The two - party system that is possible in Japan would be better if the Liberal Democratic Party was split into two - the opposition party would not become the ruling party.
2022-06-16
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Democratic Democratic Party administration described as a nightmare
In the run-up to the House of Councilors election, when considering a two-party system that is possible in Japan, the media immediately talks about the need to develop an opposition party to compete with the Liberal Democratic Party, but based on painful experience under the previous Democratic Party administration, Japanese people are fed up with that story. Former Prime Minister Abe described the Democratic Party of Japan as a "nightmare government."
The Democratic Party of Japan, which gave up power after three years, subsequently fell apart and fell apart, but Japanese voters still had high expectations for the party, even for a certain period of time, when it came to the surprise of a party that split into pieces due to divisions among its ranks. He was appalled and regretted being appointed to the national government. So what is the current political party support rate? The opposition party only has an approval rating of around 5% at best . (Reference: Public opinion poll | Nippon Television )
VIDEO
How much power should be given to the opposition parties
I even wonder how much time we need to spend in the Diet against such an opposition party in the name of democracy. They were elected in their constituencies, but as a political party they can hardly be considered to represent the people.
Despite this, they do whatever they want under the pretext of monitoring the ruling party, and their activities only end up stalling the Diet by asking questions no different from those of weekly magazine reporters. .
What is the ideal form of a two-party system?
Is it really possible to have a two-party system in Japan? There is an opinion that it is not true democracy if there is no change of government, and that is probably correct. However, the most serious problem is not that there is no other political party in Japan capable of managing the government other than the Liberal Democratic Party. So when will the opposition party grow? This year marks 77 years since the end of the war.
I've been saying for some time that it would be a good idea to split the Liberal Democratic Party into two, but most people give me strange looks. But guess what? The Liberal Democratic Party has a wide range of swings from left to right, which means it is a party with a wide range of defense . That is why it continued to be the ruling party for a long time after the war.
And in the last Liberal Democratic Party presidential election for Reps. Kishida, Takaichi, Kono, and Noda, a section of the public did not miss that this structure was clearly appearing and disappearing, but the media did not report on this structure.
Republican policies and Democratic policies
Former Prime Minister Abe developed Abenomics in an effort to ease regulations, lower corporate taxes, improve the competitiveness of companies, raise gross output, increase employment, and induce inflation. Using the United States as an example, the policy will likely be more Republican.
Prime Minister Kishida has said that he would energize the middle class, and has advocated for growth rather than distribution, which is a rather left-wing position, which in American terms could be called a Democratic Party-like position.
Two-party system with the ability to take charge of government
In other words, this would be fine. The Liberal Democratic Party could be divided into two major parties, the right and the left, and the people could decide which policy is needed now, taking into account the domestic situation at the time, and then change the government. This is a healthy two-party system. What is currently taking place as a competition between factions within the Liberal Democratic Party will be exposed to the vote of the people by separating it into a political party. .
Even though the Liberal Democratic Party already covers a wide range of policies from both the right and the left, opposition parties that stray outside of that range are often talking about policies that are not realistic in the first place. We have experienced this under the Democratic Party administration. What became strange was that they tried to leave the matter to the opposition party under the pretext of a two-party system. The problem is that the opposition parties have a modest number of seats.
The government cannot be entrusted to any party other than those that have the ability to become the governing party. No matter what ideals or ideologies, if they are imperfect planes, they will crash.
POINT It may no longer be true that opposition parties support a healthy democracy. What is needed is a political party with the ability to take charge of the government and be responsible.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
[Masochistic view of history] Postwar Japan, which became an invading country, and the Western view of history | Recover Japan's view of history
Recently, there has been public criticism of Japan's GHQ view of history. There used to be an expression called the Tokyo Trial Historical View, but it was not widely used due to the strong left-wing tendencies in the Japanese media and educational institutions. The historical view of the Tokyo Trials is essentially a counterargument against the international label of an aggressor country as stipulated by a unilateral international military tribunal, but the current movement is not only based on the unfairness of the Tokyo Trials, but also in recent years, A major reason may be that records related to the Pacific War, whose period of classified information has expired, have been made public, and various things have come to light. The GHQ historical perspective is a perspective that covers various aspects of Japan's education, systems, and laws during the subsequent trusteeship era, including the Tokyo Trials.
