What are the prospects for political reform in Japan?
One party, The LDP has dominated Japan since 1955. This statement would normally allow us to assume that there is much continuity in the policies and reforms pursued in Japan. What significance does this have to the prospects of political reform?
The LDP is seen as a scattered party, wherein a leader exists, but it is not guaranteed that this leader has the support of all the factions within the party. As the party gains victory, the leader naturally becomes Prime Minister. As the proposed policies and reforms go against the likings of most of the members, the Prime Minister loses support from the party. The system is somewhat fallible as we do not know what to expect, the Prime Minister cannot pursue reforms without thorough consultation and then reaching a consensus. Support is very important, because from what we have all witnessed lack in support from both the party members and other government officials lead to the resignation of the Prime Minister.
Same theme of reforms, different methods... I believe that one factor to reckon with is the character of the respective leaders…There seems to be a trend wherein the reforms depend on the likes and dislikes of the leaders. Although most focused on fiscal reforms, difference lies in the implementation and the types of reforms. Koizumi was radical enough to propose reformist fiscal policies involving budget caps which reduced the public works and social welfare budgets during his term. His policies were resumed by PM Abe and PM Fukuda. Together with this, Abe, who used to work in diplomatic relations also focused on improving the image of Japan and repairing damaged diplomatic relations with China and Korea. The strengthening of relations with the United States was also focused on. Helping the US did not pave well for Shinzo Abe, Japanese SDF actions were perceived as violations of Article 9 and this led to much decline in the support for Abe’s administration. Today Taro Aso wants to break away from the fiscal reforms Koizumi started, and instead follow basic fiscal policies which call for the drafting of more stimulus packages. Taking a look on the lighter side of things, back when Taro Aso a self-proclaimed Otaku, was the Foreign Minister, he established the International Manga Award for non-Japanese Artists.
Whereas every politician who runs for election promises a better and reformed government, the Democratic Party of Japan offered something else. A silver lining can be seen through the personhood of Ichiro Ozawa, former LDP member and currently the head of the Democratic Party of Japan. He offered a 4 point plan to break the power of the country’s bureaucracy. The plan was to start with fixing Japanese politics. Ozawa proposed that Japan indeed needed “proper politics” and there were three pledges and seven proposals that should be met in order to have this.
Pledge 1: To issue “pension passbooks” to ensure pensions do not “vanish.”The state will take it upon itself to pay in full the benefits due.
Pledge 2: To create a society where families can feel secure in childrearing.The state will issue a per capita child allowance of 26,000 yen per month.
Pledge 3: To revive the regions through a dynamic agricultural industry.The state will adopt an “individual (household) income support system” for agriculture.
Proposal 1: Protect jobs and rectify disparities.
Proposal 2: Rectify the shortage of doctors and create healthcare that inspires peace of mind.
Proposal 3: Eliminate all administrative waste.
Proposal 4: Create a “decentralized nation” where regional affairs are decided by the regions.
Proposal 5: Reinvigorate the Japanese economy by revitalizing SMEs.
Proposal 6: Lead the world in global environmental protection.
Proposal 7: Build proactive foreign relations.
The reforms he stipulated were very much specific and it is directed more towards the welfare of the people...
I believe that the path of political reform in Japan is very unpredictable. I believe it is quite ironic how the LDP has remained in power for so long and yet Japanese politics has been very unstable over the past few years. This said instability strongly affects the policy making and the reforms pursued by the Prime Ministers. Although we can say that there is much possibility of political reform to be established, as long as the LDP stays in power, Japan will not be experiencing much change in the political arena. Japan needs to witness the rule of a new party, because even if the LDP continues to pick Japan from the economic slump they are in, fact still remains that the LDP has been weak in keeping political stability. The LDP as party should first change its ways before it can change Japan and bring back the greatness it once had. The Japanese people will be the judge if they are indeed willing to accept change, or if they want to continue and live under the leadership of the LDP.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
LDP: Lost Democratic Power…?
Liberal Democratic Party: one-party dominance in a democratic nation state
It is no secret to most of us that Japanese politics can be characterized by single party dominance. The LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) has been in power since 1955, this rule has been interrupted abruptly in 1993, but the ever strong LDP was able to bounce back immediately in 1994. Up to this day, political trends show the continuing dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party in Japanese politics. Analyzing, and explaining the success of the LDP to some extent depend on “opposition failure” factors. In other words, what doesn’t work for the DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan), allows the LDP to stay in power. What follows, are some arguments which support the case of the LDP as a party that has dominated Japan for more than 5 decades.
