constitution3

Japan Press Service Co., Ltd. is the only news agency providing information of progressive, democratic movements in Japan

Contrary to calls for defense of the Constitution
Akahata editorial

The House of Representatives has established a "Special Committee on the Constitution." The Liberal Democratic, Komei, and Democratic parties voted in favor of its establishment.

The purpose of setting up the special committee is to deliberate on issues related to a national referendum on constitutional revision. Unlike the Constitutional Research Council of each house, the special committee is authorized to discuss creating a bill to hold a national referendum.

The Japanese Communist Party firmly opposed the establishment of the special committee because the national referendum law is obviously aimed at laying the groundwork for gutting Article 9.

Government's formalism is unconvincing

In arguing for the national referendum law, the LDP stresses its urgency, blaming the Diet for failing to enact a law establishing procedures for a national referendum required by Article 96 for revising the Constitution. Echoing this argument, the Komei Party last December agreed to strive to enact the national referendum law.

With the DPJ jumping on the bandwagon, representatives of the three parties in charge of constitutional affairs last March discussed setting up a forum to discuss a national referendum law .

However, due to strong public criticism of the move to revise the Constitution as well as the dissolution of the Lower House and the general election, the ruling parties could not achieve their goal of having the national referendum law enacted in this year's ordinary Diet session.

By setting up the special committee on the Constitution, the ruling parties and the DPJ are to start again from scratch to achieve constitutional revision. However, there is no real justification for enacting a national referendum law.

The LDP argument for the need of a referendum bill is no more than formalism and is unconvincing, an argument contrary to the popular call for the Constitution to be defended. As long as politics are based on the Constitution, there is no need to enact a referendum law. Absence of such a law should not be seen as negligence. It is a great achievement of the popular struggle to block constitutional revision.

The LDP seeks to change Article 9 of the Constitution to enable Japan to participate in U.S. wars abroad. An LDP draft constitution guts Article 9 to make it constitutional for Japan to possess self-defense armed forces as well as to take part in international military operations.

New DPJ President Maehara Seiji also calls for Paragraph 2 of Article 9 to be removed and a right of self-defense established. It is really dangerous with the LDP and the DPJ working together for constitutional revision.

Because Paragraph 2 of Article 9 prohibits Japan from possessing armed forces and exercising the right of belligerency, the government cannot treat the present Self-Defense Forces as having military potential, and the government therefore cannot dispatch the SDF to other countries for the purpose of military action, exercise the right of collective defense, or participate in a U.N. force with the use of force. Deleting Paragraph 2 of Article 9 will make all of this possible.

Prime Minister Koizumi Jun'ichiro says, "I don't understand the logic that revision of Article 9 necessarily means going to war." DPJ President Maehara also said (Yomiuri Shimbun on September 22), "The argument that revision of Article 9 will pave the way for war is political propaganda." These remarks are a ploy to gloss over the danger of amending Article 9.

An overwhelming majority calls for defense of Article 9

Advocates of constitutional revision are in the majority only in the Diet. Many people do not want Japan to become a war-fighting nation. That's why calls in defense of Article 9 of the Constitution are heard everywhere in the country.

Let's work together to increase this power to be an overwhelming public force! -- Akahata editorial, September 25, 2005