Japan: A system on the
verge of dysfunction By Brad
Glosserman
Editor's note: This
article was written before the resignation on
Wednesday of farm minister Norihiko Akagi. The
former minister, linked to an office-expenses
scandal, said that accusations against him had
added to the depth of the Liberal Democratic
Party's defeat in the House of Councilors election
on Sunday.
As expected, Japanese Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe and his Liberal Democratic
Party (LDP) were defeated in Sunday's election for
half of the House of Councilors, Japan's senate. And
despite concerted attempts to
lower expectations, the results were still an
embarrassment for the ruling party.
Yet to
the consternation of many, Abe has vowed to stay
in office to continue the work he began. That
commitment is laudable, but a stubborn
determination to stay the course is not what Japan
needs. Rather, it needs a creative leadership that
can adapt to new domestic political realities and
an evolving security environment.
Half of
the Upper House's 242 seats were at stake in
Sunday's ballot. Going in to the vote, the LDP and
its coalition partners held 133 seats, a healthy
majority. By Sunday night, the number had shrunk
to 103. The LDP won just 37 races, a net loss of
27 seats. Its coalition partner New Komeito
claimed another nine. The opposition Democratic
Party of Japan (DPJ) nearly doubled its share,
winning 60 races, establishing itself as the
largest party in the House and claiming a solid
majority for the opposition.
The scale of
the LDP defeat was jaw-dropping: the results
reversed the positions of the two leading parties.
The ballot marks the first time the LDP was beaten
by a single opposition party since it was formed
in 1955. Traditionally, the party head would have
resigned over the results: Hashimoto Ryutaro
stepped down as prime minister in 1998 when his
LDP won just 44 of 126 seats. Not Abe. After
the results were clear, he informed the country,
"I made a promise to make this a beautiful
country, and I mean to carry that out." And thanks
to predecessor Junichiro Koizumi, who waged war
against LDP party machines, no one is in a
position to force him out. (Of course, few smart
politicians are ready to step into the breach
given the very obvious ill-will against the
party.)
Some see this as proof that Japan
is changing. DPJ leaders crow that the results
signal Japan's movement - at long last - toward a
genuine two-party system. We've heard this before.
The LDP took a beating because: (1) the
government lost 50 million pension records; (2)
the cabinet has been freighted with old-style
politicians who are prone to gaffes and tarred by
scandal and Abe is too weak to demand better; (3)
Abe permitted the postal rebels to return to the
party after being kicked out by Koizumi, making
him look like another leader devoid of principle;
(4) the prime minister's desire to create "a
beautiful country" hasn't struck a chord with most
Japanese, who are instead focused on
bread-and-butter issues; and (5) DPJ president
Ichiro Ozawa has proved again to be a master
election strategist.
Those complaints look
familiar: weak and out-of-touch leadership,
unprincipled politicians, and shrewd campaign
tactics. But it's hard to see the election results
as a vote of confidence in the DPJ, especially
when the House of Councilors is the weaker of the
two chambers and has historically been where
Japanese cast protest votes against the LDP.
Through this lens, it looks like an LDP loss,
rather than a DPJ victory.
That is
probably how Abe sees the results. It would
explain his remark after the vote, "The policies
we have promoted are not wrong. I think people do
understand that."
His message is clear:
the government will not change course. On many
foreign-policy issues, that makes sense.
Rapprochement with China and South Korea is one of
the few real policy successes of his
administration. Reversing course would alienate
many Japanese and much of the region. Similarly,
relations with the United States continue to be a
pillar of Japanese national-security policy: no
prime minister can afford to antagonize
Washington.
That raises a problem when
dealing with North Korea. Abe has been a
relentless campaigner on behalf of Japanese
kidnapped by North Korean agents, and he has stuck
to a hard line demanding a full accounting of
their fate. There is the danger, however, that
this position could isolate Japan in the six-party
talks if the other five countries make progress
toward a resolution of the nuclear crisis and
Japan remains a holdout.
Abe must develop
a more nuanced policy that affords Tokyo
flexibility in the negotiations. The US experience
in the missing-in-action talks with Vietnam could
provide some lessons - and warnings for the prime
minister. Abe has shown commitment and
determination. Now he must muster the creativity
and flexibility that are equally important to
success in office.
Most important is a
fundamental dilemma of the prime minister's
making. The creation of "a beautiful country" with
all its accoutrements - instilling patriotic
values, pursuit of a more assertive foreign
policy, and the readiness to shoulder more
responsibilities in dealing with peace and
security issues - is the core of Abe's agenda, and
has been the guiding principle in his political
career. He won't give it up, nor is he likely to
diminish its priority.
The election
results make plain that the Japanese public
doesn't share those priorities. For the most part,
they don't question the evolution of the country's
security policy: a majority agrees that Japan can
take on more international responsibilities,
although there are disagreements over how far the
country can and should go. And while there is a
legitimate need for debate over the constitution
and revision of its war-renouncing Article 9, they
depart from the prime minister over the need to do
that now.
Most Japanese are worried about
economic issues - jobs, pensions, savings - and
they have received little attention during the
first 10 months of Abe's term. The prime minister
has to refocus and address those concerns. It
won't be easy. Many of the economic-policy debates
require Japanese to question core values and
beliefs.
For example, will reform endanger
the egalitarianism of modern Japan? How will the
country cope with increasing foreign economic
influences? Despite the many changes that have
occurred over the past decade, many Japanese -
politicians in particular - appear ill at ease
about the impact of continued liberalization.
The DPJ faces challenges of its own. Its
leadership is pressing the LDP to call a general
election (the next ballot isn't required until
2009) and has signaled that it is prepared to play
hardball to force that vote. But the LDP's large
majority in the Lower House - 296 of 480 seats -
should neutralize the Upper House. In addition,
the DPJ has to earn the confidence of Japanese
voters; mere obstructionism won't win supporters.
That means devising a program and sticking
to it. General and vague promises won't suffice.
Moreover, compromise and working with the LDP risk
blurring the lines between the two parties -
already pretty indistinct on many policies - and
could give the LDP a chance to encourage
defections.
Sunday's election revealed a
political system on the verge of dysfunction. Yet
the very last thing Japan needs is paralysis and
confusion. The prime minister has said he doesn't
intend to leave office, but he must reclaim public
confidence and muster some policy accomplishments
before the decision is no longer his. If he cannot
provide the creative leadership required, the
people, and his own party, will ultimately push
him aside.
Brad Glosserman
(bradgpf@hawaii.rr.com) is executive
director of Pacific Forum CSIS and co-editor of
Comparative Connections, the quarterly electronic
journal of East Asian bilateral relations.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
