It was one of the main policy initiatives of Shinzo Abe, the former prime minister of Japan who was assassinated last week, and now there is a chance it could come true.
This Monday, after his party and the coalition that supports it obtained a resounding victory in the legislative elections of Japan, the current prime minister, Fumio Kishida, announced that he wants to promote a reform of the Constitution and deepen the debate on the measures necessary to “drastically strengthen” the country’s defense amid a difficult security environment.
The reform proposal, which for years had been unsuccessfully promoted by Abe, would mean the first change that would be made to the Japanese Magna Carta since its promulgation in 1947 and would affect its emblematic article 9, in the text of which it is established that “the Japanese people renounce forever to war as the sovereign right of the nation and to the threat or use of force as a means of solving international disputes”.
The initiative has aroused reluctance both inside and outside the country, despite the fact that it would only seek to establish the constitutionality of the Japan Self-Defense Forces, the name by which the country’s military forces are known.
But if so, why is it controversial?
A historic change
“To understand the meaning of the Constitution in Japan, it is important to go back to the history of that country after World War II. The US occupation authorities helped draft the post-war Constitution that became law in 1947,” says John Nilsson -Wright, associate professor of Japanese politics and International Relations at the University of Cambridge.
The Japanese Consttuon was promulgated during the US occupation of the country.
“That constitution has not been changed or amended even once since it was first introduced and is viewed, rightly or wrongly, by many conservatives in Japan as alien and therefore not in compliance with the quality of being a sovereign document of a sovereign nation. Thus, the issue of the amendment, therefore, is for many on the right in Japan unfinished business from World War II,” he adds.
But while the right is driven to reform the Magna Carta, the left is concerned that the text will be altered.
“The Constitution is seen by the left as guaranteeing Japan’s democratic political culture, and the fact that it was introduced by the winning side of the war (the United States) has long been seen by the left as proof that Japan had abandoned the militarism of the pre-war period. That is why it has been such an explosive political issue,” says the expert.
David Boling, director of Japan and Asian trade at the consultancy Eurasia Group, points out that the experience of World War II turned out so badly for Japan that many of its citizens concluded that the war, in general, is a disaster and, therefore, the country developed a pacifist tendency.
“In Japan, there are many people who are very proud of the Constitution. They often refer to it as the Peace Constitution in a very positive way. Therefore, there is an internal group that is proud of that text.” aim.
From pacifism to self-defense
Among critics of the possible constitutional reform there are concerns that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), to which Abe belonged and now led by Kishida, wants to remove the restrictions on military force provided for in the article. 9 of the Constitution.
Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was a promoter of constitutional reform in Japan.
As Sheila Smith, Senior Research Fellow for Asia Pacific Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (a Washington-based think tank), explains, that is not what is currently being considered.
“The proposals currently presented by the Liberal Democratic Party do not foresee getting rid of article 9, but simply modifying it to add another sentence.
“Certainly there are some people within that party who want to go further and change the name of the Self-Defense Forces or things like that, but there is no proposal at the moment to get rid of article 9 and that has no support either in the PDL or among citizens. But, critics focus on Article 9 because it is a central part of Japan’s postwar identity,” he says.
He explains that although there is still no specific text that is being discussed, but only ideas, so far the proposal suggests that it would simply seek to recognize the constitutional nature of the Self-Defense Forces to make it clear that they are consistent with the Magna Carta.
The Constitution of Japan, approved during the US occupation, sought to eliminate any possibility of remilitarization of the country and literally states that “no land, sea or air forces nor other war potential will be maintained in the future.”
However, over the years, this literal prohibition was being reinterpreted and adapted to changes in the international context.
David Boling points out that the Self-Defense Forces have been changing progressively since for decades they were just one government agency, then the Ministry of Defense was created and, later, during the Abe government, a National Security Council was established within the office of the Prime Minister to coordinate security policies.
One of the great changes in this regard occurred in 2014 when the Abe government promoted a reinterpretation of the constitutional norm related to the country’s defense.
“Abe’s cabinet approved a reinterpretation of Article 9 which said that the Japanese Self Defense Forces – if necessary for Japan’s security and survival – could use force on behalf of other nations such as the United States or Australia, for example. It was a very carefully worded reinterpretation,” explains Sheila Smith.
