Challenging Rule of Law

An adviser revealed hidden truth of Prime Minister. Yosuke Isozaki, an Adviser of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, openly admitted that the security bills Abe was promoting had nothing to do with legal stability in a public speech last week. The administration has been explaining that the bills would keep legal stability and be constitutional. Isozaki’s argument, however, fundamentally undermined legality of new security legislation. This is the matter of arrogance of Abe administration challenging rule of law.

Isozaki was amazingly clear in neglecting rule of law. After explaining difficult security situation around Japan, which was brought by development of missile by North Korea or expansion of military power of China, Isozaki emphasized necessity of new security legislation. “Although the government interpreted the Constitution of Japan to be negative on exercising collective self-defense, we are proposing that collective self-defense should be good, if it would be for protecting our country,” told Isozaki. “Legal stability is not related to it,” he added, “We need to set a standard on whether it is a necessary measure for protecting our country.”

Abe administration has been asserting that reinterpretation of the Constitution and new security bills were constitutional and would not undermine legal stability of Japan. Isozaki did not care about that discussion. He simply admitted that new security legislation could be out of traditional legal framework of Japan. That was an ignorance of pacifism and democracy of Japan. Abe showed his frustration on Isozaki’s gaffe.

In the testimony of House of Councillors on Monday, Isozaki apologized about his comment and explained that he had not meant ignoring legal stability. But, it was nothing but a word-eating in Japanese expression, which meant lying about one’s words in the past. While the opposite parties required resignation of him as Prime Minister’s Adviser, Isozaki dismissed that possibility.

The fundamental problem of Isozaki’s gaffe was not about his quality as an adviser, but hidden intention of Abe to destroy Japanese Constitution. Former Japanese administrations have been denying collective self-defense as unconstitutional. What Abe argues is that it is constitutional when he interprets security environment as he prefers. For Abe, constitution is nothing before political goal. It is explicit dismissal of rule of law. Isozaki simply pave a way for Abe to do that.

It is likely that Abe will start saying “Constitution is nothing,” when Isozaki scandal will be ceased and people’s allergy against constitutional reinterpretation will be removed. United States, which firmly supports Abe administration, has to remind that this will be the reemergence of authoritarian regime of Japan.