Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Commentary :: Voting right disparities need fixing ASAP
Makoto Inagaki / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer
Regarding disparities in the weight of votes among electoral districts, seven high court rulings have declared the current voting right gaps in a House of Representative election as either "unconstitutional" or "effectively unconstitutional," prodding in-depth discussion within the Diet to rectify the vote value inequities.
The high court rulings, handed down since December, call for establishing equal voting rights as required by the Constitution, instead of special consideration being given to the votes from persons in underpopulated regions, taken for granted under the current electoral system.
It was the first time that decisions on vote disparities have been rendered in such rapid sequence.
In the August 2009 lower house election, the disparity of votes between the least and most represented single-seat constituency stood at 1-to-2.3.
In protest against the disparities between voter numbers per lower house member in the recent general election, 10 lawsuits were instituted by voters around the country, demanding that the election results be nullified and the lower house be contested again.
'Uniform one-seat formula'
Under provisions of the Public Offices Election Law, high courts--not district ones--serve in the first instance in suits involving electoral disputes with the government as defendant.
The seven high courts made a total of 10 rulings, four of which deemed a gap at a ratio of 1-to-2 or more as unconstitutional, while three others deemed the disparity as a virtual violation of supreme law. All the rulings, however, came short of upholding the plaintiffs' demand for nullifying the election results.
Three remaining high court decisions were in favor of the judgment that voting right disparities do not run counter to the Constitution.
The current single-seat electoral district system coupled with proportional representation contests for the lower house was introduced in 1994. Of the 460-seat chamber, 300 seats are staked in "first-past-the-post races" and the remaining 160 are up for grabs through proportional representation.
Of the 300 seats, one seat is allotted to each of the nation's 45 prefectures, Tokyo and Hokkaido, irrespective of local populations. This electoral method is known as the "uniform one-seat formula."
The remaining 253 are allocated to single-seat constituencies, whose boundaries are based upon population spread.
Compared with the proportional zoning of single-seat constituencies, the uniform one-seat formula tends to see more Diet seats allocated to prefectures with smaller populations in terms of population-lower house seat ratios.
The formula is designed to reflect the opinions of such constituents in national politics and is thus advantageous to politicians from these prefectures.
Ever since the first lower house election was carried out under the current system, the weight of one vote in the most represented single-seat constituency has persistently been more than twice that in the least represented area.
High courts vs top court
The Supreme Court has so far handed down three rulings over the gaps, judging each as constitutional. In a 2001 ruling, the top court recommended a maximum gap of 1-to-2.47 be permissible, thus not violating supreme law.
Weighing the need for an "equality in voting rights" versus the "discretionary powers available to the legislature when deciding upon an electoral system," the top court regarded the adoption of the uniform one-seat formula within the bounds of Diet discretion.
The string of four high court rulings this time, however, are contrary to these Supreme Court decisions and favor placing higher significance on the "equality of voting rights."
One of the four rulings, given by the Fukuoka High Court on March 12, declared: "The principle of equality in voting rights is one of the Constitution's most fundamental requirements."
"The legislature should do its utmost to ensure [this equality] is fulfilled," it said.
The three high courts that fell short of outright declaring the current lower house election system as unconstitutional instead described it "effectively unconstitutional" but also expressed skeptical views on the uniform one-seat formula.
Two of the three high courts, the Tokyo High Court in February and Takamatsu High Court in April, said the current system cannot be called reasonable since it unduly emphasizes underpopulated areas over the equality of voting rights as required by the Constitution.
In spite of the uniform one-seat formula giving special consideration to depopulated areas, Shimane Prefecture, with the nation's second-smallest population, does not receive any benefit (from the formula) in the allocation of lower house seats to the prefecture, the court said. Regarding the "special consideration to depopulated areas," both ruled that the current formula is ineffective.
Why have the high courts' seven rulings challenged the Supreme Court's relatively lenient findings toward voting right disparities?