Democracy is defined as…
government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy)
If we look at the case of the Japanese it is quite fit to categorize their brand of democracy as uncommon and to go even further, somewhat unique. Unique in the sense that one party has remained in power and the opposition has been failing in their attempts to gain power in Japanese politics. The point of democracy for me, to a certain level involves competition and homogeneity of position holders. Ethan Schneir in his talk Democracy without Competition in Japan highlighted the peculiarity of the situation of Japanese politics, there is no contention as to the experience and prestige of the LDP, but the unsettling factor presented was the growing unpopularity of the LDP as a party. It is a common analogy that in a democracy, the leading party is also the most popular in terms of appeal towards the people and votes. In Japan, the ruling party is becoming increasingly unpopular and yet it manages to stay in power. Without reading much scholarly materials, one can jump at the conclusion that the answer to this hard question is that the Japanese are just SATISFIED. It can be that plain and simple. As a people they are trained not to stick out against norms and instead, as much as possible just go with the flow.
The opinion preceding this statement obviously does not take into account the electoral system wherein 2 ballots are cast, one is utilized to vote for a party and the other for individual representatives. Statistics show that the LDP as a party does not do well in party elections, but has remained strong in individual candidate elections. The LDP has been hated as a party due to the economic collapse, corruption, and other controversies but fact still remains that after all these years, the LDP has remained to be the most established party in Japan and endorses the most experienced, qualified, and connected candidates. The individual candidates of the LDP can be considered as the bread and butter of the party. Experience in sub-national areas is important people, wouldn’t want to elect novices and inexperienced politicians to champion for their benefits and needs. People would favor incumbents who have been tested through time. LDP candidates vary from successors from prominent political families, and former local office holders. The LDP has been around for so long that opposition parties find it hard to recruit sub-national leaders simply because most candidates come from a long line of loyal members of the LDP.
The strong connection of sub-national candidates with those in power nationally also plays an important role in the decision making of the people. During elections, it is not the most pressing of issues that are tackled, but instead the Japanese are more interested in candidates that can provide a bigger percentage of the benefits given to them. This tendency is called being “clientelistic”, in connection with this is centralization of finances wherein the central government provides most of the funds in local/regional expenditures. This picture then creates a notion that sub-national leaders form alliances with the ruling national party in order to gain support. The pipeline analogy used by Ethan Schneir best describes the logic behind the longetivity of LDP’s rule, he quoted from a member of the Japanese opposition, Most if not all LDP local politicians, go to national politicians for help/support, and these national politicians then attempt to rally proposition in favor of the sub-national leaders to the central government, and this establishes a notion that supporting the rightfully connected candidate allows one to call for better privileges and benefits.
The pipeline analogy offers a way for the opposition to gain power, but it is not a surefire way. Getting the votes of the most autonomous regions is not enough for the DPJ or any other opposition party to topple down an institution like the LDP. The best way to disrupt this one party dominance is to spur change beginning at the national level and then slowly seep through the regional and sub-national levels. It is of course easier said than done, in 2005 political analysts did not expect the sudden rise of votes for the LDP wherein votes from both rural and urban areas favored them. Japan, is not impermeable to changes in the government, but it should be known to many of us today that the long established Liberal Democratic Party shall continue to hold political power in Japan mainly because people have become increasingly apathetic towards their voting rights, and the clientelistic explanation would always point to the tendency of the Japanese to overlook pressing issues and rather rally for the monetary/economic benefits that they can achieve.
It is no secret to most of us that Japanese politics can be characterized by single party dominance. The LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) has been in power since 1955, this rule has been interrupted abruptly in 1993, but the ever strong LDP was able to bounce back immediately in 1994. Up to this day, political trends show the continuing dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party in Japanese politics. Analyzing, and explaining the success of the LDP to some extent depend on “opposition failure” factors. In other words, what doesn’t work for the DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan), allows the LDP to stay in power. What follows, are some arguments which support the case of the LDP as a party that has dominated Japan for more than 5 decades.
Democracy is defined as…
government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy)
If we look at the case of the Japanese it is quite fit to categorize their brand of democracy as uncommon and to go even further, somewhat unique. Unique in the sense that one party has remained in power and the opposition has been failing in their attempts to gain power in Japanese politics. The point of democracy for me, to a certain level involves competition and homogeneity of position holders. Ethan Schneir in his talk Democracy without Competition in Japan highlighted the peculiarity of the situation of Japanese politics, there is no contention as to the experience and prestige of the LDP, but the unsettling factor presented was the growing unpopularity of the LDP as a party. It is a common analogy that in a democracy, the leading party is also the most popular in terms of appeal towards the people and votes. In Japan, the ruling party is becoming increasingly unpopular and yet it manages to stay in power. Without reading much scholarly materials, one can jump at the conclusion that the answer to this hard question is that the Japanese are just SATISFIED. It can be that plain and simple. As a people they are trained not to stick out against norms and instead, as much as possible just go with the flow.
