Toward a two-party system
(From The Japan Times August 13 issue)

2大政党制の行方

    Even a failure to win a clear majority would not necessarily doom the DPJ. If it secures a large enough plurality to allow it to take power in alliance with a smaller party, that would also mark the beginning of a two-party system in Japan. The split in the LDP that has resulted from intraparty struggles over the postal service privatization bills will most likely weaken the party in the election. But the damage is not sufficient to deal a fatal blow. It seems certain that the LDP will be strong enough to assume power in coalition with New Komeito.

    All this indicates that the Sept. 11 election could create a situation in which two parties or two alliances of parties are almost equally matched in strength. In this sense, the coming election could lay the groundwork for a solid two-party system. Japanese voters have good reasons for such expectations. Japan's representative democracy has come a long way since women were enfranchised in 1945, but a functioning two-party system has yet to emerge.

    The postwar Constitution laid the legal groundwork for the democratic development of the political system. Electoral zoning has played a large role in shaping the political landscape. A large-constituency system was used only once, in the 1946 Lower House election. The prewar system of medium-size districts, with three to five seats each, was reinstated in the 1947 election and remained in use for nearly half a century until the 1996 election, in which the current single-seat district/proportional representation formula was introduced.

    The medium-seat constituency system worked largely to the advantage of major parties. The so-called 1955 regime, which polarized the political world between the LDP and the Japan Socialist Party from 1955 to 1993, would not have developed without midsize districts, which favored the two largest parties.

    The LDP-JSP setup represented a "one-and-a-half party system," not a two-party system, because the LDP monopolized power all those years, with the JSP in permanent opposition. The LDP's one-party rule ended in 1993 when its internal rivalries and subsequent split prompted the reform-minded Mr. Morihiro Hosokawa to establish a non-LDP coalition government.

    The Hosokawa administration, however, collapsed in less than a year. The LDP returned to power by assembling a new coalition that included, surprisingly, members from the defunct JSP. The LDP has thus remained in power for half a century since 1955, except for a brief period in the 1990s.

    The LDP's continued reign has created a certain political stability. But its monopoly on power has also spawned political stagnation, rigidity and corruption. The absence of a two-party system, one in which power alternates between two major parties, is symbolic of the negative legacies of postwar politics that have sapped flexibility from the international diplomacy and deterred efforts for structural reform.

    The silver lining is that a two-party era (not system) has dawned between the LDP and the DPJ, the largest opposition party, thanks to the three Lower House elections held since 1996 under the single-seat/proportional representation system. Unlike the rigid 1955 regime, the LDP-DPJ rivalry holds promise of developing into a two-party system.

    In fact, the DPJ has increased its presence as a party with the potential to take the helm. Some Liberal Democrats had taken this development seriously, saying: "If Prime Minister Koizumi dissolves the Lower House and calls a snap general election, the political world would be thrown into great confusion, and the LDP would be reduced to an opposition party."

    Their fearful prediction is fast becoming a reality. Certainly, a government change is bound to create some political tension. A power transfer can cause temporary confusion. But government without a real change of power can lose political transparency and become plagued by corruption. Only a full-fledged two-party system can assure a sound and mature democracy.

The Japan Times Weekly
August 20, 2005
(C) All rights reserved

      　自民党分裂の動きで、民主党が漁夫の利を占め、政権の座につく可能性もある。民主党が過半数を獲得できない場合も、他野党と連立政権を樹立すれば2大政党制への第一歩になるだろう。

      　一方、郵政改革法案をめぐる自民党内の分裂のため選挙で同党への支持が低下しても、自公連立は政権の座を維持する可能性が高い。2つの政党、または連立政党の力は、まさに拮抗しているのだ。

      　終戦直後の1946年の総選挙では大選挙区制が採用されたが、1947年以降は中選挙区制（定員3〜5名）が導入され、1996年に現在の小選挙区・比例代表並立制に代わった。

      　中選挙区制では大政党が有利だった。自民党、社会党が対立したいわゆる「55年体制」は、中選挙区制の産物だった。この体制では、自民党が政権を独占し、社会党は万年野党だった。

      　1993年、細川護熙首相の率いる非自民連立政権が誕生、自民党の1党支配の時代は終わった。だが細川政権は1年ももたず、自民党は旧社会党などと連立し政権の座に復帰した。自民党が政権の座を独占してきたことは政治的安定の要因になったが、政治的停滞、硬直化、腐敗を生んだ。

      　1996年以来3回行われた小選挙区・比例代表並立制選挙のおかげで2大政党時代が現実味を帯びてきた。民主党は政権担当の可能性を秘めた野党として存在感を増している。

      　自民党内では、小泉首相が解散総選挙に踏み切ったことで、政治的混乱が起き、自民党は野党に転落する恐れがあるという声が聞かれた。

      　たしかに政権交代は政治的緊張、一時的混乱の原因になるが、それがなければ政府は透明性を失い、腐敗の温床になる。本格的2大政党制のみが、健全で成熟した民主主義の基本になる。