REPOST: Japanese Major Suggests Military Coup:Your Opinion?
me...@cns.nyu.edu
This post has been delayed by a very screwy newserver
As reported in the NY Times of Friday, Oct 16, Major Shinsaku Yanai
wrote an article in the Shukan Bunshun discussing his
belief that the military should depose the civilian Government,
much as the Imperial Army did in the 1930's, because of the
continuing scandals of the ruling party.
From the NY Times (reprinted without permission)
[deleted]
"It is no longer possible to correct injustice through
an election in the legitimate way that is the basis of
democracy," Major Yanai concluded after reciting the worst
instances of influence-peddling and corruption over the last few years.
"The only means left is revolution or a coup d'etat."
[deleted]
It also comes at a particularly delicate time, when Japan is trying
to convince its neighbors that the Self-Defense Forces are far different
from the Imperial Army. Members of the force were sent to Cambodia
to join United Nations peacekeepers in the first deploymeny of
Japanese troops overseas since the end of World War II - a move
that touched off considerable protest here that Japan was
preparing to rearm itself.
-------------------------
What is your opinion of this? Should or shouldn't
Japan's neighbors be afraid? What are the odds?
tom lowdermilk
I feel that the last hope of democracy in Japan was ruined after the
1960 Treaty; since then democracy in Japan has been a farce and a sham.
What has truly convinced me was the actions of the opposition parties during
the voting on the PKO and the Recruit and Sagawa Kyubin scandals. Yanai-san's
views under these circumstances are understandable and in a small way remind
me of Mishima Yukio's exasperation with the society in general.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love Mankind, Revere Heaven :-{
Jeong-Gyun Shin
>In article <1992Oct29....@cmcl2.nyu.edu>, me...@cns.nyu.edu writes:
>|> As reported in the NY Times of Friday, Oct 16, Major Shinsaku Yanai
>
>I feel that the last hope of democracy in Japan was ruined after the
>1960 Treaty; since then democracy in Japan has been a farce and a sham.
>What has truly convinced me was the actions of the opposition parties during
>the voting on the PKO and the Recruit and Sagawa Kyubin scandals. Yanai-san's
>views under these circumstances are understandable and in a small way remind
>me of Mishima Yukio's exasperation with the society in general.
Implication of this post is that it takes more than elections to make it
a real democracy. Corrections please if I am stepping on where I shouldn't.
Truly old question I pose, then, is: what shall guarantee Japan's pacifism.
ken aoki
Hmm..., I always believed and still believe that Japan
is a democratic country. The country has freedom of press,
speech, guaranteed privacy and free elections.
I do NOT consider Mj. Yanai's view understandable at all.
Even though LDP has the majority, they have to
do by and large what the people would want to do
or otherwise they will get voted out of office.
(Of course, they don't have support on all issues
and can also stretch limits here and there, but
only so much.) The number of seats LDP holds
in the house changes according to what they have
done prior to the election. If they have less,
they have to compromise with the other parties.
IMO, Japan is democratic.
For example, perhaps relevant to the question raised:
Amongst some of the LDP members, the idea
to change the constitution to allow for a more permanent
and firm status for JSDF has been considered.
It has never been tried for the reason that even
if it goes through the house (2/3 majority necessary,
by no means trivial) it will never make it through the
mandated public referendum (50% majority).
Btw, I am not necessarily saying that changing the
constitutions is a priori a bad thing, but the
people in general like the constitution and are very
apprehensive of ANY attempts to change it (which is good).
The above topic is a long and involved topic I won't
get into right here any deeper.
One reason, perhaps the only one, I can think of for
Japan being 'less democratic', is the LDP gridlock
on the power. This has to do with the lack of
realistic alternatives at this point. (I won't go into
explaining why various parties don't cut it, but they
don't.) With the current trend of needing a lot of $$
to get re-elected (just as it is here in the US), it
is extremely hard to change the status quo.
Perhaps the most realistic scenario, but a cynical one,
for this to change at this point is for LDP to split.
They are by no means that harmonious.
Important aspect of democracy is the participation
of the well-informed citizens.
There are obviously undemocratic countries (eg. w/o freedom
of speech), but amongst the 'democratic' countries, I think
it's silly to line them up and say one is more democratic
than the other. For instance, US is arguably less
democratic than other 'democratic' countries, since
its illiteracy rate is higher (how can one form educated
opinions?) and the voting turnout is lower (participation?).
Mind you, I am not arguing this, but I am pointing out
that you can get strange logic if you look do not look
at the big picture.
--
___Kenichiro Aoki. (ao...@physics.ucla.edu)
Mike Fester
AHA! Mr Aoki is trying to inject Japanese culture/society into this group. Too
good an opportunity to pass up.
>Hmm..., I always believed and still believe that Japan
>is a democratic country. The country has freedom of press,
>speech, guaranteed privacy and free elections.
>I do NOT consider Mj. Yanai's view understandable at all.
I understand Major Yania's views, and defend his right to state them, but I
disagree with them, and feel the vast majority of the Japanese disagree as
well.
>Even though LDP has the majority, they have to
>do by and large what the people would want to do
>or otherwise they will get voted out of office.
>(Of course, they don't have support on all issues
>and can also stretch limits here and there, but
>only so much.) The number of seats LDP holds
>in the house changes according to what they have
>done prior to the election. If they have less,
>they have to compromise with the other parties.
>IMO, Japan is democratic.
I agree, but I see a recurrent problem with the distribution of representatives.
Given that a vote in some rural areas is worth up to 7 times that of a vote
in certain areas of Osaka and Tokyo, and that these areas are (apparantly)
more liberal than the countryside, I do not believe the democracy is as
representative as it should be. Allow me to a couple questions here: Recently,
the Supreme court agreed that the districts should be redrawn to reflect the
current population distribution. What has happened (if anything) to implement
this? Second, why do the opposition parties (SDP, JCP, etc) also oppose
redistricting when it comes up? It seems to me that they have the most to
gain, but they oppose it as strongly as the LDP.
>For example, perhaps relevant to the question raised:
>Amongst some of the LDP members, the idea
>to change the constitution to allow for a more permanent
>and firm status for JSDF has been considered.
>It has never been tried for the reason that even
>if it goes through the house (2/3 majority necessary,
>by no means trivial) it will never make it through the
>mandated public referendum (50% majority).
>Btw, I am not necessarily saying that changing the
>constitutions is a priori a bad thing, but the
>people in general like the constitution and are very
>apprehensive of ANY attempts to change it (which is good).
>The above topic is a long and involved topic I won't
>get into right here any deeper.
I believe they must either amend the constitution to allow the forces to
exist, or disband the forces. Right now, the forces have no constitutional
status, and consequently would be illegal. If they continue to exist, without
the constitutions being amended, it seems that constitution is being openly
ignores, and hence has no real purpose.
>One reason, perhaps the only one, I can think of for
>Japan being 'less democratic', is the LDP gridlock
>on the power. This has to do with the lack of
>realistic alternatives at this point. (I won't go into
>explaining why various parties don't cut it, but they
>don't.) With the current trend of needing a lot of $$
>to get re-elected (just as it is here in the US), it
>is extremely hard to change the status quo.
>Perhaps the most realistic scenario, but a cynical one,
>for this to change at this point is for LDP to split.
>They are by no means that harmonious.
Especially given the recent ouster of Kanemaru, the disclosures about Takeshita,
Miyazawa's drop in popularity, etc, a split of the LDP may be very possible.
Whether this would be permanent or not remains to be seen. The LDP split before
and got back together.
>Important aspect of democracy is the participation
>of the well-informed citizens.
