EDITORIAL
A new Constitution by the people
Fifty-eight years ago, on May 3, 1947, the postwar Constitution of Japan
came into effect. Today this new national charter, underscored by its pacifist
principles, is broadly accepted by the Japanese public. Yet, strange as it may
seem, this is a constitution enacted by Imperial order, not by popular vote.
According to a textbook definition, constitutions divide into two categories:
those established by referendum and those promulgated by a king or emperor. The
Japanese Constitution was promulgated on Nov. 3, 1946, under an Imperial edict
in which the Emperor expressed "deep pleasure" that the foundation had been
laid for the construction of a new Japan in accordance with the will of the
Japanese people.
It is not known exactly how the new charter was written in the immediate
postwar years. What is clear, though, is that it represents, procedurally, a
revision of the Meiji Constitution of 1889, also known as the Constitution of
the Great Empire of Japan.
The Japanese people participated only indirectly in the revision since the old
Constitution had been approved by the Imperial Parliament. In other words,
Japanese citizens were not given an opportunity to express their will
individually, although the present Constitution makes clear that sovereign
power "resides with the people."
If a constitutional reform bill is put to a referendum, the Japanese people
will formally exercise their right to create a constitution on their own for
the first time since the end of World War II. Although that opportunity may not
come anytime soon, how to change the Constitution is now a realistic question.
Recently the constitutional research panels in both houses of the Diet released
their final reports after completing five years of debate. Although wide
differences remain -- particularly on the issue of national security -- there
is no doubt that points of argument have been sorted out.
The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which observes its 50th anniversary this
autumn, is planning to unveil a draft of the new Constitution it envisions. The
Democratic Party of Japan, the largest opposition group, is moving toward
drafting its own revision plan. Any amendment, however, must be approved by
referendum, as stated in the Constitution. Currently, however, no specific
rules are established for holding such a popular vote. So the LDP and its
coalition partner, New Komeito, are pushing for a "national referendum bill."
The DPJ is reportedly moving in the same direction.
It is important that the proposed legislation sets the kind of ground rules
that allow for effective voter participation in the constitutional amendment
process. For that purpose, a number of specific questions need to be addressed:
First is whether a referendum should be held on specific changes or general
issues. Second, what should be the minimum age of eligible voters? Should it be
20 or 18? Third, how soon should a referendum be held after it is proposed?
Fourth, should restrictions be imposed on the media, such as banning
publication of advance opinion polls?
On the first question, the coalition plan remains vague. It says only that
decisions will be made later during the drafting of an amendment bill. The DPJ
is also undecided. The Social Democratic Party believes that voters should
express their views on specific changes.
The question boils down to this: What is the best method of allowing the people
to create their own constitution? Answers are complicated by the diversity of
issues involved, ranging from the war-renouncing Article 9 to the right to a
clean environment.
Many people, while opposing any change to the article, want to see the
environmental right included. Others are wary of codifying too many rights in
the national charter. Still others maintain that the law should explicitly
state the right to self-defense.
Given such divergent opinions, a "package" referendum that sets aside specific
questions would only confuse the voters. In such a general ballot, many may
vote no, thinking that it is better to keep the status quo, or yes if they feel
that change will somehow improve things.
Since such a referendum could not accurately reflect the will of the people, it
may be that politicians aiming for a package vote want to change the
controversial Article 9 under cover of generally acceptable proposals, such as
inserting the environmental right. Holding a referendum on an item-by-item
basis will be best.
Imposing media restrictions is out of the question. The worry is that, in
extreme cases, reporting in favor of certain constitutional changes might be
prohibited. For the people to choose a constitution of their own, it is
essential to allow free and active expression of opinion as well as freedom of
the press.
The Japan Times: May 4, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5F6XtA/.WnJAA/E2hLAA/BRUplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
***************************************************************************
Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg
Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. www.ppi-india.org
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________________
Mohon Perhatian:
1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Lihat arsip sebelumnya, www.ppi-india.da.ru;
4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