As Prof. Masato Tadano at Hitotsubashi University, an expert in constitution studies, put it, "The high courts' decisions presumably reflect the fact that the weight of one vote has been perceived by many to be increasing because in recent years, Diet elections have been touted as a matter of choosing a party or parties in power [unlike the days of government led by the Liberal Democratic Party]."
The rulings in the lawsuits over the 2009 lower house election are to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Rezoning panel a focus
Incidentally, a full-scale national census, conducted once every 10 years, is scheduled for autumn.
Worthy of note is whether the government's rezoning study council for lower house elections will take demographic findings in the census into account and review the current configuration of single-seat electoral districts.
The rezoning council's constitution, however, stipulates that any revision to electoral districts be made under the premise of keeping the uniform one-seat formula intact. It will therefore be extremely difficult to see the "excess of the 1-to-2 ratio" among voting rights brought to an end by the council's possible rezoning.
It was 1985 when the Supreme Court last handed down a ruling of unconstitutionality concerning voting right disparities in a suit involving the outcome of a lower house election.
The recent series of high court rulings over voting right dispute indicates judiciary opinion is undergoing a major change.
How can we fairly address the problem of conflicting needs--that is, realize equality in voting rights and pay attention to underpopulated areas?
The Diet is being strongly urged to tackle this problem through in-depth discussions and reach a solution as soon as possible.
(Jun. 1, 2010)
Commentary :: POLITICAL PULSE / Hatoyama proves himself ill-equipped to lead
Akitoshi Muraoka
Ensuring the security of their country is the task every national leader should place utmost importance on. For leaders of Japan, this key mission involves pursuing two largely incompatible goals: maintaining the conflict deterrence provided by the presence of U.S. forces in this country, and alleviating the burden this presence places on the people.
When Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama promised to move U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station, located in Okinawa Prefecture's densely populated Ginowan area, "out of the prefecture at the very least," he had no prospect of living up to the pledge.
Sure enough, in announcing the latest Japan-U.S. agreement on the Futenma issue on Friday, Hatoyama had to admit there was no other option than to return to an existing accord stipulating a replacement facility be built in Henoko, in Nago in the prefecture, and adjacent waters.
Given China's military buildup and a recent spate of menacing moves by North Korea, it is natural that the government put priority on pleasing the United States in deciding the relocation site.
But the government's dithering for more than eight months over the matter caused needless confusion within political circles and among the general public, making a tricky issue even more difficult to put to bed.
Hatoyama's way of doing things has also caused awkwardness in the Japan-U.S. alliance, eroded Okinawa people's confidence in the government and driven the Social Democratic Party from the Democratic Party of Japan-led ruling coalition.
His self-determined deadline for settling the Futenma issue "by the end of May" ended in failure.
The prime minister said he would "stake my job" on his ability to provide a satisfactory outcome on the Futenma issue. How is he going to take responsibility for the debacle it has become?
The plan to which Hatoyama has reverted--moving the Futenma airstrip to Henoko--was officially agreed by the Japanese and U.S. governments in 2006 after years of bilateral consultations. It is a realistic solution to the relocation problem that does everything possible to balance the conflicting goals of maintaining deterrence and lightening Okinawa's burden as a host of U.S. bases.
Even though the 2006 plan was made before the DPJ came to power in September, international politics holds as a matter of basic common sense that a new government should follow its predecessor on fundamental diplomatic and security policies.
To date, Hatoyama has failed to give any explicit explanation as to why his government continually makes a point of denying the wisdom of the previous government's diplomatic and national security policies.
The prime minister had at least two clear chances, in autumn last year and again in December, to finish the Futenma issue. At those times, both the Okinawa prefectural government and the Nago municipal government were basically in favor of the plan agreed in 2006.
So, what happened? How did things become so complicated?
Did the Hatoyama government simply not want to adopt a policy formed under the Liberal Democratic Party?
Or was Hatoyama so complacent as to presume the United States would accept his requests to move the Futenma facility outside Okinawa Prefecture, or even outside Japan?
