Omar Bennett
Japan's constitution has not been amended since its enactment in 1946 or 1947. However, there have been several attempts to revise it, and the topic of constitutional reform remains a highly debated issue. The process of amending the constitution is complex, requiring a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors for any changes to be put to a referendum. While some advocate for maintaining the existing constitution, particularly progressive and left-leaning groups, others argue that amendments are necessary to address institutional problems and adapt to global changes.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of enactment | 1946 |
| Date of last amendment | N/A |
| Level of difficulty to amend | High |
| Number of amendment drafts released by LDP | 2 |
| Number of proposed amendments by Japanese Prime Ministers | 2 |
| Number of proposed amendments by the Koizumi government | 1 |
| Number of proposed amendments by the LDP | 2 |
| Number of versions of amendment drafts released by LDP | 2 |
| Number of articles changed | 7 |
| Number of articles proposed to be changed | 2 |
| Number of grassroots groups, associations, NGOs, think tanks, scholars, and politicians involved in the debate | Numerous |
| Public support for changing the Constitution | Low |
| Public support for changing Article 9 | Lower than for changing the Constitution |
| Public support for the current interpretation of self-defense | Higher than for changing Article 9 |
| Referendum requirement for Constitutional reform | Majority approval by voters |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Article 9 and Japan's Defence Forces' role
Japan's Constitution, also known as the MacArthur Constitution, was drafted following the country's surrender in World War II and came into effect on May 3, 1947, during the occupation of Japan by the Allies, which lasted until April 28, 1952. The Constitution has not been amended since its enactment.
Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan is a clause that renounces war as a means to settle international disputes involving the state. It states:
> "Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."
Article 9 reflects the objective of the Allied occupation forces to demoralize the Japanese state and prevent rearmament in the post-World War II period. The article has been interpreted to allow for the maintenance of purely defensive military forces, which led to the establishment of the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) or Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) with a limited number of personnel.
The role of Japan's Defence Forces is a subject of ongoing debate in the country. Conservative and nationalist groups have sought to revise Article 9 to increase the prestige of the Emperor and allow for a more aggressive stance by the JSDF, officially turning it into a military. They argue that the current constitution and its interpretation impede Japan's defense capabilities and the development of alliances with countries other than the United States.
On the other hand, progressive, left-wing, and peace movement-related individuals and organizations advocate for maintaining or strengthening Article 9, claiming that the JSDF is unconstitutional and should be limited to activities related to the United Nations and for non-combat purposes. They emphasize economic growth over defense spending.
Some proposals for a compromise position include the recognition of the existence and function of the SDF within the constitution, without completely abolishing Article 9.
Understanding the Limits of the Second Amendment
You may want to see also
Public opinion on amendments
A survey conducted in 2007 showed that 34.5% of Japanese citizens did not want any changes to the constitution, 44.5% wanted no changes to Article 9, and 54.6% supported the current interpretation on self-defense. On the 60th anniversary of the Constitution, on 3 May 2007, thousands took to the streets in support of Article 9. The Chief Cabinet Secretary and other top government officials interpreted the survey to mean that the public wanted a pacifist constitution that renounces war, and that they may need to be better informed about the details of the revision debate.
An April 2018 survey suggested that only 29% of the public thinks constitutional revision is necessary, 27% think it is not, and the rest were unsure. These findings suggest that even if a proposal reaches a public referendum, the result is uncertain. A vocal minority passionately opposed to revision may turn out in force.
Some argue that the constitution does not provide for crises and is an occupation-era constitution. There is no provision that specifies what should be done if a major natural disaster strikes Japan or if a foreign country attacks it. The absence of a provision that temporarily gives strong powers to the prime minister or suspends private rights in times of crisis has led to poor disaster response, as it remained unclear who was responsible for what.
Others argue that the constitution is at the heart of problems related to institutional systems, laws, ordinances, cabinet orders, and values. They believe that unless the root cause of the problems is tackled, Japan is unlikely to rise again.
The Proposal Method: Amending Our Constitution
You may want to see also
Process of amending the constitution
The Japanese Constitution, also known as the "pacifist constitution", has gained fame for its Article 9, which includes a vow to renounce war as the sovereign right of the nation. The constitution has lasted longer than any other in the world without amendment or revision.
The process of amending the constitution is detailed in the Diet Act and the Act on Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan. Amendments require a two-thirds majority in both houses of the National Diet (Article 96), followed by approval in a referendum. The referendum requires a simple majority of the votes cast to pass.
In 2005, there was a push to reduce the vote requirement for amendments in the Diet to a simple majority, but this was met with strong opposition from both within Japan and from international organisations. The legislation to enable the referendum on this proposal was passed in 2007, but the idea ultimately failed due to a lack of public support.