The opinion preceding this statement obviously does not take into account the electoral system wherein 2 ballots are cast, one is utilized to vote for a party and the other for individual representatives. Statistics show that the LDP as a party does not do well in party elections, but has remained strong in individual candidate elections. The LDP has been hated as a party due to the economic collapse, corruption, and other controversies but fact still remains that after all these years, the LDP has remained to be the most established party in Japan and endorses the most experienced, qualified, and connected candidates. The individual candidates of the LDP can be considered as the bread and butter of the party. Experience in sub-national areas is important people, wouldn’t want to elect novices and inexperienced politicians to champion for their benefits and needs. People would favor incumbents who have been tested through time. LDP candidates vary from successors from prominent political families, and former local office holders. The LDP has been around for so long that opposition parties find it hard to recruit sub-national leaders simply because most candidates come from a long line of loyal members of the LDP.
The strong connection of sub-national candidates with those in power nationally also plays an important role in the decision making of the people. During elections, it is not the most pressing of issues that are tackled, but instead the Japanese are more interested in candidates that can provide a bigger percentage of the benefits given to them. This tendency is called being “clientelistic”, in connection with this is centralization of finances wherein the central government provides most of the funds in local/regional expenditures. This picture then creates a notion that sub-national leaders form alliances with the ruling national party in order to gain support. The pipeline analogy used by Ethan Schneir best describes the logic behind the longetivity of LDP’s rule, he quoted from a member of the Japanese opposition, Most if not all LDP local politicians, go to national politicians for help/support, and these national politicians then attempt to rally proposition in favor of the sub-national leaders to the central government, and this establishes a notion that supporting the rightfully connected candidate allows one to call for better privileges and benefits.
The pipeline analogy offers a way for the opposition to gain power, but it is not a surefire way. Getting the votes of the most autonomous regions is not enough for the DPJ or any other opposition party to topple down an institution like the LDP. The best way to disrupt this one party dominance is to spur change beginning at the national level and then slowly seep through the regional and sub-national levels. It is of course easier said than done, in 2005 political analysts did not expect the sudden rise of votes for the LDP wherein votes from both rural and urban areas favored them. Japan, is not impermeable to changes in the government, but it should be known to many of us today that the long established Liberal Democratic Party shall continue to hold political power in Japan mainly because people have become increasingly apathetic towards their voting rights, and the clientelistic explanation would always point to the tendency of the Japanese to overlook pressing issues and rather rally for the monetary/economic benefits that they can achieve.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
One can only understand life backwards, but must remember to live it forward…
Revising a constitution imposed by foreigners
The Peace Constitution was drafted in accordance to the Potsdam declaration which aims for Japan to surrender and after doing so the Allied forces led by General Douglas MacArthur will occupy Japan in order to achieve a peaceful government, and an effective democratic system among other things such as attainment of freedom of speech and religion, and respect for human rights. Although the constitution was drafted mainly by American lawyers they held with much regard the laws under the Meiji Constitution. Although there were talks about amendments as early as the occupation ended, generally speaking, the Japanese received the Peace Constitution and all the laws under it, with open arms.
During the 60s and 70s topics on changes in the constitution was considered taboo. Open discussion of the topic began when the Yomiuri Shimbun published an article that provided suggestions for revising the constitution. Ever since the 1990s different Japanese sectors have tried to revise the 1947 Peace Constitution. Despite this fact, the Constitution has never been amended since its enactment in 1947. According to article 96 of the constitution, any part of the constitution is open to amendment. However, the process of amendment is a very gruesome one, a proposed amendment should first be approved by both houses of the Diet, more impoartantly it must be supported by at least two-thirds of each house which is considered a super majority. Then it must be submitted to a referendum in which it is sufficient for it to be endorsed by a simple majority of votes cast. A successful amendment will then be promulgated by the Emperor, but as part of the limitations of the monarch’s power, he cannot veto an amendment. This I believe is one of the main reasons as to why the 1947 constitution has remained untouched despite of several attempts to revise it. Of course there are other contentions, Japanese legislators and as a whole nation are not under occupation anymore and they have the right to approve amendments to their constitution. The million dollar question is, why haven’t they when they have the liberty to do so? I think that there are two possible explanations, one internal and the other external.
Will history repeat itself?