The pet theme of the Hatoyama Cabinet has been "politician-led handling of government affairs," a policy that has repeatedly proven flawed. In this case, the Cabinet didn't listen to firsthand advice from working-level bureaucrats involved in researching candidate replacement sites under the LDP administration. Instead, the government started anew, sounding out local authorities about hosting the base, only to be flatly rejected by every one.
Because of a lack of leadership, coordination between Cabinet members involved was ramshackle. Social Democratic Party leader Mizuho Fukushima was understandably dismissed from the Cabinet for refusing to endorse the new bilateral relocation agreement.
But others, too, including DPJ Secretary General Ichiro Ozawa, should be brought to task for allowing the SDP, which has only 12 seats in the lower house and House of Councillors combined, to have a disproportionately big say on the all-important issue of national security.
The DPJ, absorbed in its bid to hold onto power, has put excessive emphasis on securing the SDP's cooperation in the coming upper house election.
Hatoyama's deeply troubling admission that "the better informed I become on security affairs, the more I understand [how U.S. marines are] contributing to maintaining deterrence," shows the prime minister's knowledge about the fundamentals of national security is seriously lacking.
In addition to such ignorance, Hatoyama's political style is characterized by the idea that any political policy contrary to those adopted in the past by the LDP can be assumed to be good. He is complacent, but with no convincing reason. And he is responsible for a string of policy-management mistakes made in the name of "politician-led handling of government affairs."
Every one of these propensities points to Hatoyama's flagrant lack of the sense of responsibility required to steer a government.
It is imperative to gain Okinawa residents' consent to the Japan-U.S. accord on the Futenma transfer, so it can be put into effect without wasting more time. The question is, can such a task be undertaken by a prime minister who does not have the people's trust?
Now is the time for leaders of the DPJ and its coalition partners to give that question serious thought.
Muraoka is political news editor of The Yomiuri Shimbun.
(Jun. 1, 2010)
Editorial :: Hatoyama's dithering caused coalition crack
The Yomiuri Shimbun
The Social Democratic Party's split from the coalition government led by the Democratic Party of Japan arose from the fact that their diplomatic and security policies were as irreconcilable as oil and water.
The SDP's departure came after Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama dismissed SDP leader Mizuho Fukushima as state minister in charge of consumer affairs, after she refused to sign a document approving the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in Okinawa Prefecture. Despite this breakup, the SDP has not ruled out cooperating with the DPJ in this summer's House of Councillors election.
Hatoyama's sacking of Fukushima is understandable in light of her defiance over the Futenma policy--an issue that directly affects national security. The SDP decision to walk out of the tripartite coalition also was a natural reaction.
Hatoyama largely has himself to blame for the messy split: He repeatedly made concessions on Futenma and other issues as he gave priority to maintaining the coalition with the SDP to ensure smooth Diet management and electoral cooperation.
===
History could repeat
The Hatoyama administration could repeat its mistake if it concedes to the SDP on policy matters simply to obtain its cooperation in the forthcoming election. The administration should be focusing more on the political realignment looming after the upper house election, as well as forming a "partial coalition" in which ruling and opposition parties cooperate when they agree on specific policies.
In its policy platform declared in 2006, the SDP said it wants to "scale down the Self-Defense Forces that have existed in violation of the Constitution" and "transform the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty into a pact of peace and goodwill." On the Futenma issue, the party insisted on relocating the base overseas--a plan the United States was never likely to accept--and delaying a final decision on the matter while making no effort to find a realistic solution.
Hatoyama buckled late last year when the SDP threatened to bolt from the coalition over the Futenma relocation. The prime minister put off settling the issue in line with the 2006 agreement between Tokyo and Washington. This further complicated an already delicate problem.
Had Hatoyama defused the Futenma issue at that time and bitten the bullet by allowing the SDP to break away from the coalition, he would not have ended up straining relations with Washington, as well as with local Okinawa governments and residents, to the detriment of the national interest.
