Upper House needs reforming

参議院改革

The Upper House's carbon-copy image arises mainly from its powers, which overlap those of the Lower House. This overlap is the major reason behind the criticism that it often takes too long for the Diet to act on matters of national policy. The demand for administrative and fiscal reform — that is, for a smaller government — is contributing to the popular perception that the upper chamber is unnecessary.

Parliamentary reform is moving onto the political agenda now that the governing Liberal-Democratic Party and the opposition Democratic Party of Japan are bracing for a review of the bicameral system. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has ordered the LDP to conduct a study while Mr. Naoto Kan, head of the DPJ, has said he believes that the unicameral system is better.

It is premature, though, to rule out the Upper House simply because it is inefficient. If it is dysfunctional, that's because it is no longer playing its primary role of "restraining and complementing" the Lower House.

The Constitution provides for a working relationship between the two chambers. The Lower House has the final say over matters such as the election of the prime minister, approval of the government budget and ratification of treaties. The Lower House may be dissolved for a snap election, but the Upper House is assured of regular continuity, with half of its members elected every three years for a six-year term so that they can debate national policy from a broader, longer-range perspective.

The Upper House proved its worth following its first election of 1947, making various revisions to Lower House bills. The initiative came not from parties but from individual members and a non-partisan group called Ryokufukai (New Wind Society). But it began to lose its independence and identity as partisan politics gained momentum.

In the world today, the unicameral system is far more popular than the bicameral one. In 2003, 115 nations, including China and South Korea, were unicameral, while 68, including all of the Group of Eight industrialized nations, were bicameral, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Thirty-three of the unicameral nations were converts from the bicameral system.

Prime Minister Koizumi appears to favor the unicameral system not only as a way of eliminating "waste" (such as delivering the same policy speech in both chambers) but as a catalyst for debate on constitutional reform. Reportedly he is looking at a plan that would disband both chambers and create a unicameral legislature — a plan apparently intended to ease objections from the Upper House. An "equal merger" proposal from a suprapartisan study group represents a case of the strong swallowing the weak.

A lack of vigor in Upper House debates makes it clear that the chamber continues to languish in the shadow of the Lower House. During the debate on the troop dispatch to Iraq, it gave the impression of going through the motions, with opposition members asking few tough questions and Mr. Koizumi giving perfunctory answers.

A sense of crisis has driven the Upper House to propose a number of reforms. One plan would have it act as a watchdog over the use of taxpayer money rather than debate budget bills in the same way as the Lower House. This is a step in the right direction.

Changing the Upper House's electoral system, which is similar to the Lower House's single-member district and its proportional representation system, would help the upper chamber regain its independence. The PR formula could be abolished in favor of a system consisting only of prefectural districts. At the same time, the number of seats in each district could be fixed at two or four, as with the U.S. Senate, regardless of populations.

In many respects, July's Upper House election bears watching. The Upper House is not a safety net for candidates who have lost in Lower House elections. If it ever came to that, its very raison d'etre certainly would be called into question. Reform is the only way to secure its place in the Diet.

The Japan Times Weekly
Feb. 28, 2004
(C) All rights reserved

      参議の機能は衆議院と重複する部分が多く、国会の立法手続に時間がかかりすぎると批判されている。

      小泉首相は、自民党に対し二院制の見直しの検討を指示することにより一院制を支持、菅民主党代表も一院制を支持する発言をしている。

      参議院が十分に機能していないのは、「衆議院の代表機能を補完し、国会審議を慎重にする」という本来の役割を果たしていないからである。

      衆議院は、首班指名、予算の採決、条約の批准などの重要な問題について最終決定権を持っている。衆議院が解散されれば総選挙が行われるが、参議院には解散制度はない。

      国際的には、二院制よりも一院制が多い。03年現在、中国、韓国を含む115ヵ国が一院制、先進8ヵ国を含む68ヵ国が二院制を採用している。

      小泉首相は、国会審議を効率化し改憲論議を推進するためにも、両院の解散による一院制への移行を支持しているといわれている。

      参議院が衆議院の陰で沈滞しているのは明らかだ。最近の自衛隊イラク派遣問題でも、形式的審議を繰り返していた。

      参議院による改革案の中には、参議院は予算案について衆議院同様の審議をせず、税金の使途についての監視役を務めるという案が出ているが、これは正しい方向への一歩と言える。

      参議院は衆議院と同様、小選挙区比例代表並立制を採用しているが、比例代表制を廃止し、2人または4人定員の米上院選挙区式の都道府県選挙区を導入する考えもある。

      7月の参議院選挙は監視を怠れない。参議院は衆議院の落選候補の安全網ではない。そうなってしまっては参議院の存在理由が問われる。参議院が国会での地位を確保する唯一の手段は改革だ。