The Peace Constitution has instated the pacifist nature of Japanese policies. The most controversial article of which is Article 9 stipulates that “Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes". The article also provides that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained". At first glance, without any knowledge about the atrocities of Japan during the war this article seems insane and drastic. How can a country obtain and retain power without a military force? The Japanese army were known for their kamikaze fighters, mainly because members of this special unit were ready to die for their country. One might think that other nations also have the same quality of soldiers because it goes without saying that being a soldier calls for a person to surrender one’s life for the country. But the kamikaze are definitely extraordinary, after they have dropped the bombs, they transform themselves and thei own planes into bombs and crash them. Movies have been made in honor of the kamikaze and although there have been criticisms the director defended the movie “I go to die for you” saying that it does not glorfiy the war and the atrocities, but just the individual fighters. The kamikaze is an example of how fierce the Japanese military were before they resorted to pacifism. Most talks about constitutional amendments revolve around article 9.
One can say that, the actions of the Japanese in the past (does World War II ring a bell?) is now irrelevant to the present and future generations, but weren’t these atrocities and violence the main reason why Japan is experiencing peace up until today, and didn’t these actions help mold the Japanese today? Well that is what Makota Oda, a member of the Article 9 association, claims. The Article 9 Association is a group that advocates the law in Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Oda also stated in an interview that if the Constitution will be revised, it could mean the end for the Japanese people. Putting aside the passion that he vested on his statement, I thought of the weight of what he said. Could having a standing military force really hurt Japan? The answer to that question will depend on who is being asked. The advocates of Article 9 worry that if Japan reinstates her military, then the people can kiss peace goodbye, but is that necessarily the case?
Amongst the youth of Japan today, the idea of having a military force has become increasingly appealing for them. For example Takuma Matsu joined the Special Defense Force right after graduating from high school. Groups of women go on trips to the SDF camps to observe and after being exposed to the camps they suddenly have a change of heart. They now develop the idea that there isn't anything wrong with having a standing army.
Is Japan afraid of its neighbors?
The Japanese war atrocities have been banished out from the history books that are being used by the students of Japan today. So I asked about the essence of such actions, year after year history books are revised and year after year China and South Korea complains about it. Of course there are other victims, but geographical locations and historical accounts show that China and S. Korea were their biggest victims. In a special segment of 101 East on the renewed strength of the Japanese military force as compared to the military of China. Indeed Japan's militray power can still surpass other countries, but the Japanese are probably worried that the countries that they have done wrong against in the past will take their revenge sooner or later. Threats to terrorism also gives the Japanese a legitimate reason to revise Article 9 and instead of just having an SDF they can have their own military since contemporary situations call for it.
There are many factors as to why the Japanese legislators find it really hard to amend the stipulations in their constitution. Aside from the Article 9 argument, which calls for historical, social and security considerations, in general the political parties (led by the LDP) in the government still cannot reach a consensus on approving amendments to their constitution. I think that this is because they are afraid of losing popularity amongst their constituents or they just simply have their own convictions about what should and shouldn't be done.
The Peace Constitution was drafted in accordance to the Potsdam declaration which aims for Japan to surrender and after doing so the Allied forces led by General Douglas MacArthur will occupy Japan in order to achieve a peaceful government, and an effective democratic system among other things such as attainment of freedom of speech and religion, and respect for human rights. Although the constitution was drafted mainly by American lawyers they held with much regard the laws under the Meiji Constitution. Although there were talks about amendments as early as the occupation ended, generally speaking, the Japanese received the Peace Constitution and all the laws under it, with open arms.
During the 60s and 70s topics on changes in the constitution was considered taboo. Open discussion of the topic began when the Yomiuri Shimbun published an article that provided suggestions for revising the constitution. Ever since the 1990s different Japanese sectors have tried to revise the 1947 Peace Constitution. Despite this fact, the Constitution has never been amended since its enactment in 1947. According to article 96 of the constitution, any part of the constitution is open to amendment. However, the process of amendment is a very gruesome one, a proposed amendment should first be approved by both houses of the Diet, more impoartantly it must be supported by at least two-thirds of each house which is considered a super majority. Then it must be submitted to a referendum in which it is sufficient for it to be endorsed by a simple majority of votes cast. A successful amendment will then be promulgated by the Emperor, but as part of the limitations of the monarch’s power, he cannot veto an amendment. This I believe is one of the main reasons as to why the 1947 constitution has remained untouched despite of several attempts to revise it. Of course there are other contentions, Japanese legislators and as a whole nation are not under occupation anymore and they have the right to approve amendments to their constitution. The million dollar question is, why haven’t they when they have the liberty to do so? I think that there are two possible explanations, one internal and the other external.
Will history repeat itself?
