Expectations of impartiality

扇参院議長に期待する公平性

The Lower House, it is said, represents the "politics of numbers" and the Upper House the "politics of reason." The upper chamber is primarily in a position to "complement and restrain" the lower chamber. Debate in the Upper House should be more farsighted, the argument goes, because it is never dissolved for a snap election.

In reality, though, that is not the case. The Upper House has become as much an arena of partisan politics as the Lower House. No wonder many see it as the "carbon copy" of the Lower House. Electoral systems for both chambers are similar, allowing candidates who have lost in Lower House elections to recover their seats in Upper House elections.

What's more, scandals and irregularities have shaken the prestige of the Upper House presidency in recent years. During the last regular Diet session, which ended in June, Mr. Hiroyuki Kurata, then-Upper House president, tossed aside the standing rule of maintaining political neutrality. He sided with the LDP to help railroad through controversial pension-reform legislation in the absence of opposition parties.

Furthermore, Mr. Kurata is suspected of falsely reporting income and assets, despite his owing a large amount of money to a bank with which he had close ties. If that is true, he set a very bad example for Upper House members, who are required to submit their financial reports to the president.

Mr. Kurata's predecessor, Mr. Yutaka Inoue, resigned from the Diet over a public-works scandal involving his former secretary. Earlier, in 2001, former Health, Labor and Welfare Minister Masakuni Murakami, who had been regarded as a surefire candidate for president, was arrested on bribery charges.

These cases would seem to suggest that the top official of the Upper House was selected, not because he was a man of high integrity but because he suited the convenience of the governing party. The president and the vice president are required to leave their parties for the sake of appearing politically impartial. This rule must be observed in spirit, not just in form.

The late Kenzo Kono, one of the most outstanding Upper House presidents, made it a rule to listen to what the opposition had to say and to let them speak as often as possible. He called it the "seven-three rule" — paying 70 percent attention to the opposition and 30 percent to the governing party. In this regard, Ms. Ogi's experience as a leader in the opposition should help.

There is a lot of work ahead. One urgent priority is to correct the gross "vote-value" inequalities of seat distribution among electoral districts throughout the nation. In the 2001 election, one vote in Tottori Prefecture, the least populous district, was worth 5.06 votes in Tokyo, the most populous. In the July election, the gap widened to 5.16.

In a Supreme Court ruling on the 2001 ballot, six of 15 justices said the vote disparity was unconstitutional. Of the nine who said it was constitutional, four warned that the imbalance, if left uncorrected in the next election, could violate the Constitution. Thus Ms. Ogi's expressed intent of setting up a new consultative body to address the problem is welcome.

Will Ms. Ogi be able to demonstrate strong leadership? The answer depends largely on her ability to resist the pressures of partisan politics. One man she will have to deal with is Mr. Mikio Aoki, the most influential LDP member of the Upper House, who reportedly played a key role in her election as president. Mr. Aoki, formerly the secretary-general of the LDP caucus in the Upper House, has been promoted to chairman.

Perhaps the biggest challenge for Mr. Ogi is to remain independent from her former party. Her performance as Upper House president will hinge on whether she can stay clear of Mr. Aoki's formidable influence.

The Japan Times Weekly
Aug. 14, 2004
(C) All rights reserved

      衆院が「数の政治」を代表するとすれば、参院は「良識の政治」を象徴するとされる。参院は衆院を「補完し抑制する」立場にあり、解散総選挙に無縁であることから、長期的視点を持つべきといわれる。

      しかし現実はそうなっていない。参院では衆院同様に、党利党略の政治が行われている。また、これまでの参院議長はいろいろな不祥事や疑惑に関与してきた。

      参院議長は立場上中立性を守らなければならないが、倉田寛之前議長は先の通常国会で野党欠席のまま、自民党による年金改革法案の強行採決を許した。倉田氏はまた、関係のある銀行から巨額の情実融資を受けた上、所得・資産隠しをしていたという疑惑がある。

      倉田氏の前任者、井上裕氏は、元秘書が公共事業をめぐる不祥事に関与、議員辞職した。01年には議長の有力候補だった村上正邦議員が収賄容疑で逮捕された。

      参院議長には高潔な人物というよりも、単に与党に都合がよい人物が選任されてきたようだ。

      参院には多くの課題がある。まず、1票の重さの問題だ。01年の選挙では、鳥取県の1票は東京の5.06票と等価だった。7月の選挙では格差は1対5.16に拡大した。

      01年選挙の投票格差について、最高裁の15人の判事のうち6人は違憲と判断した。合憲と判断した9人のうち4人は、次回選挙までに格差が是正されなければ違憲となる可能性があると判断した。

      扇氏が強い指導力を発揮するには、党利党略政治に負けないことだ。そのためには新議長選任に力のあった青木参院議員会長との関係が問題になる。青木氏の強力な影響を避けられるか否かで扇氏の力量が問われる。