>There are obviously undemocratic countries (eg. w/o freedom
>of speech), but amongst the 'democratic' countries, I think
>it's silly to line them up and say one is more democratic
>than the other. For instance, US is arguably less
>democratic than other 'democratic' countries, since
>its illiteracy rate is higher (how can one form educated
>opinions?) and the voting turnout is lower (participation?).
>Mind you, I am not arguing this, but I am pointing out
>that you can get strange logic if you look do not look
>at the big picture.
Actually, I believe Japanese voter turnout is lower than US for national
elections.
Anyway, a good post, and maybe we can get back to discussing Japan, now.
Mike
--
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do.
Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.
>
>.... I see a recurrent problem with the distribution of representatives.
>Given that a vote in some rural areas is worth up to 7 times that of a vote
>in certain areas of Osaka and Tokyo, and that these areas are (apparantly)
>more liberal than the countryside, I do not believe the democracy is as
>representative as it should be. Allow me to a couple questions here: Recently,
>the Supreme court agreed that the districts should be redrawn to reflect the
>current population distribution. What has happened (if anything) to implement
>this? Second, why do the opposition parties (SDP, JCP, etc) also oppose
>redistricting when it comes up? It seems to me that they have the most to
>gain, but they oppose it as strongly as the LDP.
I think the answer to the second question is that if the SDP and/or JCP
threw in with urban voters by supporting redistricting, they would be
alienating the rural voters while not gaining many more votes in the
cities, and thereby just strengthen the hand of an anti-redistricting
LDP. The strength of the rural electorate is in their ability to turn
power over to the SDP and/or JCP if the LDP doesn't serve them
adequately. In fact, that's probably the only reason why the SDP and
JCP exist as serious parties, since the factional spectrum within the
LDP is really rather wide. It's a no-win situtation for JCP and SDP,
but also a no-lose situation.
The U.S. has historically had its rural regions over-represented on a
per-capita basis, but I don't think the skew has not been as dramatic
as in Japan, overall.
I don't have a good guess about the first question, except that the
legal system in Japan probably doesn't have quite the same force as
it does in the U.S. The U.S. legislative bodies are made of lawyers,
for the most part, who get busy either challenging court decisions
they don't agree with, or finding nominal implementations. In Japan,
there might be more of an attitude of "ignore it and it won't be a
problem." The quasi-legal status of the Japanese Defense Forces might
be a case in point.
Which leads to my question: if the typical U.S. politician comes to
office via the practice of law, how does the typical Japanese politician
get there, what with the relative scarcity of lawyers in Japan?
I've heard something to the effect that it's semi-hereditary (which
is also true to some extent in the U.S.) Anybody have background?
---
Michael Turner
mi...@tcs.com
Jeong-Gyun Shin
>For example, perhaps relevant to the question raised:
>Amongst some of the LDP members, the idea
>to change the constitution to allow for a more permanent
>and firm status for JSDF has been considered.
>It has never been tried for the reason that even
>if it goes through the house (2/3 majority necessary,
>by no means trivial) it will never make it through the
>mandated public referendum (50% majority).
In article <1992Nov3.1...@island.COM>, fes...@island.COM (Mike Fester)
>I believe they must either amend the constitution to allow the forces to
>exist, or disband the forces. Right now, the forces have no constitutional
>status, and consequently would be illegal. If they continue to exist, without
>the constitutions being amended, it seems that constitution is being openly
>ignores, and hence has no real purpose.
In article <1992Nov4.0...@tcsi.com> mi...@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.) writes:
> ... In Japan,
>there might be more of an attitude of "ignore it and it won't be a
>problem." The quasi-legal status of the Japanese Defense Forces might
>be a case in point.
Ultimately, Japan's armed forces have status of a typically functional
part of Japanese society; it's there for practical reasons, but don't
ask too many questions and get into specific legality of it since that
stirs too much of problem, and as long as Japan knows its armed forces
will do whatever necessary in the interests of Japan when time comes
(sarcasm on and off, I forgot). Quite typical, I guess.
