Voters in the Oct. 27 Lower House election refused to give the ruling coalition free rein but stopped short of handing the opposition a mandate to govern the nation.

The first full-scale post-election debate in the Diet begins on Nov. 28 when an extraordinary session is convened.

Since the ruling coalition alone cannot pass the budget or any other bill, the ruling and opposition camps must engage in constructive bipartisan discussions to find common ground.

The challenge for the legislature is whether it can turn this new political situation into a conducive environment to realize policies that benefit the people, not a morass of confusion or stagnation.

Both the ruling and opposition parties should work with awareness and responsibility to restore the authority of the legislature.

LDP ‘COMMON SENSE’ NO LONGER APPLIES

Since its founding in 1955, the Liberal Democratic Party has been the ruling party, except for two brief periods.

Coalition governments have become the norm since the 1990s. This period of grouping and regrouping has seen such ruling alliances as the LDP-Socialist-New Party Sakigake, the LDP-Liberal Party-Komeito, and the current LDP-Komeito coalition.

However, the LDP had managed to maintain a majority in the Lower House, either through coalitions or on its own.

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has chosen to form a Cabinet supported by “minority ruling parties,” an unprecedented decision in the LDP’s long history.

Ishiba and other LDP lawmakers should understand that the “common sense” of their party is no longer applicable in government operations or relations with the Diet.

Since the second administration of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who returned to power in late 2012 and ruled for seven years and eight months, the hollowing out of the legislative branch has progressed under a political landscape defined by an “ikkyo tajaku” (one strong, many weak parties) system, with a dominant ruling bloc and fragmented opposition.

The powerful and arrogant ruling camp used its majority to pass contentious bills, blatantly ignoring the opposition’s requests for deliberation and turning its back on debate.

Under the previous Fumio Kishida administration, radical policy shifts were made one after another without national debate.

The new power dynamics between the ruling and opposition parties will undoubtedly transform the landscape of the Diet. About half of the chairs of the Lower House’s standing committees are from the opposition.

The main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan will chair the crucial Budget Committee, making it difficult for the government to dodge questions through evasive or equivocal answers as it has done too often in the past.

The government is supposed to fulfill its responsibility to clearly and adequately explain its policy decisions and actions to the Diet.

Legislators should spare no effort in addressing various values and different opinions and aiming for broad consensus through meticulous debate.

Now is the time for lawmakers to return to the basic principles of democracy.

CORRECTING REVIEWS OF BILLS

Under the ikkyo tajaku situation, once the government submitted a budget or other bill to the Diet, the opposition’s views were generally disregarded. After a set period of deliberation, the bill was passed and enacted with a majority of ruling party votes.

The background of the Diet becoming like a subcontractor to the government includes the LDP’s long-standing practice of prior reviews of bills. Under this system, approval from the party precedes government decisions, binding all LDP legislators to vote in favor of a bill that has gone through the process.

The practice meant passage of a bill was essentially decided when it was submitted to the Diet, making parliamentary debate a mere formality. The opposition has been left with little recourse to resist legislation other than through actions to briefly delay the passage.

To be fair, the ruling party needs to coordinate its legislative actions beforehand, and there is nothing wrong with the party’s efforts to have a unified response.

However, intra-party discussions differ from those in the Diet. They lack transparency because they are not generally open to the public or recorded for publication. This practice tends to make Diet deliberations seem like a sham.

It would be fruitful if a “partial coalition,” in which the ruling camp, unable to carry out policy decisions on its own, seeks agreement with the opposition on individual issues, leads to improvements in the situation.

However, the ongoing policy talks between the LDP-Komeito coalition and the Democratic Party for the People do not offer any reassuring signs.

Last week, the Cabinet decided on an economic stimulus package that calls for considering increased income tax base deductions and gasoline tax cuts--two measures strongly demanded by the DPP.

This will likely lead to the DPP’s support for the draft supplementary budget the government will submit to this Diet session.

But the bloated supplementary budget, compiled with the primary focus on scale, includes many projects and programs of dubious necessity and effectiveness.

Unless the spending plan is revised and streamlined for higher efficiency by incorporating other opposition parties’ opinions through Diet debate, this cannot be described as a better approach to legislation.

If the LDP-Komeito-DPP agreement is simply pushed through, it would be just an expanded version of the flawed prior review process that runs counter to the imperative of careful deliberations at the Diet.

LAWMAKER-INITIATED LEGISLATION

The Constitution designates the Diet as “the highest organ of state power” and “the sole law-making organ of the state.”

However, in reality, most of the Diet’s work involves processing bills drafted and submitted by the government, and legislator-initiated legislation is extremely limited.

The grim reality is that bills submitted by the opposition alone are not even discussed.

This opportunity should be used to change the rigid tradition of giving priority to government-drafted bills. Designating specific days and times in each committee for deliberation on bills developed by lawmakers is essential.

Active discussions among legislators will also deepen the public’s understanding of policy options.

The litmus test will be legislation to allow married couples to use separate surnames. Although the Legislative Council of the Justice Ministry recommended the introduction of the dual-surname option in 1996, the government has been unable to act on the proposal due to strong opposition from the LDP.

The opposition has repeatedly submitted bills to introduce the system, but they have only gathered dust on the shelf.

Now, with the CDP gaining the post of chair of the Lower House Judicial Affairs Committee, debate on the proposal should start immediately in an open forum.

Discussions among party leaders based on broad, long-term perspectives will be more important than ever. Just before he dissolved the Lower House for a snap election, Ishiba agreed to one-on-one debates with party leaders in a format that extended the usual 45-minute time framework to an 80-minute session.

The LDP stated that this would not set a precedent, but securing sufficient questioning time is a prerequisite for meaningful debate.

This session represents a fresh start for the Diet amid growing public distrust of politics and established political parties.

The Diet can learn from the example set during the Democratic Party of Japan’s administration led by then Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, the current CDP chief, from 2011 to 2012.

At that time, the three parties--the DPJ, the LDP and Komeito--agreed on integrated tax and social security reform involving a consumption tax hike to secure stable, long-term funding for the safety net.

This kind of consensus-building beyond party lines will be key to restoring trust in party politics.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 28