The Peace Constitution has instated the pacifist nature of Japanese policies. The most controversial article of which is Article 9 stipulates that “Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes". The article also provides that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained". At first glance, without any knowledge about the atrocities of Japan during the war this article seems insane and drastic. How can a country obtain and retain power without a military force? The Japanese army were known for their kamikaze fighters, mainly because members of this special unit were ready to die for their country. One might think that other nations also have the same quality of soldiers because it goes without saying that being a soldier calls for a person to surrender one’s life for the country. But the kamikaze are definitely extraordinary, after they have dropped the bombs, they transform themselves and thei own planes into bombs and crash them. Movies have been made in honor of the kamikaze and although there have been criticisms the director defended the movie “I go to die for you” saying that it does not glorfiy the war and the atrocities, but just the individual fighters. The kamikaze is an example of how fierce the Japanese military were before they resorted to pacifism. Most talks about constitutional amendments revolve around article 9.
One can say that, the actions of the Japanese in the past (does World War II ring a bell?) is now irrelevant to the present and future generations, but weren’t these atrocities and violence the main reason why Japan is experiencing peace up until today, and didn’t these actions help mold the Japanese today? Well that is what Makota Oda, a member of the Article 9 association, claims. The Article 9 Association is a group that advocates the law in Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Oda also stated in an interview that if the Constitution will be revised, it could mean the end for the Japanese people. Putting aside the passion that he vested on his statement, I thought of the weight of what he said. Could having a standing military force really hurt Japan? The answer to that question will depend on who is being asked. The advocates of Article 9 worry that if Japan reinstates her military, then the people can kiss peace goodbye, but is that necessarily the case?
Amongst the youth of Japan today, the idea of having a military force has become increasingly appealing for them. For example Takuma Matsu joined the Special Defense Force right after graduating from high school. Groups of women go on trips to the SDF camps to observe and after being exposed to the camps they suddenly have a change of heart. They now develop the idea that there isn't anything wrong with having a standing army.
Is Japan afraid of its neighbors?
The Japanese war atrocities have been banished out from the history books that are being used by the students of Japan today. So I asked about the essence of such actions, year after year history books are revised and year after year China and South Korea complains about it. Of course there are other victims, but geographical locations and historical accounts show that China and S. Korea were their biggest victims. In a special segment of 101 East on the renewed strength of the Japanese military force as compared to the military of China. Indeed Japan's militray power can still surpass other countries, but the Japanese are probably worried that the countries that they have done wrong against in the past will take their revenge sooner or later. Threats to terrorism also gives the Japanese a legitimate reason to revise Article 9 and instead of just having an SDF they can have their own military since contemporary situations call for it.
There are many factors as to why the Japanese legislators find it really hard to amend the stipulations in their constitution. Aside from the Article 9 argument, which calls for historical, social and security considerations, in general the political parties (led by the LDP) in the government still cannot reach a consensus on approving amendments to their constitution. I think that this is because they are afraid of losing popularity amongst their constituents or they just simply have their own convictions about what should and shouldn't be done.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Is there really a relationship between movies and politics?
Rashomon and Japanese politics
As I was watching the trailer of Rashomon, I was wondering why the images and the plot itself were familiar to me. Then I realized that Rashomon was inspired by the short story (“In a Grove” written by Ryunosuke Akutagawa) we read and analyzed once in my literature class. Looking back during that class, my initial thought was that the story was very Japanese in nature. The characters had this tendency to beat around the bush, and the confessions of the people involved were designed to protect their honor. At the end of my literature class we were made to ponder about the real killer of Kanazawa no Takehiko. I tried to read the story a few more times and still as a whole the testimonies do not make any sense. Looking at the testimonies individually was a different matter though, and each story points to a different suspect and gives us different clear views/perceptions as to what has really happened.
Thinking about how Rashomon is connected to Japanese politics is somewhat a Herculean task if only because at first glance there seems to be no connection at all. I skimmed through the syllabus again as if to look for an answer, and then suddenly the fact that we wouldn’t be asked irrelevant questions dawned on me. I realized that it isn’t exactly about the story and its characters, but the plot as a whole. Japanese politics is similar to Rashomon because of the different angles we can look from in order to understand Japanese politics fully.
Looking from various angles
Going back my story about the syllabus, I saw that there were four approaches in our pursuit to study Japanese politics. These four approaches are the Historical Approach, Socio-cultural approach, Institutional Approach, and the Rational Choice Approach. For me, these four approaches represent the different confessions of the witnesses in Rashomon. I believe that each approach provides a different story and a different understanding of the nature of Japanese politics.