Mike Fester
>>representative as it should be. Allow me to a couple questions here: Recently,
>>the Supreme court agreed that the districts should be redrawn to reflect the
>>current population distribution. What has happened (if anything) to implement
>>this? Second, why do the opposition parties (SDP, JCP, etc) also oppose
>>redistricting when it comes up? It seems to me that they have the most to
>>gain, but they oppose it as strongly as the LDP.
>I think the answer to the second question is that if the SDP and/or JCP
>threw in with urban voters by supporting redistricting, they would be
>alienating the rural voters while not gaining many more votes in the
>cities, and thereby just strengthen the hand of an anti-redistricting
>LDP. The strength of the rural electorate is in their ability to turn
>power over to the SDP and/or JCP if the LDP doesn't serve them
>adequately. In fact, that's probably the only reason why the SDP and
>JCP exist as serious parties, since the factional spectrum within the
>LDP is really rather wide. It's a no-win situtation for JCP and SDP,
>but also a no-lose situation.
>The U.S. has historically had its rural regions over-represented on a
>per-capita basis, but I don't think the skew has not been as dramatic
>as in Japan, overall.
Again, I don't follow this. I think that in the last few elections, both
Tokyo and Osaka have voted more SDP than have the rural regions. If this is
the case, they would seem to have more to gain by promoting this sort of
reform than the LDP. As the rural electorate has NEVER turned over power to
the opposition, you'd think they (the SDP, etc) would have smartened up by
now.
And most nations will have an "over-representation" of rural regions, so
long as a minimum number of representatives are required for each state,
prefecture, or whatever the legal division happens to be. I think the current
Japanese situation is extreme, however.
>I don't have a good guess about the first question, except that the
>legal system in Japan probably doesn't have quite the same force as
>it does in the U.S. The U.S. legislative bodies are made of lawyers,
>for the most part, who get busy either challenging court decisions
>they don't agree with, or finding nominal implementations. In Japan,
>there might be more of an attitude of "ignore it and it won't be a
>problem." The quasi-legal status of the Japanese Defense Forces might
>be a case in point.
Part of it might also be the Japanese Supreme Court, which has a tendency to
tell parties to "settle out of court".
>Which leads to my question: if the typical U.S. politician comes to
>office via the practice of law, how does the typical Japanese politician
>get there, what with the relative scarcity of lawyers in Japan?
>I've heard something to the effect that it's semi-hereditary (which
>is also true to some extent in the U.S.) Anybody have background?
While practicing lawyers might be rare, I believe many universities offer
undergraduate majors in law. Perhaps this and economics might be the predominate
majors. Incidentally, I read somewhere that roughly 60% of the current
Parliament was sons/daughters/nephews/nieces of previous Parliament members.
Anyone have any verification/refutation?
Hank Cohen
>
>representative as it should be. Allow me to a couple questions here: Recently,
>the Supreme court agreed that the districts should be redrawn to reflect the
>current population distribution. What has happened (if anything) to implement
>this? Second, why do the opposition parties (SDP, JCP, etc) also oppose
>redistricting when it comes up? It seems to me that they have the most to
>gain, but they oppose it as strongly as the LDP.
The political positioning around the issue of election reform in Japan
is about as arcane and Macchiavellian as anything you could possibly
imagine. The best source of news and analysis on this subject that I
have found is The Economist. The issue is not simply reapportionment
in the American sense although that too is required. The main problem
for the opposition parties is that the Kaifu plan proposed eliminating
all multi-seat constituencies. In many districts there are three or
four seats selected by a plurality of the popular vote. The top three
vote getters will get seats and the rest loose. Most of the seats of
the opposition parties are in such constituencies. So what happens,
usually there are two LDP candidates and a host of minor party
candidates. The LDP candidates spend all of their money running
against each other while the opposition candidates hover around like
hyenas at a lion's picnic waiting to pick up the remaining scraps. So
the result is that huge amounts of money are spend by the LDP mostly
to run against itself while the opposition parties are relegated to a
position of prepetual inferiority because they never develop the local
power base to win a campaign outright. It is because of this rather
topsy turvy situation that you find the liberal ostensibly progressive
parties all opposing election reform and the most corrupt ward heelers
like Shin Kanemaru, Ozawa and the entire Takeshita faction supporting
it.
