70th Anniversary of Constitutional Activation

The Constitution of Japan reached the seventieth anniversary on Thursday from its activation in 1946. While suffering from consecutive snub on its legitimacy, mainly the argument that it was coerced by occupying United Nations, the Constitution has been working as the backbone of the state. Some groups upholding fundamental abolishment of the Constitution regard their movement as an action for restoring sovereign state. But, how many people in Japan deny sovereignty of its nation? Discussion on constitutional amendment is always up in the air.

As soon as the World War II ended with unconditional surrender of Japan, General Headquarters of United Nations demanded Japan to amend Constitution of the Empire of Japan. Realizing the draft of amendment submitted by the Japan side was limited to be another version of existing Meiji Constitution, the staffs of Government Section of GHQ by themselves embarked on editing new draft in February 1946.

The Japan side reluctantly accepted the draft and then Cabinet approved it as the basis for new constitution. Imperial Parliament received the draft in June 1946, two months after the election of House of Representatives, and passed it with modification in Article 1 or 9 in October. “I would like to make efforts with the people to apply this constitution appropriately and establish a modern state that loves freedom and liberty,” told Emperor Hirohito, when the Constitution of Japan was activated in November 3^rd, 1946.

Right wing organizations, symbolically represented by Japan Conference, argues that the Constitution of Japan is invalid, because it was enacted under the occupation of United Nations, regardless legal processes Japan had taken before the activation of the Constitution. Liberal Democratic Party has been upholding incorporation of an independent constitution as its political agenda. Followed by those powers with restorative ideology, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe demand acceleration of discussion for constitutional amendment.

However, it is still unsure that the amendment can be achieved with stable majority in the Diet. Although amendment power possesses two-third majority in each House, that power has not secured simple majority of general voters in the referendum. Discussion over what provision should be amended has not concluded. Moreover, there came up an argument for minimum turnout in the referendum, which may make the votes invalid, if the turnout is too small. The discussion must not be about how the Japanese have been embarrassed by “coerced constitution,” but should be what kind of provision do we want or not.