Making the tough decision then would have spared the prime minister from devoting so much political energy to the Futenma issue. Instead, he could have turned his attention to other diplomatic and domestic issues, such as deepening the Japan-U.S. alliance.
===
A heavy price to pay
A coalition government by its very nature requires all its participants to make concessions. But Hatoyama's unwillingness to openly discuss differences in important policy matters with his coalition partners has blown up in his face with the SDP's breakaway.
According to a Yomiuri Shimbun opinion survey taken over the weekend, the Hatoyama Cabinet's approval rating has dropped to 19 percent, and nearly 60 percent of respondents think Hatoyama should resign as prime minister. The percentage of respondents who plan to vote for the DPJ in the proportional representation segment of the upper house election dipped below that of the Liberal Democratic Party for the first time since the DPJ came to power in September.
Public discontent with Hatoyama has been growing over his refusal to take responsibility for his inability to resolve the Futenma issue in line with what he promised the people.
Criticism of Hatoyama is finally emerging even within the DPJ. The party should be aware that people are casting a cold eye over the party because of its inability to reform itself from the inside.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, May 31, 2010)
(Jun. 1, 2010)
Daily Yomiuri Online :: Tuesday, June 1, 2010
- Approval rate for Hatoyama Cabinet hits new low of 19% (Jun.1)
- DPJ shocked over plunging approval rate (Jun.1)
- SDP local chapters: Let's go! / Regional leaders spurred party to withdraw from ruling coalition (Jun.1)
- Commentary :: Voting right disparities need fixing ASAP (Jun.1)
- POLITICAL PULSE / Hatoyama proves himself ill-equipped to lead (Jun.1)
- Editorial :: Hatoyama's dithering caused coalition crack (Jun.1)
Hatoyama under fire over SDP departure
June 1, 2010
Click for Video
Pressure is mounting against Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama after the withdrawal of the Social Democratic Party from the governing coalition over the relocation of a US base in Okinawa.
Hatoyama spoke to reporters on Monday after meeting with Democratic Party Secretary General Ichiro Ozawa and its Upper House caucus chairman Azuma Koshiishi.
The prime minister told reporters that the 3 leaders agreed to work together for the country and the people, and to ride out the tough political situation. Hatoyama said they also agreed that he should retain his post.
Earlier, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano said Hatoyama should do his utmost to win public support and fight the upcoming Upper House election.But criticism of Hatoyama is growing, even among his party executives, over his handling of the base relocation, the SDP departure, and his falling approval rating.
Senior party official Yoshimitsu Takashima told reporters that he expects Hatoyama to make the right decision, indicating he will seek Hatoyama's voluntary resignation.
Secretary General Ozawa and Upper House caucus chief Koshiishi are expected to meet Hatoyama again on Tuesday to convey the tough party situation.
2010/06/01 07:36(JST)
(JST: UTC+9hrs.)
Japanese prime minister resigns after failing to unravel Futenma plan
By David Allen
Stars and Stripes
Published: June 1, 2010
GINOWAN, Okinawa — Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama resigned Wednesday after a turbulent eight months in office, admitting his broken campaign promise to move U.S. Marine air units off Okinawa had taken a toll on his credibility as a leader.
His decision came just four days after the U.S. and Japan announced they would go forward with a 2006 plan to close Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in urban Ginowan and relocate aviation operations to Camp Schwab, on Okinawa’s more rural northeast coast.
In anticipation of Hatoyama’s resignation, a spokesman for the Pentagon said Tuesday that the U.S. expects the agreement to go ahead, moving Marine air units to Camp Schwab as planned.
“This is an agreement between governments, not between politicians,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. “We expect agreements to be respected … that whoever is in power will respect the agreements that have been forged by previous administrations.”
Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan on Friday is to pick a new leader, who would become prime minister because of the DPJ’s majority in the Diet, party members said. Finance Minister Naoto Kan, 63, who is also deputy prime minister, is viewed as the front-runner.