The following year, a new law was drafted based on that reinterpretation. Thus, the Self Defense Forces gained the ability to use force in support of other countries if it was necessary for Japan’s security.
David Boling points out that these changes have improved Japan’s ability to work on military issues with other allies like the United States, but that it remains limited.
“Japan is not in the same situation as Australia or South Korea in terms of the type of military operations it can engage in alongside the United States, so a constitutional change could make this clearer and allow – as Shinzo used to say – Abe-Japan works more like a normal country when it comes to defense issues,” he says.
A more hostile environment
Any changes Japan makes on defense will be closely watched by some of its neighbors, especially China, North Korea, and South Korea.
The Japanese population follows with concern the news about North Korea’s war advances.
“Those countries will be very worried. It’s because of the wartime legacy. They were invaded by the Japanese imperial forces and they still have a very strong memory of that. So the constitutional revision for them arouses fear that Japan is going to give up their postwar restriction,” says Sheila Smith.
Paradoxically, it has been the actions of two of those neighbors that have served to justify Tokyo’s efforts to have a defense policy with fewer ties.
“For Japanese public opinion, the growth of China as a military player is a primary concern. Chinese naval vessels have increased their intrusions into waters very close to Japanese territory, the so-called Senkaku Islands, southwest of Okinawa, which are claimed by China. but maintained by Japan,” says John Nilsson-Wright.
He explains that many people in Japan are concerned as China becomes more assertive, as well as the nuclear threat from North Korea and its ballistic missiles. And that in the case of Japanese politicians, they are also concerned about the long-term reliability of the United States as a security partner.
“So I think the constitutional review may be seen by some people as a way of giving Japan more flexibility to protect its own security at a time when, in the long run, there is a feeling that the world is becoming more hostile to the growth of China and North Korea and the reliability of existing alliances cannot be taken for granted.”
In recent years, Japan has been adding new units to its Self Defense Forces.
In terms of capabilities, Japan has been strengthening and is currently one of the 10 countries in the world with the highest military spending, and just last April it announced plans to double its defense budget to reach 2% of its GDP.
“The Self-Defense Forces is a de facto army that has land, sea and air capabilities. The reason this is constitutional is because Article 9 was drafted in such a way as to allow the Japanese government to dispose of military forces for purely military purposes. defensive, that is, they cannot be used to wage aggressive warfare,” explains Nilsson-Wright.
An uphill reform
To carry out the constitutional reform and modify article 9 of the Constitution, it is necessary to have a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, as well as the ratification of the changes through a national referendum.
Sheila Smith warns that forging the necessary consensus will not be easy as the ruling coalition will have to win the support of smaller parties in the Upper House and that, in addition, all must agree on the changes that they want to approve, which will require time and effort.
The expert indicates that, in addition to the modifications to article 9, there are other proposed changes that are also at stake related to access to education, electoral circuits and the powers of the Executive.
Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is seen as a more pragmatic politician than Abe.
Paradoxically, some of these issues may be more appealing to voters for whom, David Boling points out, constitutional reform is not among their most pressing concerns.
“If you look at the polls on the most important issues for the Japanese public, the amendment to the constitution was lower than, for example, inflation control, social security issues or education policy.
“So while there tends to be a lot of interest in this topic among elected officials in Japan, it’s not a high priority for the general public, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming months,” he says.
On the way to the possible approval of the amendment to article 9 there is one less obstacle after the death of Shinzo Abe. And it is that the deceased ex-prime minister, who made this issue a flag, was seen by many as a politician who promoted historical revisionism, which generated a certain rejection in part of the population.
“Kishida is not Abe, and therefore I think the public is going to be more sympathetic to the idea of ​​an uncontroversial amendment to the Constitution that does not substantially change the way self-defense forces are used, but simply recognizes that are an important part of Japan’s defensive capabilities,” says Nilsson-Wright.
“Especially outside of Japan, but even within the country, Abe was seen by some people as more bellicose. So Kishida is the ideal person to support this idea because he can present it in a way that is less worrisome to Japanese voters in a foot,” he adds.
Thus, paradoxically, Abe’s proposal would have become more feasible now that he is no longer around.