Historical Approach
This approach offers a look at how Japanese Politics developed and emerged. Looking at the Historical Perspective helps people understand Japan based on the actual events that transpired throughout their history. Looking at historical data can provide a better look as to how political situations came to be. A hypothetical situation would be the low number of imports during the present day and Japan's isolationist policy during the Tokugawa period can be considered to have a cause-effect relationship.
(Example of work: Japanese Political History since the Meiji Renovation, 1868-2000 By Richard Sims)
Socio-cultural Approach
This approach is very useful in the sense that people interested in studying Japanese Politics can look at how the character of the Japanese people affects their decision-making and political structure. More importantly, it is essential to know how the Japanese think and feel about certain things such as their views on peace, structure, and other socio-cultural concepts in order to understand why the Japanese act the way they do now and the implications of these on their political decisions.
(Example of work: Japanese Political Culture by Takeshi Ishida)
Institutional Approach
From the root word, institution, this approach focuses on the structure of specific institutions, in this case political structures. I believe that this approach is useful in order to see how different structures operate and how effective are the policies and decisions that are rooted from the said institution. Sometimes this approach is used to compare two different institutions in order to see the effectiveness and merits of each type of institution, it isn't really a secret that different types of systems garner different types of actions from it leaders and servers...
(check out this book on google books)
(Example of work: Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States by Peter F. Cowhey, Mathew Daniel)
Rational Choice Approach
The final approach, I believe focuses on the leaders people select to be in office. The choices of people are important because this can show the trends as to which party is most favorable to win majority seats during the elections, or what kind of leaders people elect. In the Japanese case, this approach could be useful to know why the people have consistently supported the LDP.
(example of work: Institutions, Incentives and Electoral Participation in Japan by Yusaku Horiuchi)
Say what?!
All these approaches in studying politics are legitimate and quite insightful. The biggest contribution of Rashomon in politics is that it provided the concept that frameworks completely different from one another can be used to analyze political natures, events, and situations. These frameworks need not coincide or cooperate, it does not need to agree either. Each approach has its own merits, and can stand alone as a basis for analysis. Lastly, I believe that as much as possible all these approaches should really be used to study Japanese politics so that our knowledge on the subject matter wouldn't be enclosed into just one type of analysis.
The utilization and digestion of the knowledge we are about to gain in looking from various lenses is up to us, we should not have any biases but instead we should keep our minds open to the different approaches Japanese Politics will be presented to us...
As I was watching the trailer of Rashomon, I was wondering why the images and the plot itself were familiar to me. Then I realized that Rashomon was inspired by the short story (“In a Grove” written by Ryunosuke Akutagawa) we read and analyzed once in my literature class. Looking back during that class, my initial thought was that the story was very Japanese in nature. The characters had this tendency to beat around the bush, and the confessions of the people involved were designed to protect their honor. At the end of my literature class we were made to ponder about the real killer of Kanazawa no Takehiko. I tried to read the story a few more times and still as a whole the testimonies do not make any sense. Looking at the testimonies individually was a different matter though, and each story points to a different suspect and gives us different clear views/perceptions as to what has really happened.
Thinking about how Rashomon is connected to Japanese politics is somewhat a Herculean task if only because at first glance there seems to be no connection at all. I skimmed through the syllabus again as if to look for an answer, and then suddenly the fact that we wouldn’t be asked irrelevant questions dawned on me. I realized that it isn’t exactly about the story and its characters, but the plot as a whole. Japanese politics is similar to Rashomon because of the different angles we can look from in order to understand Japanese politics fully.
Looking from various angles
Going back my story about the syllabus, I saw that there were four approaches in our pursuit to study Japanese politics. These four approaches are the Historical Approach, Socio-cultural approach, Institutional Approach, and the Rational Choice Approach. For me, these four approaches represent the different confessions of the witnesses in Rashomon. I believe that each approach provides a different story and a different understanding of the nature of Japanese politics.
Historical Approach
This approach offers a look at how Japanese Politics developed and emerged. Looking at the Historical Perspective helps people understand Japan based on the actual events that transpired throughout their history. Looking at historical data can provide a better look as to how political situations came to be. A hypothetical situation would be the low number of imports during the present day and Japan's isolationist policy during the Tokugawa period can be considered to have a cause-effect relationship.
(Example of work: Japanese Political History since the Meiji Renovation, 1868-2000 By Richard Sims)
Socio-cultural Approach
This approach is very useful in the sense that people interested in studying Japanese Politics can look at how the character of the Japanese people affects their decision-making and political structure. More importantly, it is essential to know how the Japanese think and feel about certain things such as their views on peace, structure, and other socio-cultural concepts in order to understand why the Japanese act the way they do now and the implications of these on their political decisions.
