1.5k VIEWS
Pinterest LinkedIn LINE

I read Mr. Nagae’s essay, “Why Supporters of the Security Legislation Feel Uncomfortable with Demonstrations, and Alternatives to the Security Legislation”[1].

His analysis of why supporters of the legislation, including Mr. Hori and Mr. Horie, feel such strong aversion to the demonstrations seems accurate. It is worth reading.

Meanwhile, as tactical proposals for opponents of the legislation, Mr. Nagae suggests:

1. Put pressure not on the Diet, but on Chinese embassies around the world.
(If China stops its aggressive conduct, the need for the security legislation falls dramatically.)

2. Advocate stopping thermal power generation and switching entirely to nuclear power.
(From the perspective of energy security[2].)

These are the 2 points he raises.

I agree with these proposals because opposition should be accompanied by alternatives.

I have one more request for the proponents.

They should confront constitutional revision directly. Trying to quietly enact unconstitutional legislation because constitutional amendment seems difficult denies constitutionalism and modernity, returning us to the Middle Ages. Openly abolishing Article 9 would be incomparably better.

The Liberal Democratic Party’s draft constitution[3] is laughable, but I do not think the current Constitution of Japan is good either.

Why not begin by removing provisions imposing duties on citizens from Articles 26, 27, and 30? A constitution is an instruction from citizens to state power; writing citizens’ duties into it is fundamentally strange. Yet the current Constitution provides:

Article Twenty-Six. All people shall have the right to receive an equal education corresponding to their ability, as provided by law.All people shall be obligated to have all boys and girls under their protection receive ordinary education as provided by law. Such compulsory education shall be free.

Article Twenty-Seven. All people shall have the right and the obligation to work. Standards for wages, hours, rest, and other working conditions shall be fixed by law. Children shall not be exploited.

Article Thirty. The people shall be liable to taxation as provided by law.

The corresponding GHQ draft contains no duties of citizens. Corresponding to Articles 26 and 27 of the current Constitution is Article XXIV (Article 24), which reads:

GHQ Draft

Article XXIV. In all spheres of life, laws shall be designed for the promotion and extension of social welfare, and of freedom, justice and democracy.Free, universal and compulsory education shall be established.The exploitation of children shall be prohibited.The public health shall be promoted.Social security shall be provided.Standards for working conditions, wages and hours shall be fixed.

(My translation) In every sphere of life, the government must enact laws to promote social welfare, freedom, justice, and democracy. The government must provide free, universal, compulsory education. It must prohibit exploitation of children, promote public health, provide social security, and establish standards for working conditions, wages, and hours.

Combining education and labor in one article may be questionable, but it consistently states government duties rather than citizens’ duties, exactly as it should.

Accordingly, Articles 26, 27, and 30 might be amended as follows:

Article Twenty-Six. All people shall have the right to receive an equal education corresponding to their ability, as provided by law. The government must provide free, universal, compulsory education.All people shall be obligated to have all boys and girls under their protection receive ordinary education as provided by law. Such compulsory education shall be free.[4]

Article Twenty-Seven. All people shall have the right to work. and the obligation to work. The government shall fix by law standards for wages, hours, rest, and other working conditions. The government must enact laws prohibiting exploitation of childrenChildren shall not be exploited.

Article Thirty. The people shall be liable to taxation as provided by law. (Deleted)

I think it would be good to propose amendments like these. Changes this modest might pass. If they do, they would establish a method and precedent for constitutional amendment, after which Article 9 could also be attempted.

Conversely, to the opposition parties and the public: to defeat strange arguments for relaxing the amendment requirements of Article 96, you must at least pass changes like these.

[1] Kazuo Nagae, “Why Supporters of the Security Legislation Feel Uncomfortable with Demonstrations, and Alternatives to the Security Legislation” (2015/8/9)

[2] Even if switching entirely is impossible, dependence can be reduced, making armed maintenance of passage through the Strait of Hormuz less important than it is now.

[3] Liberal Democratic Party, “Draft Revision of the Constitution of Japan” (2012/4/27). As Yoichi Masuzoe, “Diet Members Who Do Not Know the Basics of the Constitution” and others say, it fundamentally misunderstands constitutions.

[4] Some may argue that omitting compulsory education as a citizens’ duty would produce parents who do not send children to school and children who do not attend. Anticipating that objection: such matters belong in ordinary law, not the Constitution.

* The featured image is by Hatena Coco. It is provided under CC3.0-BY. The original image is linked here: http://free-illustrations.gatag.net/2014/01/01/120000.html

Related posts