The end of the Second World War ushered Japan into a completely different era. A new constitution was instituted that made Japan a parliamentary democracy. The constitution recognizes the emperor as a ceremonial leader. Actual activities of the legislative and executive arm of government is to be split between a bicameral parliamentary system (the National Diet) and the Prime Minister who heads a cabinet elected by the National Diet and approved by the Emperor. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) led Japan for many decades before they were defeated by a landslide victory by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in the 2009 elections. The election featured a weak LDP and the New Komeito Party who held power. However, the DPJ managed to break the cycle and won. This was the first change of party in Japan since World War II. The purpose of this paper is to critique and analyze the changes that led to the electoral victory of the DPJ in 2009. This will be done by reviewing the reason the LDP held on to power in Japan for such a long time and how the people voted for the DPJ.
General Scope of Affairs in the Election Year - 2009
Every country has a time where there is so much monotony in the political structures that the people seek change and different ways of expressing their demands. In the United States, analysts identify that in the 1970s and 80s, Americans became too dissatisfied by the two-party system and found satisfaction in civil rights movements and anti-war lobbies. This is because times could change so much that the politicians might be so distant from the people and there will be a situation where there is a distaste for affairs of the government and other representatives.
In the early 2000s, Koizumi Junichiro launched a wide-range program of economic reforms to change institutions, policies and practices. These policies led to obstacles to economic growth. However, they were intended to change the country and makes it more competitive in order to produce more and meet the needs and demands of the global economy. By 2009, these policies had failed and a succession of 4 different Prime Ministers in a decade led to a general loss of trust in the LDP. The DPJ sought to end two decades of economic stagnation due to the satisfaction of the demands interest groups and bureaucracy with little attention to the needs of the voters and the wider population.
One view is that the economic and political system that served Japan well became increasingly complex and uncertain. This is because there were new measures that made the people feel that the government only listened to bigger corporations and satisfied their interests with little or no emphasis on the masses. This highlighted the increasing role that these lobby groups and bureaucrats had over the lawmaking process and the policies of the country with little attention to the populace.
People who view the LDP in a favorable light on the other hand argue that chronic inefficiency as a system that protected Japan’s production sector eventually made it a competitive country for trade internationally. This is due to the fact that there were especial interest groups formed by companies and these companies created major systems and institutions that helped them to protect their best interest. Therefore, they were able to have power and authority to turn policy into their favor and achieve high levels of results from the policies and regulations of the country. This made these corporations strong and powerful and enabled them to produce more, export more and earn Japan a lot of money. Thus, in their view, although the needs of the voters was neglected, it was for a good reason – to make Japan great and export more.
Reason the LDP Stayed in Power for a Long Time
In spite of the grievances that were aired against the LDP, they had stayed in power successfully for a long time. LDP had a favorable posture in relation to postwar constitution and its system. This made them grasp some important sources of power and enabled them to stay on and hold on to power for a long time. Although these problems that led to the 2009 election loss were in existence, it was not felt in the past and became a prominent issue in the 2009 election.
It is worthy to note that the 1945 constitution sought to decentralize affairs in Japan. This is because the Americans who influenced the constitution sought to prevent the elites from gaining too much power. And a constitution that was based on an expansionist ideology was seen to be dangerous to world peace. Therefore, the process was to ensure that power was given to villages, towns and associations in order to decentralize power and more importantly, boost productivity. This was to create a new middle class that was to replace the pre 1945 elites who had power and everyone else was accountable to them.
The LDP gained prominence as a new voice of Japan that responded to the new constitution. DPJ and other conservatives were seen as the group that took Japan onto the path of a disastrous defeat in World War II. Therefore, the new policies of progress and improvement of the economy proposed by the LDP right from the creation of the new Japan in 1945.
However, the downside of the system created by the revised Meiji constitution of 1945 is one that supported Patterned Pluralism. This was a process whereby actors in the system became very powerful and dominant in national affairs. This include the representation of villages, towns, associations and other productive elements of the country. The idea was that if power was given to them, there could be a new elite class similar to the middle class of the Industrial Revolution in Britain and America. Hence, the western-backed constitution created this class of people and guaranteed the representation of these groups in national affairs.
The implication was that floating voters were too weak to make a significant impact on political affairs so patterned pluralism had its way every day except on election days. And in elections, there were other constitutional loopholes that guaranteed the LDP won elections without any major difficulties.
Another factor that laid the foundation for the unpopularity of the LDP was that these associations and special interest groups gained more prominence in national affairs. The reason for this is that the American imports from Japan increased significantly in the 1950s and 60s. Thus, the country thought that rebuilding and the future of Japan depended on corporate entities and large companies. Therefore, more power was gradually delegated to them and they were able to influence national affairs with a partnership with the LDP. This stems from the fact that the LDP supported the view that Japan could only rise and become prosperous if there was a functioning export system. This led to large scale protectionism and inclusion of these corporate manufacturers in national affairs. As their voice increased and their power increased, they were able to influence matters more strongly with each passing year. This gradually drowned the voice of the people and voters’ sentiment became less important and vital in national affairs.
