The Constitution of Japan: Revision Process and Prospects

Introduction 

The constitution is a set of laws that help countries govern themselves and its people to maintain expected order for purposes of ensuring that peace and unity are sustained. Over the years, various states have different laws due to their ways of lives, needs, and availability of resources and the occurrences of events among others. Amendments have been made due to the continuous change in the elements that affect the people of the country in question. Japan is not an exception in the matters that concern constitution revision. Following its progress, experiences, and history, Japan has undergone immense changes in the set of laws that dictate its governance and lives of its citizens. Among the Asia countries, Japan is considered one of the most potent nations due to the involvement in civil wars during the ancient days and economic growth throughout the years. Moreover, its foreign experiences with other countries during the years have played a significant role in the set of legislation that is used and implemented in the country today. For instance, the United States played a significant role in shaping the ruling system of Japan after they invaded Japan during the post-World War II defeat. The primary intention of US involvement in the creation of a transformed kind of governance was to facilitate a democratic way of ruling and control the country’s participation in either domestic or foreign wars. Article 9 of the Japanese constitution portrays pacifism because it does not justify the country’s involvement in the war (Inoue, 2016). The clauses in Article 9 states: “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as another war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.” 

Japan involvement in civil wars in the ancient days posed a menace to other nations hence was viewed as a radical nation that would stop at nothing until it conquered its foes (Komamura, 2017). Moreover, the democratic constitution enacted by Gaugler McAuthur remains unchanged since its installation. Besides the excellent reputation it holds from its history, Japan is globally identified as a pacifist hence the quests to make constitutional revisions that will not only turn the country’s reputation to the world but ensure it takes to charge on matters that concern its security. The attempts to revise the constitution especially on the issue of Article 9 may face immense challenges following its past. On the contrary, the country needs to be in a position to safeguard its people from any form of attacks considering that political instabilities around Asian and the middle-East nations does not eliminate Japan (Hardcre, 2005). The controversy over whether or not to revise its constitution has seen the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s efforts to ensure that the nation’s security is heightened by emphasizing on a constitutional self-defense capability. The Prime Minister’s vision includes the need to empower Japan’s military forces and protection in the constitution at least by 2020. 

What it takes to Create Reformation of the Constitution in Japan 

Unlike most countries globally, Japan’s constitution remains untouched from the time it was enacted. Ideally, historians assert that it is close to seventy years since the implementation of the existing structure in Japan (Inoue, 2009). Currently, the issues affecting the nation differ from its past experiences, involvements and future goals. Hence the need to revisit policies outlined in the constitution to facilitate transformed governance suitable for the current and future Japanese people. While many other aspects may be embraced due to the changes observed in the country like issues of education allocation, decreased birth rates and an increase in aging among others, the desire to amend Article 9 for purposes of building the country’s self-defense powers is under strains due to the fear of possible outbreaks of war. Opinion polls have shown that more than 51% of the Japanese people do not support revision of Article nine for apparent reasons (Saaler, 2016) . The government may be forced to conduct civic education and highlight the exact amendments to the legislation to succeed in implementing constitutional reforms mainly on the country’s military powers. 

Going back in history, most scholars believe that the Japanese constitution is an American document because it was promulgated by the authorities and US officials led by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. According to Stephen Harner (2011), the Japan Constitution was originally written in English and was signed by the then Emperor Hirohito with the guidance of the American government. Julian Ryall (2017), affirms that Japanese conservatives feel that the contents of their constitution were pegged on the country’s loss during the World War II and needed to tame its powers over Allied. In a meeting held at Potsdam, the involved Allied leaders concentrated on the policies that concerned the done war following German’s retreat. It was here that the plan to take over Japan, the break of their forces and sentence of Japanese who were involved in the war crimes that were discussed. Moreover, the democratic reforms of the country were further outlined in the Potsdam Agreement during the meeting. The conditions were that the Allies would end the occupation of Japan only after they had achieved the reforms in the Potsdam Agreement. All these ultimatums forced Japan to surrender resulting to the Allied Powers appointed Supreme Commander – General MacArthur to take charge of the occupation following instructions from the US government. It was at this time that Japanese powers were controlled by the US and the creation of the constitution that is used to date took place (Kades, 1989) . On the contrary, despite the fact that Gen. MacArthur had the authority to pass any policies and direct the Japanese as he pleased, he turned down the need of the Allied Power leaders that enforced the hanging of Emperor Hirohito after being tried as a war felony. Among other trends and events that took place in the past which have affected Japan’s current state, it has become a concern on whether or not to amend the constitution specifically on matters of security in Article 9. 

