Bills aimed at creating a stir
(From The Japan Times June 6 issue)

エベレスト最高齢登頂に思う

    The submission of the bills is odd because, at this moment, there are no concrete discussions to revise the Constitution, although the LDP last year disclosed a draft constitutional revision calling for changes to the war-renouncing Article 9 to allow creation of full-fledged armed forces.

    A constitutional revision should be pursued only when a strong voice and enthusiasm exist for it among the public. Discussing procedures for changing the Constitution in the absence of either public demand or a widely discussed proposal for a concrete revision runs counter to reason.

    Since the Diet session ends June 18, the coalition politicians admit that enacting a referendum procedure bill into a law will be difficult.

    The two bills have a history leading up to their submission. The LDP, New Komeito and the DPJ had been talking about jointly submitting such a bill to the Diet. But the situation changed after Mr. Ichiro Ozawa was elected president of the DPJ in April. He abandoned the approach of his predecessor, Mr. Seiji Maehara, in favor of one that took a more confrontational stance toward Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's government and the governing coalition.

    As a result, the DPJ came to oppose the idea of jointly submitting a bill. The coalition submitted its bill first. Then, in reaction, the DPJ followed with its bill.

    Because of the DPJ's opposition to a joint submission, it was expected at one point that the coalition would not submit a bill at all. There is a force within the coalition that believes that it should be careful about acting alone. This is because it is feared that the forceful enactment of a bill might alienate the DPJ to the extent of complicating future discussions on a concrete constitutional revision proposal.

    So the question remains as to why the coalition has decided to submit a bill. A strong possibility is that it hoped that Diet discussions on the bill would help reduce the "allergy" or indifference among the public to a constitutional revision, the most contentious being a change in Article 9. Many people regard the article, as it exists now, as a major obstacle to Japan's greater military role, including participation in collective defense.

    Article 96 of the Constitution stipulates that amendments to the Constitution must be initiated by the Diet through a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each chamber, and that ratification requires a majority affirmative vote in a referendum.

    There are several differences between the governing coalition's bill and the DPJ's. Under the coalition bill, the referendum would be solely for amending the Constitution while the DPJ bill would allow referendums on major state issues. The governing block wants the voting age to be at least 20 while the DPJ favors a minimum age of 18.

    Constitutional revision would be easier under the coalition bill than under the DPJ's, since the former wants a blank vote to be treated as null and void while the latter views a blank vote as tantamount to opposing revision.

    Originally, the governing coalition had called for including a clause that would restrict media reporting on a constitutional revision referendum. At first, it wanted to prohibit "false" reports or predictions on the results of the referendum, among other things. It softened that position later, calling for "consideration" on the part of the media to prevent reports from "unjustly" affecting a referendum result.

    Still, in the face of strong criticism from the public, media and opposition parties, it ended up dropping restrictions on media reporting altogether.

    The coalition's bill calls for establishing a body of selected lawmakers to publicize a constitutional revision proposal initiated by the Diet. But it does not include a mechanism to guarantee that the pros and cons of revision will be equitably explained in the body's gazette.

Given the Diet's schedule, the planned election of a new LDP president in September, and an Upper House election in the summer of 2007, politicians are unlikely to seriously discuss the bills. Therefore, it is not far-fetched to suggest that the governing coalition has submitted its bill as a way of artificially creating momentum for a constitutional revision at a time when there are no concrete discussions for one.

The Japan Times Weekly: June 10, 2006
(C) All rights reserved

    自民党は昨年、正式な軍隊創設のために、戦争を放棄する9条の改正を含む憲法草案を提案したが、 改憲に関する具体的論議が行われていない今、問題の法案が提出されたのは不可解である。

    18日に閉会する今国会で問題の法案を成立させるのは難しい。与党と民主党は一時、国民投票法案の共同提出を模索していたが、4月に小沢一郎氏が民主党代表に就任して以来、政府与党に対し対決姿勢を強め、状況が一変した。そのため、与野党は別々に国民投票法案を提出した。

    与党は一時、法案単独提出、採決について、改憲に関する将来の与野党協議を難しくするとして、見送る方向へ動いていた。それでも与党が法案を提出したのは、国会審議が国民の改憲アレルギーを解消することに期待したからではないか。

    現行法の9条が、日本の軍事力増強、集団防衛参加の妨げになっているという見方は根強い。

    憲法96条は、改憲には衆参両院の3分の2以上の賛成で国会が発議し、国民投票で過半数の賛成を必要とすると規定している。

    与党案は当初、国民投票に関する虚偽の情報の流布、投票結果の予想などを制限する報道規制条項を含んでいたが、国民、メディア、野党などの強い批判で条項は削除された。

    また、与党案では、改憲案発議の際に広報機関の国会内での設立を求めているが、改憲の賛否について広報誌に平等に掲載することを保証する仕組みがない。

    今国会の予定に加え、9月には自民党総裁選、07年夏には参院選が予定されており、今、問題の法案について真剣な議論は行うのは難しい。与党が国民投票法案を提出したのは、改憲の動きを推進するのが目的と思われても仕方がない。