Political parties need change

The Japan Times: Monday, June 24, 1996

By REI SHIRATORI
Special to The Japan Times

     Japanese politics seems to be going no where. Despite all the calls for "party realignment," the prospects for its development look as cloudy as ever. No wonder frustration is growing among politicians themselves.
     The basic reason for a political stalemate is this: The news election system of single-seat districts is driving voters to make a simple yes-or-no choice , despite the fact that they are embracing ever more diversified values and are seeking greater freedom to choose in public elections.
     In other words, the popular trend toward political diversity and fluidity is colliding head-on with the election system's orientation toward a two-party system. As a result, politics has lost its sense of direction.
     It is true that politicians are finding it difficult to adapt to the new election system. Unsure of victory in future polls, they are trying to put off the dissolution of the Lower House as long as they can. This is only part of the reason for the political paralysis, however.
     It would seem that a practical way to break the deadlock would be to change the election system yet again. In reality, however that is easier than said done, for it would be difficult if not impossible for the same Diet members who devised the new system to admit their mistake and start again scratch.
     Even if another change comes- indeed, no matter what election systems is adopted - party realignment is unavoidable. For one thing ,the Liberal democratic Party, having lost its majority -and many of its vested interests- is unlikely to survive in its present from.
     The same goes for the Social Democratic Part, ones known as the Japan Social Democratic Party. It lost its ideological backing with the collapse of the Soviet brand of socialism in 1989.Although it has changed its name- and much of its platform- the party is also unlikely to maintain its present structure.
     Shinshinto (New frontier Party) holds little promise now, as it seems unable to chart the nation's future. True, it put an end to the LDP's one-party rule, but its much of its appeal. If anything slogan helped only to boost the fortunes of a of selected politicians, including its president, Ichiro Ozawa.
     In short, the major parties have an "identity crisis." They have failed to present clear-cut plans for the future, or ac credible road map for Japanese politics. To break the stalemate, the present system of political parties must be restructured. As things stand, however, it is unclear how this will be accomplished. Hence the frustration among the public and politicians alike.
     In my opinion, a restructuring of the party system requires, first and foremost , a public discourse on the future direction of Japan's parliamentary democracy.
     Political sciences offer two ideal-but conceptually different- models of parliamentary democracy. One is "majority-rule democracy" and the other "consensus-building democracy."
     In the former, a two-party system is the norm. This is seen as an efficient system for producing results, particularly in a period of political turmoil. Politics, therefore, should be practiced primarily to realize the will of the majority. For that, strong political leadership is required. The single-seat election system is geared to this model of democracy.
     In the latter form, the basic assumption is that people in today's highly developed societies, unlike those in 19th century industrial societies, cannot make a simple yes-or-not choice because they are bound together by complex and diverse interests. Political leaders are therefore required to have the ability to coordinate such differences. So the multiparty system, or a multiparty coalition government, is more desirable to achieve consensus among as many people as possible.
     Which model should Japan adopt? If the majority-rule model is better, the nation already has it, at least in name. A general election will be held by July 1997 under the single-seat/proportional representation system. As a result, either one party dominance or something close to a two-party system will come into existence.
     What if most people want to see neither a return to one-party rule nor a convergence of political forces into an artificial two-party system? In other words, if coalition government is the trend of the times, them the nation should take the consensus-building model.
     It is this question - which of the two models Japan should choose -that must be discussed first. In this context, the issue of forming a third political force as a counterweight to the LDP and Shinshinto should be addressed from a wider perspective, not just from the standpoint of reviving the SDP.
     I subscribe to the multiparty system, considering that the two-party system cannot effectively respond to the fluid and diverse aspirations and interests of the people. I believe that both the politicians and the public should realize the merits of coalition government, particularly its capacity to forge a consensus and make a more flexible use of power.
     The next question is: What is the central issue that will prompt political restructuring?
     It is unlikely that the question of constitutional revision of national security policy will spark a political realignment. This is because the LDP and the SDP broadly agree on this issue on this issue. The LDP, with more of its younger leaders taking over from the Old Guard, now favors the pacifist postwar Constitution. Sakigake, the junior coalition partner, is also in favor of the present Constitution.
     By contrast Ichiro Ozawa, the head of Shinshinto, advocates a more active security policy to be achieved by amending the Peace Constitution. His position pits Shinshnto against the three-party coalition. This confrontation on security issues, however, is only to be expected, so it provides little grounds for a political shakeup.