(Example of work: Japanese Political Culture by Takeshi Ishida)
Institutional Approach
From the root word, institution, this approach focuses on the structure of specific institutions, in this case political structures. I believe that this approach is useful in order to see how different structures operate and how effective are the policies and decisions that are rooted from the said institution. Sometimes this approach is used to compare two different institutions in order to see the effectiveness and merits of each type of institution, it isn't really a secret that different types of systems garner different types of actions from it leaders and servers...
(check out this book on google books)
(Example of work: Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States by Peter F. Cowhey, Mathew Daniel)
Rational Choice Approach
The final approach, I believe focuses on the leaders people select to be in office. The choices of people are important because this can show the trends as to which party is most favorable to win majority seats during the elections, or what kind of leaders people elect. In the Japanese case, this approach could be useful to know why the people have consistently supported the LDP.
(example of work: Institutions, Incentives and Electoral Participation in Japan by Yusaku Horiuchi)
Say what?!
All these approaches in studying politics are legitimate and quite insightful. The biggest contribution of Rashomon in politics is that it provided the concept that frameworks completely different from one another can be used to analyze political natures, events, and situations. These frameworks need not coincide or cooperate, it does not need to agree either. Each approach has its own merits, and can stand alone as a basis for analysis. Lastly, I believe that as much as possible all these approaches should really be used to study Japanese politics so that our knowledge on the subject matter wouldn't be enclosed into just one type of analysis.
The utilization and digestion of the knowledge we are about to gain in looking from various lenses is up to us, we should not have any biases but instead we should keep our minds open to the different approaches Japanese Politics will be presented to us...
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Comparing can move mountains
I am better than You, Mine is better than Yours. As individuals, we always strive to become better, and in order to achieve this goal we go through our lives comparing things everyday. When we make choices and decisions we always compare the variables that we are supposed to consider.
Comparing has become routine and natural for us humans, we forget that it is one of the most basic forms of analysis that we use. We use comparisons to find out our preferences, to show our advantages, our weak points, etc. Whether it is in pursuance of praise or answers to the most difficult of problems, comparison is always involved. Thus it is safe to say that, we are living in a world driven by comparisons…
Delving into the realm of comparative politics…
What is comparative politics? From my understanding, it is the comparison of the political systems of countries and also identifying their similarities and differences. I also learned that comparative politics explores processes, and regularities among political systems. The process also involves searching for trends, changes in patterns, and it ultimately aims to provide general propositions that describe and explain such trends.
Some information can only be obtained and analyzed through comparing countries. Based on what I have read and learned, I can say that comparison does not only occur in the outer political structure, but more importantly it involves the comparison between the applications of political systems. Comparison is done to see which system is most effective. It may also be done to strengthen the weaknesses of certain countries, one example that I can think of right now is the application of democratic practices. The Philippines can make a comparative study between democracy in the Philippines and democracy in the United States. This can serve as a learning tool for the government, in order to improve loopholes in the current system.
It is also very useful and important to compare countries, in order for a country to see its political system in a different perspective. As I have mentioned as individuals people will always consider things based on their biases. Countries can gain better perspective by looking at how they can fair with or against other countries.
Studying Japanese politics
The most relevant field of comparative politics that I found for the purpose of this blog is the study of one country which naturally, focuses on a single country or institution. In this type of comparison it is necessary to put the study into a larger comparative framework. Meaning reasons as to why the subject is important and where it fits in a larger context should be specified.
I say this is most relevant because our subject deals with one specific country only which is Japan. Studying the Japanese government can be very useful because we can learn a lot from analyzing its complexities and certain unique aspects. What follows are some facts (the list is not limited to what is written hereafter) that makes studying Japanese politics very meaningful and interesting.
First, Japan is the only country in the world which is still ruled by an emperor. As impressive as this fact sounds, it must be noted that the power of the Emperor is just nominal. Real political power belongs to the Prime Minister and other members of the Diet.
Second, significant fact is the one-party domination in terms of politics in the country. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been in power since 1955, and has experienced minimal resistance. It is interesting to note that this single party dominance is not imposed on the people, but rather it has been embraced by the people willfully.
Third is the structure of Japanese Politics. The framework is called a parliamentary representative democratic monarchy. It consists of an executive branch, legislative branch, political parties, and the judicial branch.
Fourth, is their concept of loyalty and pride when it comes to politics. Over the years there have been resignations in the Prime Minister position due to controversies. For example the resignation of Prime Minister Hosokawa in 1994, the resignation of Prime Minister Hashimoto because of the poor electoral showing by the LDP in those Upper House elections, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's resignation from office in 2007. The Japanese are known for being very self-righteous and yet it is notable that corruption and controversies also exists in their government.