The Controversies 

As affirmed in the first clause of Article 9, Japan possesses sovereign rights as a country yet has no powers over its military forces. From the Article, Japan is required to renounce war forever. Emphases are focused on the need of the country to stay off disputes including defending themselves from any form of threats posed by neighboring nations (Hagström, 2010) . Prime Minister Abe’s view on the need to empower Japan’s constitution with focus on its security includes the risks observed from countries like Russia, China, and North Korea. In the past, Japan defeated the mentioned countries hence has a history of disputes which still linger to date and has played a massive way on how they relate. The fear of unknown mainly from North Korea’s involvement in the creation of missiles and atomic weapons poses threats on the safety of Japanese citizens and government given that North Korea targets at its foes that are based in Japan. 

While the discussions on reforms and constitutional revision in Japan dictate the possible future and foreign relationships, controversies arise primarily on the fact that Japan has ‘jieitai’ which is the country’s Self Defense Forces of the ground, air, and marine. Unlike in most countries where they are referred to as the land, air, and sea forces, in Japan, they are identified as the ground SDF, air SDF and marine SDF primarily because of the prohibition to maintain a military force in the country inclined in Article 9. The irony of having a self-defense force that is limited to its performance within its country increases the need to revise the Japanese constitution. The existence of the SDF in the country has been legalized by the government through the interpretation of Article 9 and the related policies (Richter, 2016). Despite the government’s efforts to make SDF constitutional, most of its citizens believe it is military making it unconstitutional. Contrary to the legalities facing the existence of the SDF forces, the government in respect to the Article 9, has posed limitations making it impossible for the troops to engage in any wars. According to the Law Library of Congress, America has in the recent times demanded cooperation from Japan to continue maintaining the military security. It is more likely the very reasons that the government of Japan is observed to pay attention in legalizing its SDF forces and interpreting Article 9 on terms that favor the country more (Shuichi, 2010). 

The resistance faced in need to make constitutional amendments by most of the Japanese people is analyzed as the loyalty to the Constitution's Preamble that states: ‘…..we, the Japanese people, resolve that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government. We desire peace for all time, and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world (Stockwin, 2014).’ From the Preamble of the Japanese constitution, the elements of most articles in it are realized and binding to the citizens and the government. For instance, the Supreme Court announces the Preamble of the Constitution before reading a decision made by the jury in some cases that involve war crimes (Repeta, 2013). Besides the challenges faced in legalizing the country’s SDF forces, scholars affirm that the English interpretation of the Article 9 is not clear especially by Japan settling international disputes outlined on part ‘A’ of the clause. First, as mentioned earlier, Japan is a nation with sovereign rights giving it the powers to make decisions. Contrary to this fact observed from the constitution, Japan is hindered from waging war or using force to handle foreign issues limiting its sovereignty in exercising powers bestowed on it. As a signatory to the General Treaty for the Renunciation, Japan among other signatories makes use of the phrase that highlights the elimination of war as a remedy in international controversies whether out of defense or invasion. The pacifist constitution of Japan is expected to elaborate on the meaning it poses on the country’s involvement in the war for reasons that include the inability to distinguish between wars of invasion and self-defense (La Porta, López ‐ de ‐ Silanes, Pop ‐ Eleches & Shleifer, 2004) . Moreover, engagement of Japan in any form of wars can be expressed as a means of settling a foreign disagreement. Hence, part ‘B’ of the Article 9’s clause allowing involvement of the country in self-defense is constitutional contradicting the first phase of the policy. The confusion between the first and second part of the Article 9 is settled through the interpretation of SDF forces exist not for potential war but self-defense that is supported by the constitution. 

Potential Outcomes of the Constitutions Revision in Japan 

The amendment of any constitution in most countries is geared towards bettering the state of the nation, its people and impacting governance. Revision of the Japanese law will boost its ability to handle the issues facing the country and its people. For instance, the challenges faced in the quest to implement free education can be settled through the reformation of policies that affect the education sector. The issue of low birth rates and aging can also be controlled by ensuring that the citizens adhere to specific set laws. Considering that Article 9 is sensitive, a possible revision of it will not only affect Japan’s citizens but the foreign affairs of the country. For instance, since the promulgation of the country’s constitution in 1946, the American government in conjunction with the Allied Powers has had authority over Japan (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2018). Revision of the law may affect the country’s cooperation to the US dictating a need to stand by itself as a sovereign nation. The shadows of its history may also catch up with it considering that it has a reputation of involvement in wars. 

