those people who adamantly believe that one outstanding leader would solve all the problems facing the nation. That must be avoided. We need to ensure that people with sufficient experience and performance record will emerge as candidates as a result of the “scrutiny” by the public and the media. If primary elections are conducted in each political party to elect the party leader, and the general election takes place as a contest among these elected party leaders, it should be possible to elect as prime minister some appropriate personality in a manner reflecting the popular will within the framework of the present Constitution. Was it not just the internal convenience of the LDP that prevented the choice of such a path?
A larger problem lurks behind the apathetic cynicism generated by this choice of successor. Not just in Japan, but also all around the world, the existing framework of political parties has become obsolete and immobile. To be specific, the scheme whereby the LDP and the former DJP forces are pitted against each other reflects the conflict between capitalism and socialism in the postwar Cold War years and is a relic of the past in this age when the Soviet Union has long since collapsed. Both forces should dissolve themselves and reformulate parties along a different axis of opposition.
In the United States, the Republican and Democratic Parties should be dissolved and reformulated into two major parties along the axis of low income versus high income. At present, the political structure is distorted. The Republican Party counts on the votes from the impoverished white, but adopts policies that benefit big business, such as substantial reduction of corporate tax. The Democratic Party depends largely on the support of the impoverished youth and minorities, but seeks generous political donations from big business. In Britain, Germany and France, the existing political structures are collapsing with squeaking noises.
There is a more fundamental problem in this day and age where every adult has the right to vote, and it is no longer possible to pull the votes together through organizations such as labor unions and agricultural cooperatives, and every single voter has his or her own views on a host of issues. It has become extremely difficult to manage or pull together the society in any given direction. Democracy reared in modern Europe has achieved great success in elevating the right of each individual citizen, but, precisely because of that, it has given rise to a variety of hitches that stand in the way of the smooth functioning of democracy. This huge paradox should be the subject of elevated debates worldwide in search of resolution.
It is also surprising that, in this recent process of choosing Japan’s new leader, foreign policy hardly figures as a subject of debate. Details aside, whether the prospective leader would have the capacity to present Japan’s position and interests clearly to his or her foreign counterparts and persuade or make deals with them should have been an important criterion for judgment. Let us hope that this is not asking for the moon!
Akio Kawato is a Columnist at Newsweek Japan. This article appeared in the September 15 edition of Newsweek Japan.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
「白け」のアナトミー --安倍後継選出をめぐって
河東 哲夫 / 元駐ウズベキスタン・タジキスタン大使
2020年 9月 17日