There is a uniquely American compositional feature here. The United States was probably the first country to value the concept of a just war to this extent. Even today, the United States uses the word "justice" a lot when fighting or supporting wars. In other words, this value system started the postwar era with the premise that America was just and Japan was unjust. Can there be a concept of justice in war? War is not about good or bad; rather, the two countries have become unable to come to terms with justice. Otherwise, a war will break out when there is a fatal collapse, so there is no point in trying to say justice at this stage. Let's say the war ends and one of the countries wins. If we do so, will we be able to reach a compromise between the two countries? There are only victorious countries and defeated countries, so there is no point in calling it justice. But Japan received that education.
Japanese people are learning the history of Western values, not just modern history, but world history in general, but this is rarely questioned. In the first place, when you think about what Europe really is, Motomoto is a land where indigenous people called Celts lived, and Jews and Romans are also indigenous peoples. Today's Britain, Germany, France, and various other European countries are lands that were conquered and assimilated by Germanic peoples. The Germanic peoples were an ethnic group that lived in what is now Central Asia, and came under pressure from the expansion of the Huns and occupied Europe. The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, and many other modern European countries are countries of these Germanic tribes.
Broadly speaking, as an indigenous people, the Jews had already lost their country to the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire was destroyed by the Germanic peoples. Slavic peoples are said to be indigenous peoples, and later Eastern European countries centered on Russia corresponded to them.
In other words, Germanic peoples invaded Europe from Central Asia, and for some reason this is described as the Great Migration of Germanic Peoples. It just means you moved. As a result, the Celts lost almost all of their territory, and now Ireland and Scotland are inhabited by Celts. Halloween is a Celtic festival that is famous for its harvest festival.
■English subtitles
Have you ever heard of the Age of Exploration? This started in the mid-16th century when the European maritime nations set out on ships and swept the world, and when we think of the Age of Discovery, we dream about it. However, from the perspective of us people of color, this would be the beginning of a colonial era that would last hundreds of years. Or for Africans, it has become an era of dark slave trade. The discovery of the American continent is said to be a spectacular discovery during this age of discovery. Didn't you learn the story of Columbus' egg in school? It is because he was a man with such a great change of thinking that it is as if he came to discover the American continent. Nowadays, various ideas are uploaded on Youtube every day, such as scattering salt on a table and making an egg stand up, which is not even a magic trick. The discovery of the Americas marked the beginning of an era of genocide for the indigenous Indians, and it is said that by the end of the 19th century, approximately 90% of the indigenous people had disappeared. It is estimated that there were once approximately 100 million indigenous people.
But now there is America, the land of freedom, which is the leader of the world. Not only did most of the Indians disappear, but blacks were imported from Africa as slaves, and it seems that we still have issues with racial discrimination, but America is a free country where many ethnic groups live. We will not neglect promoting our country as a democratic country that banishes ethnic discrimination from the world.
In fact, it is true that they have a lot of knowledge through research on various ethnic groups and cultures and the history of coexisting with many ethnic groups in the United States, and they want to eliminate discrimination. Although it is true that they are highly conscious, they used to do pretty dangerous things according to their wishes and desires, and even though they reflect on their cruel history, they suddenly claim to be messengers of justice. However, there is.
It is desirable that the Japanese people begin to become aware of the GHQ historical perspective, that the momentum for constitutional revision increases, and that Japan moves toward an autonomous nation, but in the first place, this European expansion policy and world division policy are important. From a broader perspective, Japan was the only Asian country that resisted hundreds of years of global colonial policy.
However, if we say that Japan's war was also a just war, it would be the same as America's, so we need to consider that it was a war that was fought in conjunction with Japan's national interests. However, at that time in the West, there was no sense that racial discrimination was wrong, and people of color thought it was okay to enslave or kill people. It can be said that they were considerably more advanced than them. In fact, Japan has already advocated the elimination of racial discrimination to the international community, and this is clearly stated in the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration. This becomes clear when we compare the management reality of Western colonial policies with Japan's annexation and colonial policies. This may be history that Westerners would never want to acknowledge.
