The Upper House election was held July 10, amid lingering shock waves from the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who was gunned down while delivering a stump speech only two days earlier.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner, Komeito, clinched victory by winning the majority of the contested seats.

This marks the second consecutive victory in national elections for Prime Minister Fumio Kishida following on the heels of the successful outcome of the Lower House election last autumn. This has given Kishida a stable power base for his administration.

The question now is how he will draw on that strength in realizing whatever policy measures will benefit the public.

The prime minister also faces a test of the true value of the “carefully designed and tolerant politics,” one of his pet phrases, given that people are reappreciating how important it is to defend democracy.

MUTUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DIVERSE VIEWS

The suspect in the fatal attack against Abe has been quoted as saying he held no grudge against the former prime minister’s political convictions, although the background of the killing must be clarified through and through.

Abe had served as prime minister for the longest period in Japan’s constitutional history and still held major clout as the head of the LDP’s largest intraparty faction. The very fact that he was assassinated in the middle of the election campaign could be enough to chill free speech, thwart free political activities and spread social unrest.

We should do everything possible to block a trend for trying to accomplish one’s goal through violence, instead of language, in Japanese society, which has already been trapped in a sense of hopelessness under the prolonged economic doldrums, the spread of disparity, the restrictions imposed on freedom under the novel coronavirus pandemic, and other factors.

Every single member of the public, who are the holders of sovereign power, should take that to heart with firm determination. The lawmakers, who are elected as “representatives of all the people,” are called upon to lead the efforts for ensuring that. 

Leaders and candidates of different political parties all talked of their resolve to “defend democracy” during their stump speeches on the final day of election campaigning.

Democracy, which they said should be defended, is underpinned by down-to-earth efforts to acknowledge the presence of diverse views and seek consensus through careful discussions on the basis of the freedoms of speech and expression.

Politicians should keep in mind that they could improve public trust in, and defend, democracy only by practicing politics of that sort.

VICTORY DOESN’T MEAN FREE HAND GIVEN

Particularly heavy responsibility lies with the Kishida administration and the ruling LDP and Komeito, which have won an overwhelming weight of numbers in both chambers of the Diet.

There will be no national election for going to the people over the coming three years, except in by-elections, unless the Lower House is dissolved.

The power map in the Diet that has resulted from the latest election will likely remain in place, for some time to come, as a basis of Japan’s political scene.

About nine months into his stint at Japan’s helm, Kishida, who has won this “midterm evaluation” called the Upper House election, is expected to embolden his steps toward turning his administration into a full-scale operation.

Never during the election campaign, however, did he present a clear-cut prescription for controversial policy issues and call, up front, for a verdict to be given by voters. Kishida, therefore, should not believe that the victory has given him a free hand.

What he should be doing, before everything else, is to do his utmost to address urgent tasks.

They include taking measures against rising commodity prices, which were a major issue of contention during the Upper House election; dealing with the fresh rise in COVID-19 cases, which some say have entered a seventh wave in Japan; and increasing the cohesion of the international community to confront Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.

Discussions for revising Japan’s National Security Strategy are also expected to go into full swing.

Kishida has remained noncommittal over the arguments for doubling Japan’s defense spending and for allowing Japan to possess enemy base attack capability. Just because the election is over does not mean he is entitled to press on the gas pedal on those issues.

A remark made by a Cabinet member during a stump speech as part of the latest election campaign cannot be overlooked.

Daishiro Yamagiwa, the state minister in charge of economic revitalization, said, “We, officials of the government, don’t lend a single ear to proposals that come from people in the opposition.”

The government is not there to serve supporters of the ruling parties alone. It is there to serve all members of the public, including those who voted for the opposition, fairly and justly.

The very idea of dismissing dissenters on the basis of their party affiliations also goes against the principles of democracy.

Politicians are called upon to listen earnestly to minority views and to seek an even more careful approach to consensus building when it comes to debate on the Constitution, which sets the foundation of the state.

Apart from the ruling LDP and Komeito, Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) and the Democratic Party for the People (DPP), both in opposition, are also positive about discussing possible constitutional amendments.

Combined, those four parties have won more than a two-thirds majority needed in the upper chamber for initiating a change to Japan’s supreme law. They already have more than a two-thirds majority in the Lower House, another requirement for initiating an amendment.

Kishida, however, has seldom called for constitutional revisions during his stump speeches, even though he is head of the LDP, which espouses a need for four amendments, including writing the Self-Defense Forces explicitly into the pacifist Article 9.

The four parties, often lumped together as pro-revision forces, have yet to agree on how precisely the Constitution should be rewritten. They should not rely on their weight of numbers in seeking a conclusion in a slapdash manner.

OPPOSITION PARTIES HAVE OWN ROLES TO PLAY

The stances of opposition parties also came under question during the Upper House election.

The main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP), aware of the complaints that the party is “only criticizing” things, stressed its readiness to make “policy proposals.”

The CDP, however, failed to hold on to the number of the contested seats it held. That shows the party was far from recovering its former standing.

The DPP said its priority is on realizing policy measures and snuggled up to the ruling parties, including backing an initial budget proposal in the Diet.

Doing so, however, did not allow the DPP to gain more seats in the upper chamber.

By contrast, Nippon Ishin won more seats, just as it had in the Lower House election last year.

The party makes it no secret that it is eager to have the Constitution amended within a set time limit, as the party has called for a national referendum to be held on a constitutional revision to coincide with the unified local elections next spring.

Many of Nippon Ishin’s arguments on security policy are even more radical than those of the LDP. Nippon Ishin, for example, has called for discussions on “nuclear sharing,” or deploying U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan and jointly operating them.  

What is needed here is a strategy that is based on pacifism, which postwar Japan has long adhered to, even though there is a need for facing up squarely to the public’s anxiety that has risen in response to the tense international situation.

The LDP came out victorious in 28 of the 32 single-seat constituencies, which largely determine the general outcome of the election. That is partly because different opposition parties each took independent lines of their own and their candidates competed among themselves, said as a general rule.

A decline of opposition forces could result in a loss of tension from the political arena. Day-to-day monitoring of public administration by opposition parties carries even more weight at a time when no national election could be held for some time to come.

Making policy proposals is certainly important.

If opposition parties are to take a step forward for the “next time,” however, they should do so by being true to their primary role of being rigorous monitors of whichever administration is in power.

--The Asahi Shimbun, July 11