Lastly, it is still very interesting how Japan has become one of the most powerful countries in the world, and yet it has no standing defensive forces. Recently there have been moves to change the constitution and re-establish the Japanese army.
In conlusion, studying Japanese politics does not only spur the interest of its learners and bring about thought provoking concepts, it is also very useful in breaking stereotypical notions (both good and bad) that we all had about Japan and her people.
references used for this entry: (feel free to explore them)
Politics of Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Japan
Comparative Politics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_politics
Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics by Todd Landman: http://books.google.com/books?id=JwO4RMxfHxMC&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1
Governing Japan by James Arthur Ainscow Stockwin: http://books.google.com/books?id=JwO4RMxfHxMC&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1
Japanese Politics and Society Final: http://books.google.com/books?id=JwO4RMxfHxMC&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1
Comparing has become routine and natural for us humans, we forget that it is one of the most basic forms of analysis that we use. We use comparisons to find out our preferences, to show our advantages, our weak points, etc. Whether it is in pursuance of praise or answers to the most difficult of problems, comparison is always involved. Thus it is safe to say that, we are living in a world driven by comparisons…
Delving into the realm of comparative politics…
What is comparative politics? From my understanding, it is the comparison of the political systems of countries and also identifying their similarities and differences. I also learned that comparative politics explores processes, and regularities among political systems. The process also involves searching for trends, changes in patterns, and it ultimately aims to provide general propositions that describe and explain such trends.
Some information can only be obtained and analyzed through comparing countries. Based on what I have read and learned, I can say that comparison does not only occur in the outer political structure, but more importantly it involves the comparison between the applications of political systems. Comparison is done to see which system is most effective. It may also be done to strengthen the weaknesses of certain countries, one example that I can think of right now is the application of democratic practices. The Philippines can make a comparative study between democracy in the Philippines and democracy in the United States. This can serve as a learning tool for the government, in order to improve loopholes in the current system.
It is also very useful and important to compare countries, in order for a country to see its political system in a different perspective. As I have mentioned as individuals people will always consider things based on their biases. Countries can gain better perspective by looking at how they can fair with or against other countries.
Studying Japanese politics
The most relevant field of comparative politics that I found for the purpose of this blog is the study of one country which naturally, focuses on a single country or institution. In this type of comparison it is necessary to put the study into a larger comparative framework. Meaning reasons as to why the subject is important and where it fits in a larger context should be specified.
I say this is most relevant because our subject deals with one specific country only which is Japan. Studying the Japanese government can be very useful because we can learn a lot from analyzing its complexities and certain unique aspects. What follows are some facts (the list is not limited to what is written hereafter) that makes studying Japanese politics very meaningful and interesting.
First, Japan is the only country in the world which is still ruled by an emperor. As impressive as this fact sounds, it must be noted that the power of the Emperor is just nominal. Real political power belongs to the Prime Minister and other members of the Diet.
Second, significant fact is the one-party domination in terms of politics in the country. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been in power since 1955, and has experienced minimal resistance. It is interesting to note that this single party dominance is not imposed on the people, but rather it has been embraced by the people willfully.
Third is the structure of Japanese Politics. The framework is called a parliamentary representative democratic monarchy. It consists of an executive branch, legislative branch, political parties, and the judicial branch.
Fourth, is their concept of loyalty and pride when it comes to politics. Over the years there have been resignations in the Prime Minister position due to controversies. For example the resignation of Prime Minister Hosokawa in 1994, the resignation of Prime Minister Hashimoto because of the poor electoral showing by the LDP in those Upper House elections, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's resignation from office in 2007. The Japanese are known for being very self-righteous and yet it is notable that corruption and controversies also exists in their government.
Lastly, it is still very interesting how Japan has become one of the most powerful countries in the world, and yet it has no standing defensive forces. Recently there have been moves to change the constitution and re-establish the Japanese army.
In conlusion, studying Japanese politics does not only spur the interest of its learners and bring about thought provoking concepts, it is also very useful in breaking stereotypical notions (both good and bad) that we all had about Japan and her people.
references used for this entry: (feel free to explore them)
Politics of Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Japan
Comparative Politics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_politics
Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics by Todd Landman: http://books.google.com/books?id=JwO4RMxfHxMC&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1
Governing Japan by James Arthur Ainscow Stockwin: http://books.google.com/books?id=JwO4RMxfHxMC&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1
Japanese Politics and Society Final: http://books.google.com/books?id=JwO4RMxfHxMC&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)