If you look at it from the perspective of the GHQ view of history or the Western view of history, it becomes surprisingly easy to understand, but what makes Japan so complicated is that on top of this, it is naturally eroded by communist, Chinese, and peninsular views of history. After the war, the Japan Teachers Union was dominated by communists, who taught as educators, and left-wingers talked about the Chinese and Peninsular views of history, as if there was any need to listen to the fictional history they claimed. The media has been pouring it out to the people. There is still no sign that the comfort women issue will be resolved.
The problem is that Japan has abandoned its own historical perspective, and as a result has become a country that sways from side to side, wondering whether the past was just as it is told. The Japanese people need to regain their historical perspective. However, this is strictly an academic approach to history, and Japan is different from neighboring countries, which aim to turn history into a political and diplomatic issue rather than an academic approach.
In fact, the history of the West and the history of Japan are clearly different, and from Japan's perspective, the West is the aggressor. , Japan's closest neighbors are Western countries. How many democracies are there in Asia? There is no answer to these questions if we consider the past in terms of values of good and evil, but we should focus on the justice that can be shared by liberal countries in the present.
Regarding the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the war between Israel and Hamas, there are doubts about the tone of the discussion that excessively develops arguments about right and wrong. Since the war has already started, there is no point at all. In the history of the world, there is no example of a war ending based on the theory of good and evil.
As a TV show, it would be easier for viewers to understand and get excited if the show was broken down into an easy-to-understand picture of good and evil. We empathize with wars between other countries and want to believe that we are on the right side. However, during a war, information is also cut off, making it difficult to assess what is actually true.
Economic sanctions were imposed on Russia, and there was initially talk that the Russian economy would soon collapse, but what happened? The Russian economy's main industry is the export of natural resources, and its customers are EU countries, so if it continues to import oil and natural gas, its main industries will remain protected. For example, if an industry, such as industrial products, competes to be at the cutting edge of global technological competition, if it suffers from economic sanctions and suffers from financial difficulties, goes bankrupt, and is no longer able to manufacture products, even 10 years may pass. If you try to enter again, you won't be able to catch up. This may be the case with Japan's semiconductor industry. But natural resources are not like that; they do not degrade, recede, or diminish. Whether you dig in 10 years or now, you will be able to extract the same quality natural resources. In other words, Russia's main industries will not disappear. Furthermore, the area of Ukraine currently occupied by Russia is said to be 7.2% of Ukraine's territory. And when reporting on economic sanctions against Russia, there is absolutely no mention of Russia's profits from this vast occupied territory.
What would happen if the war ended with the country still under occupation? This region will still be Russia in 100 or 200 years. So will economic sanctions still be in place 100 years from now? In other words, the occupation policy ultimately has economic benefits when considered over a 100-year span. There is a person who is currently a member of the Diet who once said that it would be a good idea to give Takeshima to South Korea, but he doesn't seem to understand the meaning at all. If one fish is landed in South Korea in those nearby waters, Japan will lose the amount equivalent to that one fish. This is a loss that occurs every day, but how much profit will it provide over 100 or 200 years based on the amount of fish caught?
Whether you look at Ukraine or Takeshima, there is actually no justice at all, and the only way to protect territory is through military force. Is it possible to get these things back through diplomacy? Japan only has a track record of not being able to do so.
In this way, the idea that wars and conflicts can be ended by developing a theory of good and evil is nothing more than a delusion, and the idea that war can be avoided in any case through diplomacy is also a delusion. Since war occurs after diplomacy fails, the very idea of resolving it through diplomacy is bankrupt.
In other words, it is the responsibility of a normal country to strengthen both its diplomacy and military. In the case of Japan, we always develop an either/or argument. The choice is diplomatic or military. It would be nice to do both, but that kind of thinking won't become mainstream. Diplomacy no longer works in the military phase, and when diplomatic relations are working, it is no longer in the military phase. It is mainly the opposition forces in Japan who are forcing us to choose one or the other. The Japanese government only needs to do diplomacy, and has simply asked the United States to take on the responsibility of protecting the country.Takeshima and the Northern Territories, which the United States did not protect, were taken and are within the scope of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. We are barely maintaining the Senkaku Islands with words alone.
