Story About the Constitution of Japan

In fact, current Japan's constitution is one of oldest constitutions. Because it hasn't been amended for about 60 years. It established by Japan's diets ruled by GHQ(General Headquarters of the Allied Forces). I write about problems about constitution Japan faces now. Perhaps, through this issues non-Japanese see many problems Japan has. Perhaps, Japan doesn't have "Big problem" which break down this country now but we can find latent ones.



This constitution is very controversial. The most famous issue is;



Article 9



   Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

   In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.



Literally, it bans Japan to have any arms. But government view is different. It regards that Japan has natural right for individual self-defense. Japan has self-defense force and its faculty is very capable. However, this is obviously illegal. Because constitution says "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.".



In reaction to issue about North Korea, A large number of people once thinks we should change the constitution. Now SDF is run by government view, not constitution. Many think Japan should keep constitutional control over SDF. However, it seems this trend is changing. People again think we should keep this article 9. Although I don't know the detail of their opinion and I think they say it at a whim. And It seems majority seems not to deny SDF.



As my opinion, disarmer's opinion has critical defect. That is, they don't assure our life when a war begin. Although disarmers say they protect ourself from emergency situation,

people think of emergency situation, thus disarmers must say about it. Thus, I think they are irresponsible idealistic. We need "Aegis" to protect us from North Korea. And it might be that China plunge into civil war in its main land as well as Taiwan. Countries we can trust in far east are only South Korea and Taiwan.



By the way, it is a inconsequential topic though, "far east" is a bit funny word. I know the reason but, Japan is west of America rather than east eh? America is east of Japan eh?



It is said in that fundamental, Japan's constitution has many problems. We didn't agree it through elections. Issues of natural rights. And Issue of that the constitution don't reflect Japanese culture. And etc. I show you the preceding sentence of the constitution;



   We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution. Government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind upon which this Constitution is founded. We reject and revoke all constitutions, laws, ordinances, and rescripts in conflict herewith.

   We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship, and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. We desire to occupy an honored place in an international society striving for the preservation of peace, and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for all time from the earth. We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in the peace, free from fear and want.

   We believe that no nation is responsible to itself alone, but that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations.

   We, the Japanese people, pledge our national honor to accomplish these high ideals and purposes with all our resources.





As for first problem I said, there are several views that we accepted the constitution because we don't deny it through elections and that we don't have constitution because we don't established it through true diets not ruled by other countries , and so on.



Second one is a philosophical matter that no one can produce evidence to support the ideal the constitution regards it as truth.



そもそも国政は、国民の厳粛な信託によるものであつて、その権威は国民に由来し、その権力は国民の代表者がこれを行使し、その福利は国民がこれを享受する。 これは人類普遍の原理であり、この憲法はかかる原理に基くものである。



It means; (This is not my sentence I translated.)

Government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind upon which this Constitution is founded.



This is Social Contract. However, I am sure many Japanese don't know it closely. But it is not the matter I want to mention, the problem is that Social Contract is not truth but it is just a concept. It says "これは人類普遍の原理であり", which means "This is the universal principles." in English. It virtually　means "truth" in Japanese. It is a "bimboy, good looking but no brain." constitution. In addition, the constitution of Japan doesn't reflects constitution of Japan but reflects universal principle. This constitution can be took on by other countries, Brazil, Korea, America, England, and so on. As for my opinion, Conversely it might be denies existence of Japanese. I want to say a joke that we should say "We do as GHQ is told to introduce a tool of Social Contract as a truth because we are powerless under the occupation by allies.". At least, it reflects constitution.



Now I found a very strange sentence that "We reject and revoke all constitutions, laws, ordinances, and rescripts in conflict herewith.". Hmm, although I know we can amend it, it means to ban to amend the constitution of Japan? I think it means so literally. And as a matter of fact, requirement for amendment of the Constitution is so strict.



I think if we interchange "America compels Japan to/that" from "we" in the constitution's sentences, the constitution will win greater persuasive force. Because it is the nature of the constitution of Japan.



It seems in the issue about constitution, about bad effects, often Japanese regard it as harmful effect brought by GHQ. I think Japanese government have responsibility about it too. A sadness of Japan is that even though we could change the constitution, but situation didn't allow Japan to do it. Its causes are communists, steadily growing economy and strict procedures for amending the Constitution etc. Especially defeated system also works well under steadily growing economy.



Perhaps, this constitution is also affected by American communism and by sanguine hope as of just after WWII, someone said. Most of what I wrote is contents which university students study in courses in the liberal arts.



Say, communism is banned in America even now?



Nowadays trend toward constitutional revision is operation to regain what Japan is. Someone said that the constitution deprive us of is social morals, (I should say social virtue). Then, followed by this topic, I want to write about Fundamental Education Law of Japan later. It is a fundamental law equivalent of constitution of Japan, also directed by GHQ. It is said the law is a main cause which leads Japan's supersensual or moral devastation in the fundamental law. Now it is controversial.



To get back to my original point, we can find many other problems involving constitution. It can be said a phantasm of international collaboration. Society which regards Individual as actor leads chaotic and deregulated society. Constitution which doesn't highly esteem culture can't explain why we must do something. When we regard human rights as a principle, all problem can be bring into courts. Its problem is that our relation becomes power game. There are many other problem but as final word, so many Japanese misunderstanding about independent individual. They think that independent individual seek personal benefit and it gradely reflect other people including people they have not met. No way. Independent individual is that individual who think of what the one should do for society and practices it as well as seeking happiness of one's self. Now moral standard is lawfully declining, I think I can say.



It is a photo of Ise-jingu-shrine.



Well, have a nice weekend! I'll enjoy napping.



And I forgot write about right of collective defense and right to individual self-defense. It is one of main topic involving article 9. Now Japan regards article 9 has right to individual self-defense. But There are politicians who regards article 9 admit right of collective defense. Collective one allow Japan to defense Taiwan　and defense allied armies, that is, American fleet to be dispatched to defense Japan. Now Japanese self defense force can't protect American troops.



When it comes to outline, as for article 9, there are people who regards the article 9 bans to have self defense force, on the other hand, there are people who regards article 9 allow Japan to have self defense force, and there are people who regard we have right of collective defense and right of individual self-defense, and are people regard we have only

right of individual self-defense. And there are people regards article 9 bans it but we need self defense force. Perhaps, there are people think it allow to have self defense force but we don't need it. There are others too. It is very strange issue made by Japan's situation.



Normally, other countries admit right of collective defense like NATO eh?