--
Hank Cohen
Concurrent Nippon Corp. Shuwa yanagibashi Bldg. 5F
Yanagibashi 2-19-6 Taito-ku Tokyo 111, Japan
Denwa: 03-3864-5714 Fax: 03-3864-0898
Bach Frederic
[]I agree, but I see a recurrent problem with the distribution of representatives.Given that a vote in some rural areas is worth up to 7 times that of a vote
in certain areas of Osaka and Tokyo,
First point : the discrepancy is less than 1 to 4, I don't remember exactly,
maybe around 1 to 3.5. Second point : if I remember properly, the two
districts with the least number of voters per representative were actually
one in Tokyo (central Tokyo where there are mostly offices) and one in
either Kanagawa or Chiba prefecture.
--
__ _
** ||_ /_| ** Fred "I'll be" Bach (to...@ub-tky.UBSPD.CO.JP)
** || /__| ** [Je suis athee, Dieu merci.] Tel. 813-3597-1595
Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.
>In article <1992Nov4.0...@tcsi.com> mi...@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.1...@island.COM> fes...@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>
>>>redistricting when it comes up? It seems to me that they have the most to
>>>gain, but they oppose it as strongly as the LDP.
>
>>power over to the SDP and/or JCP if the LDP doesn't serve them
>>adequately. In fact, that's probably the only reason why the SDP and
>>JCP exist as serious parties, since the factional spectrum within the
>>LDP is really rather wide. It's a no-win situtation for JCP and SDP,
>>but also a no-lose situation.
>
>Tokyo and Osaka have voted more SDP than have the rural regions. If this is
>the case, they would seem to have more to gain by promoting this sort of
>reform than the LDP. As the rural electorate has NEVER turned over power to
>the opposition, you'd think they (the SDP, etc) would have smartened up by
>now.
The SDP/JCP might have more to gain in the short run, but in so doing, they
would *permanently* lose any hope of getting rural votes. True, the rural
electorate has never voted SDP/JCP, and would probably only do so holding
its nose, but they wring concessions from the LDP (including the maintenance
of a districting that favors them) by holding over the LDP the *threat* of
voting SDP/JCP. The LDP knows this, the SDP and JCP know this, and the
farmers know this.
Play out the scenarios. Let's say the SDP/JCP start favoring redistricting.
Boom. They gain some percentage in the cities, but permanently turn off
the farmers. The LDP is then completely safe -- all it has to do is continue
favoring the current districting, and it never has to worry about being
voted out. The SDP/JCP aren't going to allow *that*, are they?
Let's say that the LDP starts favoring redistricting, and the SDP/JCP hold
fast. Boom. The farmers, together with urban voters, vote in an SDP/JCP
coalition. Well, the LDP isn't going to allow *that*, are they?
Let's say the SDP joins forces with the LDP to favor redistricting. This
would work, probably, since the JCP isn't very strong. However, the
SDP is thereby giving up hope of controlling the government in coalition
with other parties, and might as well just become the left wing of the LDP.
Why would the SDP do that?
Either the SDP has to get much stronger, or the LDP has to split, or some
attractive new party has to come on the scene. I'd say that all three are
slowly growing in likelihood, at the moment.