The new constitution was meant to build infrastructure and promote development. Thus, a framework of bureaucrats was created. This was done in the guise of creating a process where companies and the government could work together to ensure the rapid development and growth of Japan. This cut out the impact of the people and government gradually became a partnership between the public authorities and private partners who worked to achieve nothing but the goals of the nation in a way that excluded the commoner and small businesses.
With that institutionalized, there was a view that to become successful, one had to join a powerful company or bureaucratic agency. This created a system where small businesses and commoners in Japan were separated from the policy makers and policy implementers. With no ability of the voters to vote against anything the bureaucrats and large corporations proposed, they ran the country as they wished. Elections were almost automatically going to be won by the LDP.
Special interest groups and lobbying entities became powerful and this caused the interest of these corporate entities to be institutionalized and honored in all situations. There were major processes that rendered it almost impossible for anything other than what the ruling elite and groups that controlled decisions and policy to be implemented.
Political Events Leading to 2009
In the 1980s, the Patterned Pluralism system had gained so much root in Japan. There was a process whereby they could influence affairs and control issues. There was a move towards the deregulation of the Japanese economy as many other nations had done around that time. This included a system of creating private entities that could handle and carry out various functions. The process favored powerful entities with special interests in governmental affairs because they were able to purchase significant and vital institutions and organizations and this made it possible for them to work to achieve results as authorities in decision making and policy making.
The deregulation process and new accords led to administrative laws and new taxes as well as greater power to the Bank of Japan. This made it somewhat difficult for people to get access to things they needed. However, as always, there was an excuse that the country was being ran by the best people and a patriarchal system was instituted through the involvement of large corporations and entities with power and authority. The people were not able to do much about how they wanted their country to be done. And by this time in the 1980s, a generation had been raised without knowing things could be different. Hence, the status quo continued and the power of corporations and bureaucracy and special interest groups increased significantly.
The main problems and challenges came in 1997 when the Asian market crash occurred. The failures of policies to deal with the elements of Japan after the crash made it difficult for the LDP. This is because Prime Minister Hashimoto who had power at that time formulated policies that empowered some regulators and gave independence to the Bank of Japan. This was implemented in 2001. The procedure created a series of short-term solutions that failed to cover the long-term needs and aspirations of Japan.
In addition to this, there was power given to the Prime Minister’s office to direct the cabinet. This directive gave the Prime Minister the power to promote more authority and power to be given to corporate entities and bureaucratic institutions. This is based on the fact that the Prime Minister could set up entities that could move things to their favor and turn a deaf ear on the calls of the people.
In 2001 to 2006, Koizumi took over power and made reforms that gave more power to the lower levels of the LDP to handle contracts and define how funds were spent. This promoted populism and enhanced the LDP and its related elite. Up the ranks of the party, he led the privatization of Japan’s postal services in spite of the opposition from the middle rank and lower ranks of the LDP. The result was disastrous and Koizumi had to step down and form his own political movement. The division weakened the LDP and a succession of three Prime Ministers between 2006 and 2009 – Shinzo Abe, Fukuda Yasuo and Aso Taro (each lasting a year) showed that the LDP had very little to offer in the period.
This created a vacuum that an organized opposition movement could build upon to come into power. This happened in 2009 when the election created the opportunity for the DPJ to come over and wrestle power from the LDP.
National Structures that Created a Bureaucrat-Controlled System
The Japanese constitution created cracks that were exploited by the bureaucrats in national affairs. The ministries and agencies were typically sponsored by advisory councils of professionals, academics and industries. These agencies often sponsored policies instead of independent members of the National Diet. On the contrary, the National Diet focused on scandals and reputations. They did not critique and investigate matters closely in order to pursue the best interest of the Japanese people. They trusted the ministries and agencies to handle the technical matters and present bills they considered to be good for them. Thus, they pursued their own selfish interest whilst the parliamentarians focused on things that did not directly influence the people positively.
There was a budget system which determined what legislation could be passed. This is because the budget was the sole concern of the lower house of the National Diet. Hence, there was a process whereby budgets determined almost all the needs and demands of the people and the nation. The budget system formed constraints about what could be passed and when it could be passed. This meant that anything outside the budget was either postponed or forgone entirely. This created an indirect system through which the country’s ministry of finance had the power to impose measures and limits on spending.
Furthermore, Japan’s budgets did not require assets of the upper house of the National Diet like Britain or other countries. Therefore, the LDP was comfortable and had an advantage in authorizing things without issues. Unlike the United States or Germany, there was no threat of coalition partners challenging the LDP as the leading power in the lower house. Therefore, the LDP had an almost unilateral power over budgetary approvals. Since these budgetary approvals almost always determined what could be done and what was not to be allowed, there was a monopoly to the power of what could be done. Hence, the LDP had power and they used it to satisfy the needs and demands of the special interest groups and agencies.
