Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba dissolved the Lower House for a snap election on Oct. 9, just eight days after he took office. Diet debates were cut short only after a couple of days.

The official election campaigning period will start on Oct. 15 with voting on Oct. 27 for the first Lower House election in three years.

Despite the Cabinet's banner of “Consent and Empathy,” Ishiba’s rush to call an election like this suggests his desire to get it over with while the government's missteps are minimal, indicative of partisan self-interest.

Public trust in politics has been severely undermined by the Liberal Democratic Party's factional slush fund scandal.

At a time like this, both the ruling and opposition parties, including the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, which aims to replace the LDP as the governing party, will face a rigorous scrutiny of their abilities to tackle the raft of domestic and international challenges that confront the nation.

VOTERS LACK INFORMATION FOR SNAP POLL 

Ishiba's political calculation behind the early move to call an election was evident during an Oct. 9 news conference where he expressed a desire to “win a public mandate and strong support for the new administration’s policies.”

As a prime minister who barely won his party leadership position and is struggling with a weak internal power base within the party, Ishiba is apparently eager to secure public support as soon as possible to bolster his governance.

However, the hasty dissolution of the Lower House came with significant costs.

By going back on his statement about the necessity of question-and-answer sessions of the Budget Committee debates to provide adequate information for the voting public to make their decisions at the polls, Ishiba has caused significant damage to the people’s trust in his words and actions.

Prior to the dissolution, instead of Budget Committee sessions, a “toshu toron” (party leader debate) session for one-on-one debates on the Diet floor between the prime minister and the leaders of the opposition parties was held on Oct. 9.

During the session, Ishiba once again refused to reinvestigate the slush funds amassed by LDP factions as pools of unreported political funds and expressed his view that businesses and other organizations should be allowed to make political donations as they do now.

He also promised not to hold political funding parties during his tenure and stated that the LDP would decide on its endorsement of any candidates involved in the slush fund scandal for the Upper House election in 2025 using the same criteria used for this Lower House election.

To be sure, debates between the prime minister and opposition party chiefs were a little more coherent, consistent and connected compared to a previous session in which Ishiba answered questions about his policy speech, when he mostly just read prepared answers that were predominately based on conventional government positions.

Still, an extended 80-minute session for the event was not enough for in-depth debate. The focus was primarily on the issue of “politics and money,” and little attention was given to other specific policy issues.

Ishiba’s promise to offer sufficient information for voters to make their decisions has not been fulfilled.

It was revealed just the day before the dissolution of the Lower House that Justice Minister Hideki Makihara attended at least 10 gatherings and meetings organized by the former Unification Church, now called the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, and its affiliated groups.

Since sessions of the Budget Committees with the attendance of all Cabinet members were not held, voters were deprived of a valuable opportunity to scrutinize the qualifications of the minister.

POSTMORTEM ON KISHIDA ADMINISTRATION REQUIRED

The LDP announced its first round of official candidate endorsements for the Lower House election on Oct. 9, increasing the number of non-endorsed slush fund-linked politicians from six to 12.

The move gave the impression that the party is releasing its responses to the political funding scandal gradually to mitigate the backlash.

During the party leader debate, Ishiba stated that the LDP could consider additionally endorsing lawmakers who win as an independent. What's important, however, is whether individual politicians have clarified the facts concerning their involvement in the scandal and gained broad voter approval.

It would be wrong to regard tainted politicians as cleared just because they have been elected. Elections should not be used as a ritual for wiping the slate clean.

This Lower House election is not just about a judgment on the Ishiba administration.

How to assess the performance of the previous administration of former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida over its three years of governing the nation will also be a major issue, particularly in light of Ishiba’s pledge to follow most of Kishida’s policy agenda.

Questions should be asked about Kishida’s moves to change important policies without broad public debate, such as revising the three key security policy documents that have paved the way for Japan to possess military capabilities to strike enemy bases and the decision to maximize the use of nuclear power.

Other weighty policy decisions that should be re-examined and re-evaluated include significant increases in defense spending and delaying securing stable funding for measures against the declining birthrates.

We hope this opportunity will also be used to conduct an overall review of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s administration that lasted seven years and eight months.

Under Abe's dominant rule, Ishiba, often called an "opposition" within the ruling party, was critical of Abe's marginalization of the Diet and his antagonism toward the opposition.

This election also provides an opportunity for the LDP to engage in constructive exchanges with the opposition camp to restore the legislative branch’s function of monitoring the actions of the administrative branch and ensure more meaningful and meticulous debates at the Diet.

Such efforts would help restore public trust in politics.

OPPOSITION PARTIES ALSO FACE KEY TEST

Since the LDP and its junior coalition partner, Komeito, returned to power at the end of 2012, they have continuously won national elections, but the Lower House election is fundamentally about electing the government.

When the ruling party loses the public's trust, the presence of an opposition party ready to replace it is essential for maintaining healthy tension in politics.

With the LDP facing strong political headwinds due to slush fund issues and its connections with a dubious religious organization, opposition parties are facing a crucial test of their ability to capture the hearts of the public.

The CDP, the main opposition party, carries a significant responsibility for offering a viable alternative. It held its own leadership election parallel to the LDP's and chose former Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda as its “face of the election.”

Noda was elected primarily to alleviate concerns about the CDP’s governing ability and extend its appeal to LDP supporters and non-affiliated voters by diluting its liberal color. Whether the choice will produce the desired results remains to be seen.

The CDP is seeking to stress its policy differences from the LDP with a campaign slogan of, “A change in government is the greatest political reform.”

The campaign is focused on its proposals to prohibit donations by companies and other organizations, restrict “hereditary politics” where Diet seats are passed down within families, often from parent to child, and legalize selective surnames for married couples and same-sex marriages.

However, the opposition's efforts to field unified candidates to counter ruling camp candidates in single-member districts produced limited success in the last Lower House election, dousing expectations for this approach.

Attempting the same approach has become even more challenging due to the early dissolution that has deprived opposition parties of time for coordination.

Opposition parties need to propose trustworthy policies that directly affect people's lives and livelihoods, and are not limited to political reforms.

This would convince voters that they are viable and attractive political alternatives to the LDP-led government instead of trying to take advantage of voters’ disillusionment with the ruling coalition.

This test will determine if voters actively choose the opposition.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Oct. 10