Politically, Japan’s ability to revise its constitution will enhance the popularity of the parties involved since most of the opposition parties headed by the Social Democratic Party have been in the front line in ensuring that the country’s postwar constitution is preserved. On the other hand, the push to revise the laws observed and led by Prime Minister Abe, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, a possible success in the promulgation as planned will impact the political strength of the parties and individuals involved. Previous attempts of the country to deploy its JSDF personnel as volunteers in collaboration with the UN Peace Cooperation Corps during the Gulf War that erupted in 1991 was faced with immense opposition (Inoguchi & Bacon, 2005) . Despite the country’s desire to engage as non-combats in the Gulf War a highlighted in the UN bill, its efforts were in vain due to the constitutional requirements of its military forces to stay off a war of any kind including self-defense. Most opposition came from the SDPJ impacting their involvement in the decisions made in the country. Some of the main reasons highlighted by preservatives which are pushing and in support of a constitutional revision include the need to end Japan’s postwar period and start a new as a sovereign nation. On the other hand, a change in constitution clause will enable the country to enhance the ability to work and cooperate with countries and organizations it desires like the United Nations and the military security of the United States (Katzenstein & Okawara, 1993). The use of force outlined in the constitution is also required to be made more explicit for purposes of scrapping off the controversies arising chiefly from the Article 9. 

Following the crises that Japan has been facing from its neighboring countries, in the past decade, the reinforcement of its military in support by the US government is observed as significant move to stay ready in case of any attacks and invasion (Traphagan, 2013) . Some of the crisis seen include the Taiwan Straits and North Korean nuclear crisis that posed immense danger and menace to the Japanese people. Empowerment of its constitution will send signals to these countries portraying readiness for war or self-defense. 

Other Countries’ Perspective on this Outcome 

The pacifist postwar constitution of Japan has not only affected how the government is run but how its foreign affairs are carried out. For instance, as asserted by Berkofsky (2010), the country has had fewer powers even on its cooperation with the United States. The revision of the constitution will give Japan the liberty to increase and exercise its full powers of cooperation with other military forces enhancing its authorities. As for the case of the United States and the UN coalitions, it is evident that Japan’s involvement in entire combat will impact the alliance between the two countries as affirmed by the policymakers in the US (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2018) . On the contrary, Japan’s capabilities and enforced military powers will increase possible tension as observed among countries in the Eastern parts of Asia primarily due to the activities of missile building that South Korea and China have been engaging themselves into . 

From the proposals made in the Japanese Diet to enhance its abilities to assist the United States and its allies on the foreign crisis that do not have to necessarily pose any threat to Japan have increased various reactions from most countries within and out of the region. Apart from South Korea most of the neighboring countries and Japan’s allies are in support of the desire to permit SDF in cooperating fully with the American forces. The constant support of the American people to the Japanese is observed as an undermining strategy to limit Japan from empowering its military forces; hence the push to return the favor of defending America as it does to Japan. According to an article highlighted by The Economist (2015), the Chinese government has not been in support of Japan’s proposals passed in the Diet with the help of Prime Minister Abe. Contrary to what Japan is looking into, China argues that the move will only restore historical events rather than building on the country’s peace (Christopher Hughes, 2006). Hence advice Japan to embrace the hard lessons learned from their history which focuses on promoting peace both regionally and internationally to boost the stability of its people and foreign relationships. China perceives the Prime Minister Abe’s move as a ‘dark Stain’ to the Japanese government comparing it to the sword of a samurai that is raised to slash out the pacifism of the country that has been in existence for seven decades. China’s fears are mostly based on the past occurrence and experienced had during the World War II under Japan’s military powers (Itoh, 2001). Besides, Japan’s move to heighten its cooperation with America develops a menace for the Chinese government with reasons best known to them. In the past years, China has been observed to spend a lot of its defense forces hence the move of Japan to empower it military SDF creates an unwelcome challenge to the Chinese government and the regions within . 

Conclusion 

A constitution is a critical document that facilitates the well-being of a country, its people and the relationship with other international countries. Japan’s pacifist constitution has been embraced for the past seven decades. The changes and events that have taken place over the years have impacted the impact of the country’s desires to make amendments to its constitution. Areas like the education sectors are facing immense challenges that call for the government’s intervention in facilitating policies that will boost the educational system of the country. The most sensitive amendments that have created controversies is on Article 9 which focuses on impacting the strength of the country’s military forces. Despite the limitations to engage in wars whether as self-defense or due to the invasion, in the previous years the government has played a role in legalizing Article 9 through interpretation of the clauses. On the other hand, the emphasis of Prime Minister Abe in revising the constitution has ensured that Japan follows suit in eliminating the postwar era. 