---
Michael Turner
mi...@tcs.com
Ryoichi Hashimoto
> As reported in the NY Times of Friday, Oct 16, Major Shinsaku Yanai
>wrote an article in the Shukan Bunshun discussing his
>belief that the military should depose the civilian Government,
>much as the Imperial Army did in the 1930's, because of the
>continuing scandals of the ruling party.
I heard the news on Radio Japan.
Although I do not believe there is a posibility of successful coup now,
I cannot foresee the future. And as a Japanese citizen, I am scared.
Not only because of the news, but also I know that:
1) Although many of you will wonder why, Japanese "Self-Defense Force"
is *de fact* out of civilian control. Neither house of representatives
nor senate can investigate the activities of J.S.D.F.(*).
(*) The reason was quite clearly explained in a diet session: "America
would dislike it."
2) J.S.D.F. will have to loosen their ideological check on the freshmen in
the near future to mainain its number of soldiers under the severe
shortage of volunteers. In that case, half-yakuzas or rightists might
be allowed to join J.S.D.F. and they might hijack it(**).
(**)In order to avoid mis-understandings, I explicitly state here, that
current JSDF soldiers are ABSOLUTELY ORDINARY PEOPLE of COMMON SENSE,
except for that major. What I am afraid of is, JSDF might begin to
recruit different type of people in the future.
3) As very few Japanese could contradict the phrase "Emperor wants it!" in
pre-war fascism period, very few modern Japanese can now contradict the
phrase "America wants it!" Japanese allowed their government to violate
the constitution by re-building military force, because America wanted it.
Japanese reluctantly sent SDF units to Cambodia knowing it was clearing
way for JSDF to be allowed to operate beyond the border, only because
they were persuaded that "America seriously wanted it."
What I fear most)
Suppose LDP leaders say, one day in the future, "America wants Japan to
send its force to a non democratic country in Asia to realize America's
will to help citizens there to restore democracy," what do you think
will happen to Japan? Although there will be a huge argument, but, I
cannot deny the possibility that Japanese, after all, will allow their
government to *act for America* by sending "half-yakuza" troops without
any civilian control.
I am sure some people accuse me as ideological mazochist. But....
-- ryo
Rikiya Asano
I have no doubt that Nippon will never go back.
Especially, to a military form of government. Major Shinsaku Yanai is
much like Mishima Yukio. There are still those individuals who have a
fantasy about the power and control
of the old Imperial days. Just as with King Authur and the world
"knight" business, some are conditioned to think of these dark days as
"romantic". How I don't have the least idea. There will never exist in
Nippon a Government directed by the Military. Now my person opinion is
that this Major was thinking with the best intentions. He, like I, is
feed up and piss off at the scandals with in our higher leadership of
our Government. So, I dont think that his intentions are bad. But, he is
suggesting something something very extreme. If this were to and this is
very hard for me to imagine, I would be concerned if the military would
give power back to the people once they've taken it.
I think that the solution would be for
the people to vote to change things. A more radical idea that I'm having
right now. Is for the people to ask theb military to proform a
coup(under the complete direction of the civilian sector) and once that
is done a new party can be elected. But, practically speaking I think
that it should be should at the voting booth. But, I agree in part with
the Major. The LDP Gotta go! preferrably
by the vote. My feeling toward this party and the legal system in Nippon
that deals with these people are a joke.
The joke being:
An elected official begins to illegally take money. but,
Since it's realitively small amounts no one says anything. So, this goes
on for a while until this person makes the big score. He says, "After
this four Million, I'll retire, I..I mean resign." Is that good?
Keis Ohtsuka
> As reported in the NY Times of Friday, Oct 16, Major Shinsaku Yanai
>wrote an article in the Shukan Bunshun discussing his
>belief that the military should depose the civilian Government,
>much as the Imperial Army did in the 1930's, because of the
>continuing scandals of the ruling party.
Is Major Yanai a retired JSDF officer? If he is currently commisionned
in JSDF, his public experession of his belief seriously contradicts
with his duty, as a public servant, to observe the Japanese Constitution.