The DPJ’s Promise for Change
The DPJ made promises in 2009 to change the system. This is because the voters were led to believe they could not change anything individually. The DPJ had to turn this down by promising to do what they wanted to get their votes. Thus, the DPJ presented a series of blueprints for change. Among them was the promise that the voter could be better represented and patterned pluralism could be limited. This was done by the following promises
Eliminate party’s research council and tax commission
Eliminate weekly meetings of administrative vice ministers
Reduce the reliance on budget for national policy and focus on legislation
Politicians must interpret constitution rather than the Cabinet Legislation Bureau
Let the courts review interpretation of constitution by politicians
Let politicians interact rather than bureaucrats and special interest groups
Limit bureaucrats in submission of evidence and testifying in Diet meetings
Limit bureaucrats control of the media
In the campaign, the DPJ made people realize how powerful their single votes could be in a collective sense so they were made to accept the proposals and work with it. This caused people to realize they could have different alternatives to the LDP and this laid the foundation for the demand for change.
Secondly, there was a massive defection of loyal supporters who added their voice to the populist campaign for change. The LDP survived because they always got popular votes from the towns and cities. On the other hand there were too many opposition members who shared the remaining votes. Thus, for instance, in 1990 – 2000 the LDP hanged on with 40% of the votes whilst the others got less than 10% in a typical scenario. Therefore, in 2009, there was the need to break down these demands and expectations and move on to take power and seize authority from them in a fair election.
Smaller firms that provided the pool of voters who casted their votes for LDP felt larger interest groups were controlling everything and the economy was not being ran efficiently. Therefore, they sought to create a way for their voters to pursue a system whereby a new era could be ushered in to promote the interest of ordinary people.
Voter Response to the DPJ Message of 2009
Voters had always rejected the message of the DPJ. However, they were ready to consider it in 2009 for a number of factors. First of all, there was an ideological flexibility and adaptability of DPJ. They promised a government led by citizens but not politicians and policy makers. This made it attractive as an alternative because the voters felt they had been neglected for too long.
They promised a political system based on cooperation between government and citizens and not collusion between politicians and bureaucrats. This created the general foundation for change and modification. This is because the people were always of the view that the country was ruled by the elites.
Also, the DPJ promised educational reforms that would move Japan into a world-class status. This was attractive to the people because they felt some degree of stagnation in education in Japan.
Furthermore, they resolved problem of failure of other parties to unite to offer viable alternative to LDP. They promise a mixed-member majoritarian electoral system that meant the Lower House had to promote district level competition and promote a two-party political framework which could lead to better governance.
There was a break in the monotony and the regular system whereby one party controlled everything. The Japanese people accepted that competition would do good for them and get the politicians to listen to them. Therefore they sought to pursue the DPJ’s policy and cut down on the move towards some degree of reliance on the one-party system
Finally, the DPJ promised a foreign policy that was based on trust. This meant Japan was going to partake in international matters responsibly but not through the system of leading from behind and being told what to do all the time. This increased the sense of national pride and promoted better relations
Conclusion
The liberal party of Japan was formed in response to the 1945 pacifist constitution meant to promote growth and development. The second half of the 20th Century provided the opportunity for corporations and bureaucrats to work together to rebuild the country and meet export demands and expectations. However, after the Asian Financial crisis of 1997, a lot changed and it was no more appropriate for the country to pursue its bureaucratic system and process. Therefore, changes were needed to ensure that small businesses and the genuine needs of the ordinary citizens were not sidelined but made an important and vital parts of political affairs. This meant that the constitution was not alright and procedures of governance had to change. The belief in the LDP that the status quo must continue was disliked by the voters who felt they were sideline in many ways and forms. Therefore, a power vacuum was created and this was filled by promises of the DPJ to reform the political system. Instead of relying on experts and ministries and interest groups from making laws, they sought a proactive lawmaking system that involved two parties and enhanced the rule of law. This was seen by many Japanese as the best way forward and they therefore voted for the DPJ in order to change the status quo.
Works Cited
Koellner, Patrick. “The Democratic Party of Japan: Development, Organization and Programmatic Profile.” Gaunder, Alisa. The Routledge Handbook of Japanese Politics. New York: Routledge , 2011. 24-35. Print.
Martin, Sherry. “The Influence of Voters.” Gaunder, Alisa. The Routledge Handbook of Japanese Politics. New York: Routledge, 2011. 81-91. Print.
Noble, Gregory W. “The Evolution of the Japanese Policymaking System.” Gaunder, Alisa. The Routledge Handbook of Japanese Politics. New York: Routledge, 2011. 249-261. Print.
Shinoda, Tomohito. Contemporary Japanese Politics: Institutional Changes and Power Shifts. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013. Print.
Shoemaker, Pamela J. and Stephen D. Reese. Mediating the Message in the 21st Century: A Media Sociology Perspective. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Vanoverbeke, Dimitri and Franz Waldenberger. EU-Japan Relations, 1970-2012: From Confrontation to Global Partnership. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