References 

Berkofsky, A. (2010). Japan&39;S Post-War Constitution. Origins, Protagonists And Controversies. Il Politico,75(2 (224)), 5-25. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/240065o03 

Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2018). Bringing Democracy to Japan . Retrieved April 12, 2018, from CRF-USA: http://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/bringing-democracy-to-japan.html 

Harner, S. (2011, February 19). Limited Government, Reform, and the Japanese Constitution . Retrieved April 12, 2018, from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenharner/2011/02/19/limited-government-reform-and-the-japanese-constitution/#9931cfd29ab0 

Hardacre, H. (2005). Constitutional revision and Japanese Religions. Japanese Studies, 25(3), 235-247. doi:10.1080/10371390500342725 

Hagström, L. (2010). The Democratic Party of Japan's security policy and Japanese politics of constitutional revision: a cloud over Article 9?. Australian Journal Of International Affairs , 64 (5), 510-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2010.513367 

Hughes, C. W. (2006). Why Japan Could Revise Its Constitution and What It Would Mean for Japanese Security Policy. Orbis, 50(4), 725-744. doi:10.1016/j.orbis.2006.07.011 

Inoguchi, T., & Bacon, P. (2005). Japan's emerging role as a 'global ordinary power'. International Relations Of The Asia-Pacific , 6 (1), 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/irap/lci133 

Inoue, K. (2009). Rethinking The Constitution: An Anthology Of Japanese Opinion. Pacific Affairs, 82(2), 338-339. 

Inoue, T. (2016). The Constitution of Japan and Constitutional Reform. Asia-Pacific Review, 23(2), 1-11. doi:10.1080/13439006.2016.1244969 

Itoh, M. (2001). Japanese Constitutional Revision: A Neo-liberal Proposal for Article 9 in Comparative Perspective. Asian Survey , 41 (2), 310-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/as.2001.41.2.310 

Kades, C. (1989). The American Role in Revising Japan's Imperial Constitution. Political Science Quarterly , 104 (2), 215. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2151582 

Katzenstein, P., & Okawara, N. (1993). Japan's National Security: Structures, Norms, and Policies. International Security , 17 (4), 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2539023 

Komamura, K. (2017). Constitution And Narrative In The Age Of Crisis In Japanese Politics. Washington International Law Journal, 26(1), 75-97. 

La Porta, R., López ‐ de ‐ Silanes, F., Pop ‐ Eleches, C., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Judicial Checks and Balances. Journal Of Political Economy , 112 (2), 445-470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/381480 

Lind, J. (2013, July 23). The Limits on Nationalism in Japan . Retrieved April 13, 2018, from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/opinion/the-limits-on-nationalism-in-japan.html 

Ogawa, A. (2011). Peace, a Contested Identity: Japan's Constitutional Revision and Grassroots Peace Movements. Peace & Change, 36(3), 373-399. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0130.2011.00703.x 

Repeta, L. (2013). Japan's Democracy at Risk The LDP's Ten Most Dangerous Proposals for Constitutional Change. SSRN Electronic Journal . http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2325179 

Richter, J. P. (2016). Japan's "Reinterpretation" of Article 9: A Pyrrhic Victory for American Foreign Policy?. Iowa Law Review, 101(3), 1223-1262. 

Saaler, S. (2016, October). Nationalism and History in Contemporary Japan. The Asia-Pacific Journal , Vol 14. Issue 20, No.7. 

Shuichi, W. (2010). Article Nine of the Japanese Constitution and security policy: realism versus idealism in Japan since the Second World War. Japan Forum, 22(3/4), 405-431. doi:10.1080/09555803.2010.533477 

Stockwin, J. A. (2014). New Directions in Japan's Constitution, Defence and Nationalism. Eye Magazine, (5), 24-31 

The Economist. (2015, September 26). China’s angry reaction to Japan’s new security laws is echoed at home . Retrieved April 13, 2018, from The Economist: https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21667981-chinas-angry-reaction-japans-new-security-laws-echoed-home-abes-stain 

The Law Library of Congress. (2015, September 29). Japan: Article 9 of the Constitution . Retrieved April 12, 2018, from The Law Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/japan-constitution/article9.php 

Traphagan, J. W. (2013, May 17). Revising the Japanese Constitution: Amending Article 9 may seem logical, but it could have implications for the way Japan sees itself. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from The Diplomat: https://thediplomat.com/2013/05/revising-the-japanese-constitution/ 

Yee, A. (2013, September 25). The twin faces of Japanese nationalism . Retrieved April 13, 2018, from East Asia Forum: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/09/25/the-twin-faces-of-japanese-nationalism/