     There is little possibility, either, that the issue of "big government vs. small government" will trigger moves toward a new political order. The LDP, while calling for deregulation, is practicing the "big government" theory with emphasis on public investment. The SDP supports an active government role in regard to welfare policy.
     Shinshinto's Ozawa, an advocate of a free-market economy, believes in small government but some of his colleagues are not of the same mind. Sakigake is inclined to less government involvement, but it is not necessary united on this point.
     "Small government" is also favored by younger politicians pushing for a new party, notably Yuki Hatoyama and Hajime Funada. The two men, however, are trying - or so it seems - to strike a balance between a free-market economy and social fairness (social equality). Funada advocates "new-new conservation" with a touch of philanthropy (promoting volunteer activities, for example). Hatoyama, son of former prime Minster Ichiro Hatoyama who was a Christian, is making a pitch for "yuai-seishin" (humanism or comradeship). But these slogans, devoid of specific, are not likely to provide the main thrust for political reorganization.
      It is also unlike that political style or the method of leadership will be a key factor in reshaping the political word. The is the case particularly with Shinshinto, which is split between pro-Ozawa and anti-Ozawa members. The division has to do with the two models of democracy. If Ozawa is a leader of the majority-rule type , Tsutomu Hata, along with Ozawa, has been a key proponent of the single-seat election system as well as the two-party system. Yet Hata is opposed to Ozawa's strong leadership style, a quality that is essential under the majority-rule mode. More-over, Hata is showing sympathy toward moves by Funada and his friends in Shinshinto to create a new party.
     What, then, is the basis for party realignment?
     The question brings to mind the phrase "disalignment of political parties" which was used by scholars of political science in the United States and Europe during the 1970s.One scholar even wrote a book called "The Party's Over."
     In fact, from the 1970s to the present, voters in Western countries increasingly turned their backs on political parties; as a result, the influence of parties declined.
     More specifically, the support ratings of political parties dropped and the number of voters without political affiliations increased. Even support from affiliated voters became unstable. Voter turnout continued to fall. More and more people participated in volunteer activities, but participation in political activities fell off. Voter's satisfaction with political parties continued to decline as their ability to address voters' wishes declined.
     One major reason for voter alienation is the advent of many rivals to the political parties for public attention, such as the mass media and citizens' movements. These nonpolitical organizations have come to play a significant role in absorbing and representing the diverse views of the people.
     Another reason is that some of the traditional issues in politics, such as the gap between rich and poor, have become less serious than before, thanks to expanded welfare policies and higher income levels. As a result, voters have become less interested in politics.
     All this and more reflect the growing gap between the political parties and the publics. In Japan's case, the LDP in its heyday enjoyed solid support from the farmers and business managers because it represented a set of interests as rice producers of those of residents in rural communities .Not anymore.
     As the farming population has continued to shrink, the set of interests of the agriculture industry has collapsed. The number of full-time farmers has dropped sharply; many part-time farmers work at nearby factories on weekdays. Some farmers, such as those in northern Japan, are registered as full-time farmers but actually spend half a year (during the winter) working at factories or on construction sites.
     Obviously, their interests have diversified; they have interests both as farmers and as factory or construction workers. Suburban farmers want to sell vegetables at the highest want to sell vegetables at the highest possible prices but want to buy rice - which they do not grow - at the lowest possible price. Likewise, factory managers want to sell their products at higher prices, but as consumers, they want to pay less for cars, homes and the like.
     Given these conflicting interests, political parties can no longer secure stable voter support by representing a particular set of interests. This means that they must be more flexible, or take a short-term, case-by-case approach in dealing with the diverse views and wishes of the people. Otherwise, political parties may be short-lived.
     A case in point is the Japan New Party, which won as many as 30 seats in a general election three years ago under the slogans "Political reform" and "Down with the LDP's one-party rule." And the party leader, Morihiro Hosokawa, reached the pinnacle of power as Prime Minister. But the party has since disappeared.
     Indeed, there is no assurance that a political party formed before an election will survive until the next election. Perhaps Japanese politics is entering such a period of extreme fluidity. Yet, politicians are trying to stick with existing parties or they dare to create new parties that will last forever. Perhaps that is part of the reason for the current stalemate in our national politics.
     Historically, political parties have been the central players in the legislatures of democratic nation-states. With these societies now undergoing major changes, however, it would be naive to think that political parties alone will be able to exist in the same way as they have before.

     Rei Shiratori is professor of political science at Tokai University and president of the Institute for Political Studies in Japan (IPSJ).