【Original May 3, 2024】
The 77th Constitution Day has come. Japan’s Constitution has never been amended since it was enacted in 1947, and the original text remains unchanged to this day.
In the past, revisions to the constitution were considered taboo and could not even be discussed. In recent years, however, more than two-thirds of members from both the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors are willing to make amendments, with public opinion polls showing an increasing percentage in favor of it. The Diet should make efforts to press on with debates on constitutional reform without pause.
Neighboring Countries Strengthening Authoritarianism
Currently, the Commission on the Constitution is attempting to use the most likely argument for obtaining consent—extending office terms for Diet members in the event of an emergency—as a springboard for discussion. The “constitutional revision force” consisting of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Komeito, Japan Innovation Party, and Democratic Party for the People have called for the establishment of a drafting committee regarding such an emergency clause, but the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP), Japanese Communist Party, and others have opposed the idea. The CDP argued that “there are a wide range of issues” and that “discussions over several years are needed to look over the entirety of the Constitution.”
Until last year, the CDP had emphasized having “debates on the Constitution,” a stance that did not call for making constitutional revisions a prerequisite but rather active discussions on the Constitution. However, in the current Diet session, it noticeably moved to block the progress of constitutional debates, for example by absenting itself from the constitutional commission’s executive committee meeting for reasons related to the LDP’s political fundraising. The Diet should consider establishing a drafting committee without the CDP, as advocated by Komeito, Japan Innovation Party, and others.
With regard to constitutional items up for debate, important issues such as the creation of an emergency clause and revision of Article 9 should not be put on the back burner. The nation has the responsibility to protect the lives and property of its citizens. The preamble of the Constitution states that “we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world.” However, Japan’s neighboring countries possess nuclear weapons and are becoming increasingly authoritarian, so it is difficult to say that they are “peace-loving peoples” who should be trusted. In addition, Japan is at risk of large-scale disasters, such as earthquakes directly under the Tokyo metropolitan area and the Nankai Trough.
In response to COVID-19, which had a major impact on people’s lives for more than three years, the Japanese government only declared a state of emergency and urged people to refrain from leaving their homes, while other countries took measures based on emergency clauses stipulated in their constitutions or in accordance to other laws. Although many people died as a result of the pandemic, the number of deaths per capita in Japan is still lower compared to other countries. This is due to the fact that the people of Japan cooperated with the government by wearing masks and getting vaccinated.
Show Commitment to Protecting the People
In Japan, where the declining birthrate and aging populace add to the dwindling of the population, the percentage of foreign workers and tourists is expected to further increase. As society diversifies and people of different cultural backgrounds congregate, there is no guarantee that wish-based measures such as those taken during the pandemic will remain effective in the future as a response to emergencies. An urgent need to establish laws that anticipate all contingencies is required.
Japan has yet to resolve serious human rights violations, such as the North Korean abduction issue. We hope that Japan will show its commitment to protecting its citizens by amending Article 9 of the Constitution and positioning the Self-Defense Forces as a military force that is internationally recognized.