This is a country where candidates who say they should give up defending the country with their own strength are elected to the Diet. Isn't it strange?
Yasuhiro Nakasone called the Japanese archipelago an unsinkable aircraft carrier - Japan's topography gave the US military an advantage.
Former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone referred to former President Ronald Reagan as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier." This is a metaphor for the strategic significance of Japan's topography and the presence of U.S. forces within the Cold War structure. Japan once fought a fierce war with the United States, but after the war it became a democratic nation. Conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union had already begun during World War II. It is said that the United States participated in the war in part to secure its voice within the framework of the postwar world. Both the Korean War and the Vietnam War occurred amid conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States did not want Soviet power to reach the southern tip of the Korean peninsula. It is said that an agreement on the 38th parallel was reached as a secret agreement at the Yalta Conference. In this context, Japan became a base for the US military to defend East Asia.
Japan is actually a neighboring country to the United States in the sense that there are no countries separating them geographically. It takes about 3 hours to get to Guam by air. The Japanese archipelago has a unique topography, stretching from north to south, bordering Russia to the north, Kyushu to the Korean Peninsula, China, and the islands south of Okinawa to Taiwan. For the United States, the terrain that covered the Japanese continent was attractive for the defense of Asia, and this was completely consistent with Japan's understanding of national defense. Conversely, it may be said that if the US-Soviet Cold War had not occurred, Japan-US relations would not have been able to recover to this extent. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, China rose to prominence and Asia's defense lines moved significantly south. As expected, the Japanese archipelago occupies an important position in this band as well. Currently, they are working together within the framework of Quad. Japan also plays an important role in the Taiwan Strait issue, and in this way, the Japan-US relationship has developed amid changes in the environment surrounding Asia.
There was a Korean leftist presidential candidate who said that the Korean peninsula was divided by the occupation forces (GHQ), but in essence, South Korea is a country born within the Cold War structure. There was no way to stop the Cold War structure, neither in Japan nor, of course, in South Korea. I can't believe my ears when I hear statements that deny this very upbringing. In fact, if South Korea had not come under GHQ's trusteeship, it would have simply been unified with North Korea. A democratic country forms the basis of South Korea's national ideology, and even if we lament the separation from North Korea, which has a completely different social system, nothing will be achieved by blaming others. . What can we independently do for the world? That always seems to be missing.
Untimely protests against state funerals - Media incitement that is getting worse - The media is not representative of the people.
The size of the opposition that makes you laugh
What is the argument that divided the nation into two?
What is the content of the poll?
I don't understand the difference from sports newspapers
Mass media turning into sports newspaper due to slump in sales
The process of dividing national opinion into two
The media does not represent the people
Report only the facts, not opinions
On the day of the demonstration by opponents of former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral, it is said that there were around 100 to 200 people, based on a partial count. Police said there were 500 people. It is said that 4,183 people attended the state funeral, and approximately 23,000 people donated flowers (as announced on the 27th).
What exactly was the debate that reportedly divided the nation into two? Kudanshita, where the state funeral was held, is close to Meiji University's Surugadai campus. The university has traditionally had a strong left-wing student movement. Of course, ordinary students have nothing to do with it, but even if left-wing activists in Tokyo gathered together, it gives the impression that there were too few of them.
What is the content of public opinion polls conducted by the media? The problem is the questions. Depending on how the question is asked, it is possible to lead the data to the result intended by the questioner. I would like all public opinion poll data to be disclosed.
It seems like all mass media are now doing what sports newspapers and other media were doing before the decline of major mass media due to the spread of SNS.
In order to sell articles with headlines, sports newspapers publish speculative information in the headlines that have not been fact-checked, and sell them at station kiosks even though they say that the information is unconfirmed by adding a question mark at the end. It will be done. The "?" part is hidden from view due to the way it is displayed.