Hatoyama said another factor in his resignation was a series of funding scandals involving himself and the DPJ secretary general, Ichiro Ozawa, who also stepped down Wednesday.
Ozawa told reporters following the prime minister’s announcement that a new cabinet would be chosen quickly, possibly by Monday.
“We can’t create a political vacuum,” said Ozawa, who was considered the party’s power broker. “We have to decide on the next leader as soon as possible.”
Hatoyama, 63, is the fourth Japanese prime minister to resign in the past four years.
He called it quits after facing mounting pressure from his own party, the desertion of one of his government’s coalition partners and plummeting poll numbers — all largely attributed to his failure to keep a promise to relocate Futenma off Okinawa.
“I have caused trouble and concern to the people of Okinawa,” Hatoyama said during a televised meeting with party members Wednesday morning. “However, I want the people to understand I made every effort to move the [Futenma] operations out of Okinawa.”
He said the March 26 sinking of a South Korean warship, blamed on a North Korean submarine, was a factor in his decision to endorse the 2006 plan. U.S. officials, taken aback when Hatoyama took power and immediately called for a full review of the plan, insisted throughout that keeping Marine air and ground units in close proximity was necessary to quickly respond to regional emergencies.
“To maintain and keep the trusted relations between the U.S. and Japan is indispensable and critical not only for Japan but for the stability of the East Asia region,” Hatoyama said. “It is unfortunate that we ended up asking Okinawa to continue to shoulder the burden.”
Hatoyama also said he regretted the decision of the Social Democratic Party to leave the three-party coalition after he removed SDP leader Mizuho Fukushima from the Cabinet after she refused to sign on to his decision on Futenma.
In Naha, Okinawa’s capital, Fukushima told reporters on Wednesday that her party will continue to oppose relocating Futenma within Okinawa and will not return to the ruling coalition unless the DPJ reverses its position.
Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima said Hatoyama backtracking on Futenma was a disappointment to all Okinawans. Voters here overwhelmingly favored the DPJ and its coalition partners in last summer’s Lower House elections.
“The people had high expectations based on the public promise of the DPJ and the words of Prime Minister Hatoyama,” Nakaima said. “This all makes me wonder if the prime minister had an accurate understanding of situation on Okinawa.”
The political climate on Okinawa and between the U.S. and Japan is going to be difficult for whoever succeeds Hatoyama, said an Okinawa-based expert on foreign affairs.
“In the long run, the way the Futenma issue was handled has undermined trust between the two nations,” said Masaaki Gabe, professor of international relations at the University of the Ryukyus. “Because the major reason for Hatoyama stepping down was Futenma, it sends a message to the Japanese public that a prime minister who cannot maintain good relations with the U.S. government cannot keep his position.
“The Futenma agreement was not a win-win situation. Instead, it was totally one-sided, developing a sense of defeat among the Japanese public. Whoever the next prime minister may be, he or she would consider it too risky to change anything.”
Hatoyama’s resignation is being seen as an attempt to bolster his party’s chances in the upcoming July elections for the Upper House of the Diet. Support for the DPJ has plummeted from a more than 70 percent favorable rating in September to less than 20 percent, according to a recent poll.
Hatoyama came to power last September, ending an almost unbroken 50-year rule by the conservative Liberal Democratic Party, which had strongly supported the U.S. alliance. He maintained during his tenure a need for Japan to wean itself from reliance on the U.S.
He touched upon that again in his resignation announcement.
“For the future, we have to make sure Japan’s security is maintained by Japan itself, and we should not continue to rely on the United States,” he said. “The true nature of the Futenma issue lies here. It is probably not possible in my lifetime, but perhaps for the next generation.”
A senior defense official at the Pentagon told reporters Tuesday that there should be no delay in building the replacement facility, which is expected to be completed in 2014.
Details are expected to be worked out by the end of August, officials said.
Stars and Stripes reporter Chiyomi Sumida contributed to this story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