9月16日には菅義偉氏が国会で新たな総理に選出された。だがこれまでのニュースを見ていて、どこかしっくりこない。何か本質的な問題があるのを、皆知っていながら、無理に騒ぎ立てているような。
本質的な問題は、今の日本の統治体制は死に体になっている、ということではないか？ 世論は2009年自民党の政治と人に愛想をつかして民主党政権を生んでみたものの、消費税を増額されて幻滅、2012年民主党を政権から叩き落す。つまり自民党も民主党も駄目となったこの時点で、日本の統治体制は死に体となったのだ。2012年に返り咲いた安倍政権は、だから「自民党」はできるだけ表に出さず、「官邸」主導の政治を繰り広げた。
政権が長期化するにつれて、自民党は再び前面に出てきたが、「政権の配当」を得んとする者が多く、贔屓の引き倒しが目立つようになった。それでも自民党は選挙で勝利を重ねたのだが、世論の大半にとっては、自民党に投票したと言うよりは、「安倍とその手兵（安倍党）」に投票したのだという無意識の意識が勝っていたことだろう。「負担増なしで、何でもちゃんとやってくれそうだ」という徒な望みをかけていたのに過ぎないが。
ところが総理が辞任を表明すると、自民党が自分が仕切って当然という顔をして、しかも「派閥」などというゾンビを前面に立てて、自分達が後継を決めるのだと言う。これでは、総理の後継者と言うより、どこかの「一家」の跡目相続に日本全体が付き合わされていることになる。白けて当然だ。
世論は首相直選を求めている。だがそれは、憲法改正をしなければ実行できないし、「一人の優れた指導者がいれば、国の問題は全て解決する」と思い込んでいる人達がとんでもないポピュリストを選んでしまう可能性もあるので、賛成できない。かなりの経験と実績を持ち、世論・マスコミによる「審査」を経た人物が出てくるようにしないといけないから、まず各党内で党首選出のプライマリー選挙を行い、出そろったところで総選挙をやれば、今の憲法の枠内でも民意を反映し、かつそれなりの人物を総理に選ぶことができるだろう。今回そうしなかったのは、自民党内部の都合に過ぎないのではないか？
今回の「後継選出」が白々しい背景には、もっと大きな問題も横たわっている。それは、日本だけでなく世界中で、既存の政党の枠組みが老朽化して身動きが取れないようになっているということだ。具体的に言うと、日本では自民党・旧民主党系が対立する構図は、戦後冷戦の資本主義と社会主義の対立を反映したもので、ソ連崩壊後の今はもう古いものになっている。双方は解党して、もっと別の対立軸に基づく政党を作るべきなのだ。
米国では、共和党も民主党も一度解党して、低所得者と高所得者という対立軸に基づく二大政党にでも再編成するべきなのだ。現状では共和党は困窮白人層の票で、大企業の利益（法人税の大幅引き下げとか）をはかるという歪んだ政治をし、民主党も困窮青年層、マイノリティーを大きな支持基盤としながら、政治資金は大企業に仰ぐという、歪んだ構造にある。英国でも、ドイツでも、フランスでも、既存の政党構図は軋みを立てて壊れつつある。
さらに根本的なことを言うと、成人全員が投票権を持ち、しかもそれを労組とか農協などの組織を通じて取りまとめることがもうできない現代、そして有権者一人一人があらゆることについて違うことを考えている今の時代、社会をとりまとめるのは、非常に難しいということだ。近代欧州に育った民主主義は国民一人一人の権利を高めることで偉大な成功を収めたが、まさにそのために民主主義の目詰まりを起こしてしまった。この大いなるパラドックスは、世界中で議論を高めて解決していかないといけない。
今回の過程では、外交が議論の対象になっていないのも驚くべきことだ。細かいことはいいので、日本の立場、日本の利益を外国の首脳にきちんと伝え、説得したり取引のできる能力を持っているかどうか。その点も判断の大きな基準にして欲しかった。ないものねだりかもしれないが。
筆者は日本版Newsweekコラムニスト。本稿は日本版Newsweek 2020年9月15日号に掲載された。
本質的な問題は、今の日本の統治体制は死に体になっている、ということではないか？ 世論は2009年自民党の政治と人に愛想をつかして民主党政権を生んでみたものの、消費税を増額されて幻滅、2012年民主党を政権から叩き落す。つまり自民党も民主党も駄目となったこの時点で、日本の統治体制は死に体となったのだ。2012年に返り咲いた安倍政権は、だから「自民党」はできるだけ表に出さず、「官邸」主導の政治を繰り広げた。
政権が長期化するにつれて、自民党は再び前面に出てきたが、「政権の配当」を得んとする者が多く、贔屓の引き倒しが目立つようになった。それでも自民党は選挙で勝利を重ねたのだが、世論の大半にとっては、自民党に投票したと言うよりは、「安倍とその手兵（安倍党）」に投票したのだという無意識の意識が勝っていたことだろう。「負担増なしで、何でもちゃんとやってくれそうだ」という徒な望みをかけていたのに過ぎないが。
ところが総理が辞任を表明すると、自民党が自分が仕切って当然という顔をして、しかも「派閥」などというゾンビを前面に立てて、自分達が後継を決めるのだと言う。これでは、総理の後継者と言うより、どこかの「一家」の跡目相続に日本全体が付き合わされていることになる。白けて当然だ。
世論は首相直選を求めている。だがそれは、憲法改正をしなければ実行できないし、「一人の優れた指導者がいれば、国の問題は全て解決する」と思い込んでいる人達がとんでもないポピュリストを選んでしまう可能性もあるので、賛成できない。かなりの経験と実績を持ち、世論・マスコミによる「審査」を経た人物が出てくるようにしないといけないから、まず各党内で党首選出のプライマリー選挙を行い、出そろったところで総選挙をやれば、今の憲法の枠内でも民意を反映し、かつそれなりの人物を総理に選ぶことができるだろう。今回そうしなかったのは、自民党内部の都合に過ぎないのではないか？
今回の「後継選出」が白々しい背景には、もっと大きな問題も横たわっている。それは、日本だけでなく世界中で、既存の政党の枠組みが老朽化して身動きが取れないようになっているということだ。具体的に言うと、日本では自民党・旧民主党系が対立する構図は、戦後冷戦の資本主義と社会主義の対立を反映したもので、ソ連崩壊後の今はもう古いものになっている。双方は解党して、もっと別の対立軸に基づく政党を作るべきなのだ。
米国では、共和党も民主党も一度解党して、低所得者と高所得者という対立軸に基づく二大政党にでも再編成するべきなのだ。現状では共和党は困窮白人層の票で、大企業の利益（法人税の大幅引き下げとか）をはかるという歪んだ政治をし、民主党も困窮青年層、マイノリティーを大きな支持基盤としながら、政治資金は大企業に仰ぐという、歪んだ構造にある。英国でも、ドイツでも、フランスでも、既存の政党構図は軋みを立てて壊れつつある。
さらに根本的なことを言うと、成人全員が投票権を持ち、しかもそれを労組とか農協などの組織を通じて取りまとめることがもうできない現代、そして有権者一人一人があらゆることについて違うことを考えている今の時代、社会をとりまとめるのは、非常に難しいということだ。近代欧州に育った民主主義は国民一人一人の権利を高めることで偉大な成功を収めたが、まさにそのために民主主義の目詰まりを起こしてしまった。この大いなるパラドックスは、世界中で議論を高めて解決していかないといけない。
今回の過程では、外交が議論の対象になっていないのも驚くべきことだ。細かいことはいいので、日本の立場、日本の利益を外国の首脳にきちんと伝え、説得したり取引のできる能力を持っているかどうか。その点も判断の大きな基準にして欲しかった。ないものねだりかもしれないが。
筆者は日本版Newsweekコラムニスト。本稿は日本版Newsweek 2020年9月15日号に掲載された。
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