Many people were surprised and tolerated it, saying, ``It can't be helped because it's a sports newspaper,'' but no one believed it and it was just a form of entertainment. That's what all the media are doing now.
The underlying issue is sales. Sports newspapers used to take desperate measures to increase circulation, but I wonder if many media outlets now think of this as the right way to go. What is more troubling than sports newspapers is that the major media barely have the power to stir up public opinion.
Using the current issue of state funerals as an example, when the opposition party first objects to a state funeral, the media immediately jumps in and reports on it. At this stage, the ruling party and the opposition party are in conflict, so in that sense they are theoretically divided into two parties. However, this does not mean that national opinion is divided into two.
Then, the media outlets loudly convey the opinions of the opposition parties, and the process of dividing national opinion into two begins. It is incitement. First of all, there is a process in which the media themselves agitate and increase the number of opposition parties, and then they cultivate them as if it were a big problem divided into two.
They increase sales by raising the grade of articles based on irrelevant opinions and information by several levels. The more confrontational the structure, the more sensational it is. This is a common method that the media has used in the past on various issues.
The media sometimes uses expressions such as ``representing the people,'' but it feels very strange and even unpleasant. They are just office workers, not representatives of the people. When did they receive the mandate of the people? When did he run for election and when was he elected to the Diet?
If you're an average office worker, you might go to a yakitori restaurant for a drink with your colleagues on the way home from work and talk about politics. The media are just office workers, so that should be fine. You should not express your opinion to the people as if you were a representative of the people. We need to stop privatizing public airwaves and simply collect and report the facts.
Judgment cases seen from the murder of former Prime Minister Abe and the murder of a member of the Diet in the past. [Table of Contents]
Assassination of Inejiro Asanuma
Hyōsuke Niwa stabbed
Shinjiro Yamamura stabbed case
Koki Ishii stabbed
Nagasaki Mayor Shooting Case
Indefinite imprisonment in past examples
Planning is the worst
1 Representative and degree of influence
Life imprisonment or death penalty
Inejiro Asanuma, chairman of the Japan Socialist Party Central Executive Committee, is a 17-year-old right-wing boy, Otoya Yamaguchi, during a speech at the Hibiya Public Hall in Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo on October 12, 1960. The case of being stabbed by an arrow.The criminal Yamaguchi committed suicide in a single room at the Tokyo Juvenile Classification Home on the night of November 2, three weeks after the incident.
October 21, 1990 A former member of the House of Representatives (12th term) belonging to the Liberal Democratic Party and Hyōsuke Niwa, a member of the Aichi Prefectural Assembly (2nd term), was temporarily discharged from hospital due to schizophrenia at the Ground Self-Defense Force station in Nagoya city. He was stabbed in the neck and died the following month.The criminal is readmitted to a mental hospital.
In 1992, on April 12, the day before his visit to North Korea as the leader of the LDP delegation, he was stabbed and killed by a 24-year-old second daughter who suffered from a mental illness at his home. Her second daughter wasdetermined to be incapacitated due to her loss of soul and was not prosecuted, but she committed suicidefour years later.
On October 25, 2002, Democratic Party member Kouki Ishii died after being stabbed in his left chest with a Yanagi knife at his home parking lot in Setagaya Ward. On June 18, 2004, the Tokyo District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment, stating that he could not trust the defendant's alleged "financial trouble" motive.On November 15, 2005, the Supreme Court confirmed a sentence of life imprisonment.
At 7:51 pm on April 17, 2007, Mayor Ito, who was on a tour, arrived in front of his election office in Daikokumachi, Nagasaki City, near JR Kyushu Nagasaki Station. He was shot at around 7:51:45 pm shortly after staff told reporters that the mayor had returned.
On May 26, 2008, the Nagasaki District Court sentencedto death, pointing out that it "shook the foundations of democracy, such as confusing elections."