In any case, Prime Minister Miyazawa, the commander-in-chief of JSDF,
should decide whether Mr. Yanai is fit to remain in a post whose
duty is to "defend" the constitution while openly advocating to
"ignore" it. In my opinion, Mr. Yanai should be fired at once so
that he could excercise his right of free speech without any further
conflict with his current duty. :)
Mike Fester
>>In article <1992Nov3.1...@island.COM> fes...@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>
>>representative as it should be. Allow me to a couple questions here: Recently,
>>the Supreme court agreed that the districts should be redrawn to reflect the
>>current population distribution. What has happened (if anything) to implement
>>this? Second, why do the opposition parties (SDP, JCP, etc) also oppose
>>redistricting when it comes up? It seems to me that they have the most to
>>gain, but they oppose it as strongly as the LDP.
>
[Mr Cohen's cogent summary of former Kaifu's plan to eliminate multi-seat
constituencies deleted for bandwidth's sake]
I understand that, but I don't recall the Kaifu plan actually eliminating
seats; rather, my impression was that there would more, smaller constituencies.
Michael Goldman
>The U.S. has historically had its rural regions over-represented on a
>per-capita basis, but I don't think the skew has not been as dramatic
>as in Japan, overall.
Are you thinking of the very powerful US Senate where the
2 senators from North Dakota (population 638K) have the
same votes as the 2 senators from California (pop. 34M) ?
(Ratio of 53 to 1 ).
- Michael Goldman
--
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban
Disclaimer: All views are solely my own & not the views of Acuson.
<sun!sono!miklg> or [mi...@acuson.com]
Michael Goldman
>The main problem
>for the opposition parties is that the Kaifu plan proposed eliminating
>all multi-seat constituencies. In many districts there are three or
>four seats selected by a plurality of the popular vote. The top three
>vote getters will get seats and the rest loose. Most of the seats of
>the opposition parties are in such constituencies. So what happens,
>usually there are two LDP candidates and a host of minor party
>candidates. The LDP candidates spend all of their money running
>against each other while the opposition candidates hover around like
>hyenas at a lion's picnic waiting to pick up the remaining scraps. So
>the result is that huge amounts of money are spend by the LDP mostly
>to run against itself while the opposition parties are relegated to a
>position of prepetual inferiority because they never develop the local
>power base to win a campaign outright. It is because of this rather
>topsy turvy situation that you find the liberal ostensibly progressive
>parties all opposing election reform and the most corrupt ward heelers
>like Shin Kanemaru, Ozawa and the entire Takeshita faction supporting
>it.
My information (also from the Economist") is that to satisfy the
other parties a more powerful upper house will be made up of
representatives chosen by party in proportion to their national
popular vote. This is like Germany's system, I believe.
Mike Fester
The problem of course, is that the JSDF HAS no constitutional role, so far as
I know. In fact, I am not really certain exactly who is the nominal commander
of the Jieitai. So, if Mjr Yanai is supposed to defend the constitution, he
should be calling for the dissolution of the JSDF! If he calls for an overthrow
of the elected government, what articles has he violated (in Japan)? He may
not be guilty of anything, really, other than stupidity, but that's not a
crime anywhere in the world.
Alton Harkcom
(Michael Goldman ) writes:
=}mi...@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.) writes:
=}
=}>The U.S. has historically had its rural regions over-represented on a
=}>per-capita basis, but I don't think the skew has not been as dramatic
=}>as in Japan, overall.
=}
=} Are you thinking of the very powerful US Senate where the
=} 2 senators from North Dakota (population 638K) have the
=} same votes as the 2 senators from California (pop. 34M) ?
=} (Ratio of 53 to 1 ).
Have people forgotten the purpose of having both a senate and a
house of representatives? One was set to give equal voice to all
citizens and one was set up to give equal voice to each state
regardless of population... "Checks and Balances" ring any bells?