July 6, 2016
Prime Minister Abe’s remark, “I’m legislative branch head”, during the latest Diet session has created another controversy. His remark not only violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers but also shows Abe’s ignorance about his position as the “executive branch head”.
The Japanese Constitution vests the legislative power in the Diet, the executive power in the Cabinet, and the judicial power in the courts. It also states that the Cabinet, in the exercise of executive power, shall be collectively responsible to the Diet.
Japan has a parliamentary cabinet system under which the Cabinet is normally formed by parliamentarians of a political party which dominates the Diet. This often allows the concentration of power to be held by the prime minister who also heads that political party.
The ruling Liberal Democratic and Komei parties now have a majority in both the House of Representatives and the House of Councilors. Given the use of their majority power in Diet handling, such as the forceful enactment of the war bills, PM Abe feels that the executive branch head can also control the legislative branch.
As a brake on the abuse of power by the Cabinet, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to pass a no-confidence resolution against the Cabinet. However, as long as cabinet members are selected from the majority force, passage is quite rare. On the other hand, the Cabinet can freely exercise its power to dissolve the Lower House and hold a general election. As shown in the 2014 general election, this power is sometimes used to strengthen the ruling party’s parliamentary force, not to confirm whether the general public approves the Cabinet or not.
In the parliamentary system, the opposition force is also expected to play a role in countering government’s abuse of power.
In Britain, which established the modern parliamentary system, the largest opposition forms the Official Shadow Cabinet. In France, opposition and minority parties’ parliamentary roles are guaranteed under the supreme law.
The Japanese Constitution also has stipulations in favor of minority parties in the Diet. For example, when a quarter or more of the total members of either the House of Representatives or the House of Councilors requests the Cabinet to convene an extraordinary session of the Diet, the Cabinet should in principle respond to this request.
Last autumn, opposition parties made a demand to this effect but the Abe Cabinet did not open a Diet session. The Constitution sets no time limit for responding to such a call and has no measure to force the Cabinet to hold an extraordinary Diet session. This is because the Constitution naturally assumes that the Cabinet will act based on principles enshrined in the supreme law.
PM Abe is denigrating opposition and minority parties. In May 2015, in Diet discussions on the war legislation, Abe jeered at an opposition party parliamentarian by saying, “Ask your questions, quick!” Under the Constitution, the prime minister and Cabinet ministers are required to explain and answer questions about bills in Diet deliberations. They have a responsibility to make clarifications on Cabinet-proposed bills and handle criticism from the opposition parties in a sincere manner. Abe’s jeering tramples on not only opposition parties but also the Diet itself.
In the current situation where constitutional principles are being ignored by the Abe Cabinet, the question now is how best to utilize the constitutional structure centering on the parliamentary system.
The Japanese Constitution vests the legislative power in the Diet, the executive power in the Cabinet, and the judicial power in the courts. It also states that the Cabinet, in the exercise of executive power, shall be collectively responsible to the Diet.
Japan has a parliamentary cabinet system under which the Cabinet is normally formed by parliamentarians of a political party which dominates the Diet. This often allows the concentration of power to be held by the prime minister who also heads that political party.
The ruling Liberal Democratic and Komei parties now have a majority in both the House of Representatives and the House of Councilors. Given the use of their majority power in Diet handling, such as the forceful enactment of the war bills, PM Abe feels that the executive branch head can also control the legislative branch.
As a brake on the abuse of power by the Cabinet, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to pass a no-confidence resolution against the Cabinet. However, as long as cabinet members are selected from the majority force, passage is quite rare. On the other hand, the Cabinet can freely exercise its power to dissolve the Lower House and hold a general election. As shown in the 2014 general election, this power is sometimes used to strengthen the ruling party’s parliamentary force, not to confirm whether the general public approves the Cabinet or not.
In the parliamentary system, the opposition force is also expected to play a role in countering government’s abuse of power.
In Britain, which established the modern parliamentary system, the largest opposition forms the Official Shadow Cabinet. In France, opposition and minority parties’ parliamentary roles are guaranteed under the supreme law.
The Japanese Constitution also has stipulations in favor of minority parties in the Diet. For example, when a quarter or more of the total members of either the House of Representatives or the House of Councilors requests the Cabinet to convene an extraordinary session of the Diet, the Cabinet should in principle respond to this request.
Last autumn, opposition parties made a demand to this effect but the Abe Cabinet did not open a Diet session. The Constitution sets no time limit for responding to such a call and has no measure to force the Cabinet to hold an extraordinary Diet session. This is because the Constitution naturally assumes that the Cabinet will act based on principles enshrined in the supreme law.
PM Abe is denigrating opposition and minority parties. In May 2015, in Diet discussions on the war legislation, Abe jeered at an opposition party parliamentarian by saying, “Ask your questions, quick!” Under the Constitution, the prime minister and Cabinet ministers are required to explain and answer questions about bills in Diet deliberations. They have a responsibility to make clarifications on Cabinet-proposed bills and handle criticism from the opposition parties in a sincere manner. Abe’s jeering tramples on not only opposition parties but also the Diet itself.
In the current situation where constitutional principles are being ignored by the Abe Cabinet, the question now is how best to utilize the constitutional structure centering on the parliamentary system.
