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.