The Diet has not held a one-on-one debate between party chiefs since the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan got their new leaders, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and Kenta Izumi.

There are plenty of topics the ruling and opposition party chiefs should debate in public to gain broader insight into key policy issues, ranging from the prolonged novel coronavirus pandemic to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

We urge both camps to agree to hold a debate, called “toshu toron,” as soon as possible.

The format of the one-on-one debate, modeled on the British Parliament’s Question Time, was designed to breathe new life into discussions on the Diet floor and promote political leadership in making policy decisions.

In 2000, when toshu toron was formally introduced, eight sessions were held, and the debate took place four to seven times a year until 2006.

But the number of such opportunities declined gradually. Since former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe returned to power in late 2012, such sessions have been held only once or twice a year, and none in 2017 and 2020.

Even a good system becomes irrelevant when people responsible for its operation lose interest in making good use of it.

In 2014, the ruling and opposition parties reached an agreement to hold a one-on-one debate once every month.

In 2018, a nonpartisan group of lawmakers called for more frequent sessions for debate between party heads to give them more opportunities to explain their parties’ policies to the public. But nothing has happened.

The blame should not be placed entirely on the ruling party’s reluctance to expose the prime minister to the risk of political blunders.

The opposition parties tend to prefer Budget Committee sessions, which give them more time to pose questions to the prime minister or other top government officials.

The debate is packaged into a 45-minute session, with the time shared among multiple opposition leaders.

In the previous toshu toron session, held in June 2021 under the administration of former Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, the CDP got 30 minutes and three other opposition parties--Nippon Ishin no Kai (Japan Innovation Party), the Democratic Party for the People and the Japanese Communist Party--were each given five minutes.

The three opposition groups were allocated snippets that were by no means enough for any meaningful debate.

This problem can be solved by, for example, making the session longer or holding the event more frequently so that all opposition parties can get sufficient time.

The Diet should tap its collective wisdom to reinvigorate the format to secure valuable opportunities for party leaders to debate key policy issues on an equal footing in line with the original purpose of the program.

During the Abe and Suga administrations, the prime ministers often failed to offer straight answers to questions and instead indulged in long and irrelevant speeches about their views and opinions. This attitude made a mockery of the purpose of one-on-one debate.

We hope Kishida, who takes pride in his “ability to listen” to what people say, and Izumi, who stresses the importance of making specific policy proposals, will engage in constructive exchanges of views and opinions that underscore afresh the fruitfulness of these sessions.

We have one request for Kishida. The people deserve to hear him speak more about his opinions as the political leader.

He should not say he will “consider” as he has too often said during Diet sessions.

An Upper House election will be held shortly after the current ordinary Diet session ends.

It will effectively be the first major opportunity for voters to deliver their verdicts on the Kishida administration’s performance.

For the opposition parties that took a drubbing in the autumn Lower House election, held less than a month after Kishida took office, the upcoming poll will be critical for their efforts to engineer their political resurgence.

Let the debate between the ruling and opposition party chiefs be held to give the voting public precious opportunities to assess the policies of the parties and the abilities of their leaders.

--The Asahi Shimbun, April 22