The Democratic Party of Japan must deepen debate on constitutional reform and present the vision of the state it aims to establish.

In the Diet, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said, “Amid the mountain of pressing issues we face, I don’t think constitutional revision is a top priority on the policy agenda.”

But this rules out neither debate within the party nor Diet deliberations on constitutional revision between the ruling and opposition parties.

The DPJ revived its research panel on the Constitution in May for the first time in four years. Seiji Maehara, who became the chairman of the panel, expressed the intention of putting together recommendations on constitutional revision next spring.

But discussions on the matter have made little headway at the panel. Why? Maehara recently became the chairman of the DPJ Policy Research Committee, leaving it undecided who will succeed him as panel chief. The party needs to establish new leadership for the panel to promote intraparty constitutional debate as soon as possible.

Negative factors caused by the four-year suspension of constitutional debate within the DPJ emerged in various forms after the party took power in September 2009.

Former P.M. Naoto Kan presented his unique theory of governance, saying: “There is no separation of powers in the Constitution. It is wrong to assert that the Diet and the Cabinet are independent from each other. They exist in an integral dimension.”

He virtually denied the independence of the administrative branch and tried to justify the elimination of bureaucrats in making and implementing policy.

As a result of such mistaken politician-led governance, the bureaucratic system could not work sufficiently. This has undeniably hampered efforts to recover and rebuild from the March 11 disaster.

In an earlier DPJ-led administration, the then party secretary general declared a total confrontation with the prosecution in a case involving a political funds scandal. Oddly enough, the then prime minister went as far as to encourage him “to fight on.” Doesn’t this indicate that the DPJ-led administration ignores the basics of governance?

Doubt also remains about the regional sovereignty reform put forth by the DPJ governments. It is ambiguous in terms of what is meant by “sovereignty” in the first place. Does it envision going as far as a “federal system” that would transfer state sovereign powers, excluding those related to diplomacy and security, to local governments?

Security issues related to the Constitution are also important. However, the DPJ is widely divided over the advisability of exercising the right to collective self-defense and the use of arms by Self-Defence Forces personnel when they take part in U.N. peacekeeping operations.

To help rebuild government diplomatic and security policies, it is indispensable for the party to conduct debate on these issues from a constitutional viewpoint.

The DPJ was also reluctant to hold Diet deliberations on constitutional revision. Leaving both houses’ Deliberative Councils on the Constitution idle would run counter to the spirit of the law that provides for the establishment of the commissions.

According to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 36 percent of respondents agreed that “discussions must be held to aim for submission of revision proposals” and another 36 percent agreed that “discussions must be conducted without regard to submission of such proposals.”

The national charter must be revised in line with changing times. Many people want the Diet to hold constitutional discussions. Such a move could lead to national debate on the way the state should be.

(Editorial, The Yomiuri Shimbun)

(Asia News Network)