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 3rd, 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment