Japan’s opposition: Still not ready for prime time?

WHAT HAS BEEN THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL STORY in Japan over the past month? The pat answer would be the Defense Ministry scandals, which have so far resulted in the arrest of former Deputy Defense Minister Takemasa Moriya and his wife on bribery charges. They could implicate former Defense chief and current Finance Minister Fukushiro Nukaga, prevent the Fukuda administration from gaining traction, or even contribute to a swing to the opposition in the next lower house election. At least, that’s what the opposition hopes.

But Mr. Nukaga seems to have a solid alibi for the time being, and it will take a hefty reversal of electoral fortune to put the opposition in power. Besides, scandals of this sort are ultimately the same old story about money and the people in power. Politicians of every party in every country will betray the people’s trust whenever large sums of money are involved. The people may punish the offenders, but the punishment is only temporary.

Others might point to Prime Minister Fukuda’s trips to Washington and Singapore to meet with President Bush and the leaders of China and South Korea, and his environmental aid initiative for Asia. While these steps shouldn’t be dismissed, they represent nothing new—relations with East Asian countries have continued to improve for years, and will only continue to get better, despite the occasional blips. And Japan has been diligently providing environmental assistance to other countries in the region for some time.

The Important Story

The story with the most ramifications for the future, however, was afforded only the briefest of coverage in both the English-language and vernacular media, inadequately reported even when it was mentioned, and has since fallen off the political radar.

That was the upper house rejection of three people nominated for government positions by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party nearly a month ago. The media presented two narratives. The first one focused on the novelty: It was the first rejection of nominees for these appointed bodies since 1951. The second was to broadcast the claim by the three opposition parties who voted down the nominees that they were striking a blow against amakudari.

We should expect their emphasis on the first narrative—mass market media is the fast food of journalism, and their primary interest is to feed the consumer stories garnished with exclamation points.

Vested Interests in Japanese Government

Here’s a brief explanation of the second. Amakudari (descent from heaven) is the practice in Japan of civil servants retiring and continuing their careers in other organizations that were under the jurisdiction of the ministry that formerly employed them. The potential conflicts are obvious: collusion to gain contracts or favorable treatment, for example, or going easy on inspections. Reportedly, some public organizations are maintained solely as a receptacle for these retirees.

In contemporary political discourse, amakudari is a code word for the entire postwar political system established by the LDP. It is characterized by the collusive arrangements between the government (the LDP), the bureaucracy, and business and industry. This has been referred to as the Iron Triangle.

When people in Japan say they want to end amakudari, they are actually talking about smashing the Iron Triangle and restructuring the political and governmental system. The people who say they want to break up the LDP—one of whom was former LDP President and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi—also use that expression as code for breaking up the Iron Triangle.

Amakudari was the reason for the rejection of the three nominees—or so it was claimed by Azuma Koshi’ishi, chair of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan’s caucus in the upper house. Here’s what he said at a press conference:

参院選で私たちに第１党を与えて頂いた結果だ。天下りを許さない、というわが党の意思表示だ

“This is a result of our being given the position of the leading party in the upper house election. To say that we will not stand for amakudari expresses the will of our party.”

This should be the best of news for politics and governance in Japan. The opposition in the upper house has at long last put the ruling party on notice that the cozy practices of the past will no longer be accepted. It could represent yet another step toward the establishment of a mature two-party system. What could be better?

The Real Story

Unfortunately, however, it’s terrible news. Scrape off the top layer—which this Kyodo reporter did not do—and it’s apparent that the vote had nothing to do with amakudari at all. It certainly doesn’t herald the blossoming of a real two-party democracy in Japan.

A glance beneath the surface shows the rejection just gummed up the workings of government for the sake of superficial political advantage. It reveals that the DPJ, which is trying to convince voters it is capable of forming a government, acted like third-rate ward heelers instead of a responsible political grouping with the gravitas required to lead the nation. It is yet another indication that they still do not grasp what it means to be competent stewards of government.

But that discovery required searching out and reading several different news sources. And who among the general public has time for that?

More information was provided in both the left-leaning Asahi and the right-leaning Sankei. They reported that the opposition DPJ, in league with the miniscule Social Democrats (neé Socialists) and People’s New Party, voted down the three nominees. But they added the curious information that the upper house members from the Japanese Communist Party voted to approve all three of the rejected members.

That was the tipoff that the situation is what the Japanese would call usan-kusai, or has a suspicious smell. The Japanese Communists are the last people in the Diet who would vote for egregious political hackery. If the three nominees were so unsuitable, why didn’t the JCP reject them? Unfortunately, the Asahi and the Sankei didn’t tell us.

More information was found in an article in the regional Nishinippon Shimbun. Their report stated that the JCP not only voted to approve the three nominees, they also objected to six other nominees before eventually voting for them.

What was the reason for the Communists’ behavior?

The answer to that can be found here, in the Japanese-language party newspaper, called Akahata (Red Banner).

The three rejected nominees were Yumiko Hirano, a member of a labor ministry organization related to workers’ insurance; Masakazu Nagao, a member of a transport ministry council; and Yoshie Tanaka, a member of an environment ministry body examining complaints about compensation for health problems caused by the environment.
　
The JCP said they voted for the nominees based on an evaluation of their activities while in office.

And here we get to the heart of the matter. All three of the rejected members had been nominated for reappointment. They were already serving in their posts, and all three had been unanimously approved by the DPJ when they were originally appointed.

Yumiko Hirano was selected just last November to fill a vacancy. Any potential problem with amakudari would have been evident then. She hadn’t done anything in the meantime to suggest she had any conflicts of interest.

Ms. Tanaka is a pediatrician with a wealth of experience. She has worked as a physician at a national hospital, headed an office in the environmental agency, served on the Pneumonconiosis Council in the Labor Ministry, supervised the Narita Airport Quarantine Station, and was the director of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases. She was appointed to her present post three years ago.

Why did the DPJ vote down someone who seemed to have exceptional qualifications?

Here’s what DPJ leader Ichiro Ozawa said about the vote:

「与党には）参議院で過半数割れしている認識が非常に薄い。過半数をもっている人（民主党）に対する説明をしなきゃ（同意人事が）通らないという認識が薄い」

“(The ruling party) does not seem to realize that it had lost its upper house majority. They were insufficiently aware that they had to justify the nominees to the people in the majority (the DPJ).

That just doesn’t make sense. What need is there to justify three nominees whom the DPJ already unanimously approved?

What really happened was that the DPJ decided to sacrifice these nominees to flex the new-found muscle that derives from their majority in the upper house. The DPJ’s rejection of the three had nothing to do with amakudari and everything to do with political gamesmanship.

Why was this the most important news over the past month? Most people in Japan—staunch supporters of the LDP included—yearn for a credible opposition party that would promote the maturation of Japanese politics. This DPJ behavior, however, shows that those who bank on their maturity will get scant return on that investment.

This incident also raises a question: Japan is a liberal democracy with a freely elected government and a free press. Why is it necessary to read a publication called Red Banner to find out what really happened in the daily conduct of legislative business?