[EAI Working Paper] A Closer Look at Japan 2. The Politics of Article 9: Between Myth and Reality

Editor's Note

The Political Myth and Reality Surrounding 'Article 9'

The politics of post-war Japan has been driven by the fundamental ideological axis of pro-constitution (ho-ken) versus revisionist (kai-ken) stances. Professor Hiroshi Nakanishi of Kyoto University argues that the confrontation between the left/progressive faction, seeking to uphold Article 9 and maintain pacifism, and the revisionist faction, aiming to strengthen Japan's self-reliance through constitutional amendment, constituted the greatest 'political myth' of post-war Japan. Realistically, he points out, there is a lack of deep understanding of Article 9 among the Japanese people and insufficient socio-scientific examination by researchers, with discussions surrounding Article 9 encompassing more complex and difficult-to-understand arguments.

To fundamentally understand the political complexity of Article 9, this working paper explains the controversies surrounding Article 9 within the context of its post-war enactment process, the perception framework of the 1955 System and Article 9, the avoidance of entanglement in international conflicts during economic growth, and the challenges of international contribution following the end of the Cold War. In post-war constitutional politics, revisionist arguments have evolved from a complete revisionist theory negating the constitution's legitimacy, to a theory limited to revising Article 9, and then to arguments for revising provisions concerning the structure of government or human rights other than Article 9. Professor Nakanishi anticipates that the reality of Japanese politics does not fully reflect the ideological confrontation surrounding Article 9, and that it has the potential to change in line with a shift in the perception of Japanese society regarding Japan's evolving security environment.

※ The following is the preface to this working paper. Please check the attached file above for the full text.

Introduction

It is no exaggeration to say that the greatest political issue in post-war Japan, which began in 1945, has been Article 9 of the Constitution. Particularly since movements concerning Japan's peace treaty gained momentum around 1950, the debate surrounding Article 9 has formed the basic ideological axis of Japanese politics, namely the confrontation between pro-constitution (ho-ken) and revisionist (kai-ken) stances. This debate sparked significant controversy during the process of the security bills' enactment in the Diet in September 2015, with protests of a scale rarely seen in recent times surrounding the Diet building. Reflecting this situation, numerous works on the theme of Article 9 are published annually.

However, if one asks whether the Japanese people have deeply studied and considered Article 9 before taking a stance for or against its revision, the answer is not necessarily so. School textbooks present 'popular sovereignty, respect for fundamental human rights, and pacifism' as the 'three fundamental principles of the Constitution of Japan,' and alongside the preamble, Article 9 is presented as embodying pacifism. Yet, compared to 'popular sovereignty,' which deals with the structure of government, and 'respect for fundamental human rights,' which introduces various human rights, the description of 'pacifism' is brief. Specifically concerning Article 9, there is only a brief mention of the debate over whether the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) fall under the category of 'war potential' (sennryoku) stipulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 9, with no connection made between the article's clauses, the SDF, and the Japan-U.S. security arrangements.

Furthermore, despite the abundance of literature, socio-scientific analyses of Article 9 are extremely scarce. This is likely because, in addition to the clear pro or con stances in most works, the review of Article 9 requires an overview of legal, domestic, and diplomatic/international political aspects, making research difficult. Despite Article 9 being a contentious theme, there are almost no signs of consensus emerging to overcome such disputes.

In reality, from the mid-1950s when Article 9 remained unchanged and the SDF was established as a de facto armed force along with its administrative body, the Defense Agency, the legal and institutional framework guaranteeing the interpretation of Article 9 and Japan's security and defense policy have been practically separated. Nevertheless, the pro-constitution argument, which exclusively identifies itself with the political left and progressives and asserts that Article 9 is the guarantor of Japan's 'pacifism' and its revision would lead to the loss of pacifism, has persisted in confrontation with the revisionist argument, which views Article 9 as a symbol of Japan's weakening by the occupying forces and considers its revision a condition for Japan's self-reliance. To put it bluntly, this is the greatest political myth of post-war Japan.

The difficulty in understanding discussions surrounding the Japanese Constitution, particularly Article 9, stems from the complexity where the constitution as a political myth and actual foreign and security policy operate on separate planes, yet sometimes interact. In my view, there is no comprehensive analysis of this complex nature of constitutional politics, but in the main body, I intend to present several clues that illustrate this.

■ Author: Hiroshi Nakanishi (中西寛)_Professor, Graduate School of Law, Kyoto University. Holds a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Law from Kyoto University, and completed doctoral coursework in History at the University of Chicago. Previously served as Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law, Kyoto University, Dean of the Graduate School of Public Policy, Kyoto University, and President of the Japan Association of International Relations. He has also been a member of the Council on the Legal Basis of Security and the Expert Panel on the Review of ODA Grand Design. His major works include 'What is International Politics? - Humans and Order in Global Society' (2003, recipient of the Yomiuri Shimbun-Yoshino Sakuzo Prize), 'International Politics' (co-authored, 2013), and 'Beyond the Twists of History - A New Perspective on Sino-Japanese Relations in the 20th Century' (co-edited, 2010, recipient of the Ohira Masayoshi Foundation Special Prize).

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

Attachment: Japanese_Hiroshi_Nakanishi.pdf