In 2015, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the ruling LDP passed legislation to allow the Japanese military to participate in foreign conflicts, citing the Russian invasion of Ukraine, tensions in Taiwan, and North Korea's weapons development as justification. This was not a constitutional amendment, but a re-interpretation of the relevant passages to allow for "collective self-defence" of allies.
The LDP has released two drafts of constitutional amendments, in 2005 and 2012, with the latter proposing changes to the preamble and Article 9. The 2012 draft was withdrawn, and the 2005 draft was never put to a vote.
Illinois Constitution Amendment: What Was the Outcome?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The constitution's preamble
The Japanese Constitution has not been amended since its enactment in 1946. However, there have been numerous calls for its revision, with some arguing that the constitution is at the heart of problems related to institutional systems, laws, ordinances, cabinet orders, and values. Right-leaning, nationalist, and conservative groups and individuals advocate for changes to increase the prestige of the Emperor and to allow a more aggressive stance for the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) by officially turning it into a military force.
The preamble of the Constitution is a crucial component that sets the tone and underlying principles of the entire document. It starts with an imperial edict made by the Emperor, containing the Emperor's Privy Seal and signature, and is countersigned by the Prime Minister and other Ministers of State. The edict expresses joy for the foundation of a new Japan, constructed according to the will of the Japanese people, and sanctions the amendments to the Imperial Japanese Constitution.
The preamble also includes a firm declaration of the principle of popular sovereignty, stating: "We reject and revoke all constitutions, laws, ordinances, and rescripts in conflict herewith". This statement emphasizes the commitment to democracy as the "universal principle of mankind" and asserts that fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are "for all time inviolable." Scholars interpret this to mean that basic principles such as pacifism, popular sovereignty, and respect for human rights are unamendable.
While some scholars and politicians advocate for constitutional reform, progressive, left-leaning, and peace-oriented individuals and organizations argue for maintaining or strengthening the existing Constitution. They believe that the current Constitution promotes important values such as democracy, liberalism, and respect for human rights, which should be upheld as new principles for Japan. The debate around amending the Constitution, including the preamble, remains ongoing, with various groups expressing differing opinions and interpretations.
Amendments: States' Ratification Power and the Constitution
You may want to see also
Article 96 and the referendum rule
The Japanese Constitution has not been amended since its enactment in 1946. However, there have been several attempts to revise it. Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution outlines the process of initiating amendments.
Article 96 states that amendments must be initiated by the Diet, with a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors. The amendment is then submitted to the public for ratification, requiring a majority vote in a referendum. This process is designed to ensure that any changes to the constitution reflect the will of the people and are not just the result of political interests.
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been a key proponent of constitutional reform. In 2005, then-Prime Minister Junichirō Koizumi proposed an amendment to increase the Japanese Defence Forces' role in international affairs. The LDP has also proposed changes to Article 96 itself, which were supported by former Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, who believed it was unfair that a third of lawmakers could block revisions even if a majority of the public supported them. The LDP's proposed amendment to Article 96 would lower the threshold for initiating amendments, requiring only a majority vote in both houses of the Diet.
Despite these efforts, attempts to amend the constitution have faced significant opposition. In 2007, thousands of people took to the streets to support maintaining Article 9, which commits Japan to pacifism. Surveys have also shown a lack of public support for constitutional changes, with a 2007 survey indicating that 34.5% wanted no changes at all, and 44.5% specifically opposed changes to Article 9. An NHK survey on the proposed changes to Article 96 showed that nearly 50% of Japanese had no opinion on the subject.
The high threshold for initiating amendments and the requirement for a referendum ensure that any changes to Japan's constitution are deeply considered and reflect the will of the people. While some view this process as an obstacle to necessary reforms, others see it as a safeguard for fundamental principles such as popular sovereignty, pacifism, and respect for human rights.
Maryland Voters: Constitutional Amendment Initiative Power
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the constitution has not been amended since its enactment in 1946/1947.
Article 9 forbids the maintenance of "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential". This has been a point of contention as Japan redefined its “defensive” role to include sending Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to aid U.S. forces in the Pacific. Some argue that Article 9 has been bent to the breaking point.
Amendments require approval by two-thirds of the members of both houses of the National Diet before they can be presented to the people in a referendum (Article 96).
Those in favour of amending the constitution argue that the current constitution is an occupation-era constitution that does not reflect the drastic changes Japan is currently undergoing. They also argue that the constitution does not provide for crises, such as natural disasters or foreign attacks.
Progressive, left, centre-left, and peace movement-related individuals and organisations want to keep or strengthen the existing constitution, particularly Article 9, which they see as a symbol of Japan's pacifism. They argue that the constitution's basic principles, such as popular sovereignty, pacifism, and respect for human rights, are unamendable.