On September 29, 2009, the appeal trial at the Fukuoka High Court abandoned the first-instance judgment, andwas sentenced to life imprisonment again. In a peculiar case in which the incumbent mayor was shot dead during the election, the suitability of the death penalty for one victim became the biggest issue. Regarding the reason for avoiding the death penalty, Judge Shoichi Matsuo pointed out that "It is necessary to fully consider that there is only one victim."
He then decided that "it is a challenge to democracy, but the motive is a grudge against the victims, not the purpose of obstructing the election itself," and concluded that "the choice of the death penalty must be hesitant."
Regarding the cases where politicians were killed in the past, except for the case where the criminal committed suicide, both the case of Kouki Ishii's murder and the case of Tetsuya Shiroo's shooting have been confirmed as indefinite imprisonment for the murder of one victim.
The murder of former Prime Minister Abe includes social impact, election obstruction, firearms tampering, sword law violation, planning, clear murder, execution of murder, and unclear motives. When considering planning, it is a weapon that manufactures firearms by itself and is prohibited by law that has the ability to kill, which is considered to be the most malicious in terms of planning.
It is not at the level of purchasing kitchen knives in advance at a home improvement store or making a detailed action plan to kill the victim.
There is no doubt that he is one of the most influential people in Japan in terms of social impact, but since he is a general member of the Diet, it is unknown to what extent it will be added.
The motive is attributed to personal grudges, but there is no causal relationship between the suspect's mother and religious groups.There is no causal relationship with former Prime Minister Abe. , I can't find the part that takes into account the situation.
If you look at past examples, you will be sentenced to life imprisonment, but it will be interesting to see if you will be sentenced to death.Former prosecutor Yoji Ochiai points out that there is a possibility of the death penalty, using the death sentence of the first instance of the Nagasaki District Court as an example.
Although it is an epoch-making judgment as a death sentence for the murder of one person, what kind of judgment will the judiciary make regarding planning, its maliciousness, selfish motives, etc.? The anger of the people does not seem to subside.
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet - clearly stated in the Cabinet Office Establishment Act, similar discussions have been made in the past and a conclusion has been reached.
Public opinion grills the perpetrator's motive
Don't politicians have freedom of religion?
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet
Certified by Cabinet Office Establishment Act
It is the opposition members who are not based on the law
Public opinion in Japan is still agitated over the issue of state funerals. In the first place, I am appalled by the way the Japanese media is using the claims of the person who murdered former Prime Minister Abe as they are, changing it to a picture of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Unification Church. They are even using the murderer's crazy and erroneous motives to provoke the people.
Shouldn't politicians be religious? Freedom of thought and belief is a legitimate human right granted to all citizens. If there is a problem that violates the Political Funds Control Act, then that would be fine, but in that case, religious groups and companies are completely irrelevant. Former Prime Minister Abe merely offered his greetings. I tried looking for a law that says greetings are a crime, but I couldn't find anything. I would like the definition of the word "involvement" to be clear. But that's it.
The Kishida Cabinet decided to hold a state funeral, but I wonder if there is a problem. Opposition parties and the media are shouting that there is a problem with the decision-making process. Many say that at least the Diet should be involved in decision-making. For a long time after the war, there was no legal regulation regarding state funerals, and according to Yoichi Takahashi, similar points were raised and discussed at the time of former Prime Minister Yoshida's state funeral. In other words, it was not clear at the time who should make decisions, how they should be decided, and what process should be used, which was already discussed in the past.
In 1999, the Cabinet Office Establishment Act was enacted, and in the legislation that clearly stipulated matters decided by the Cabinet Office, Article 4, 3-32 states, `` Affairs related to national ceremonies and ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet.'' Regarding ”. In other words, the National Assembly, or the legislative branch, has enacted a law that states that state funerals, which are national ceremonies, are the exclusive domain of the Cabinet.
There is no problem with the process by which the Cabinet made decisions based on the Cabinet Office Establishment Act. If the Diet should be involved now, it means that all members of the Diet have already been involved, the legislative branch has enacted legislation, and the Kishida Cabinet has decided to hold a state funeral accordingly. Don't members of Congress have an obligation to obey the law?
This makes me question whether Japan really is a country ruled by law. Incendiary voices that sound like they are from a special country are corrupting a democratic society.
