Attempt to Control Arbitral Cabinet
The largest opposition party in the Diet, Constitutional Democratic Party, considers submitting a new bill for restricting Prime Minister’s power, as the head of Cabinet, for dissolving the House of Representatives during the next session expected to be convocated next month. There is an argument that the power for dissolution has arbitrarily been exercised, distorting the balance of branches between the legislative and the executive. Although it is not likely that the bill will pass the Diet during the next session, it is necessary for the lawmakers in Diet to discuss how to protect their status from coercive Cabinet.
The Constitution of Japan prescribes dissolution of the House of Representatives in two ways. Firstly, Article 7 describes that the dissolution is one of the Emperor’s matters of state, and the Emperor performs the act with the advice and approval of the Cabinet. The provision has been interpreted as literally vesting the Cabinet a power of dissolution of the House of Representatives.
Secondly, Article 69 says “If the House of Representatives passes a non-confidence resolution, or rejects a confidence resolution, the Cabinet shall resign en masse, unless the House of Representatives is dissolved within ten days.” This means that the Cabinet has two choices: resigning en masse or dissolution. Among twenty-five dissolutions under current constitution, only four were exercised based on Article 69. One of those four by Miyazawa Cabinet in 1993, when a non-confidence resolution was passed with the collective approvals led by Ichiro Ozawa, was declared as on Article 7.
One of the Cabinets which frequently took advantage of Article 7 was Shinzo Abe’s. One of his three “Article 7 dissolutions,” the dissolution in September 2017 is notorious. The Cabinet did not accept the demand of the opposition parties for convocation of the Diet for three months, and Abe declared the dissolution at the beginning of the extraordinary session, convocated at the time an opposition party was suffering from internal troubles. Abe won a victory in the following general election of House of Representatives.
Remembering that bitter experience, CDP considers to include various provisions in the bill to restrict arbitral dissolution. In Article 7 dissolution, the law will oblige the Cabinet to determine the day of dissolution in advance. A discussion has to be made with requests of a quarter of all Representatives. CDP thinks it’s important that the dissolution has to be made with an apparent cause.
In 1978, then Speaker of the House of Representatives Shigeru Hori drew a guideline. He asserted that the dissolution was an emergent measure for restoring the executive branch when the politics were paralyzed by sharp opposition between the Cabinet and the Diet. Current cases represent strategy of the Cabinets to exercise election in a preferable timing and defeat the opposition power to extend life of the administration. The Constitution must not be written in favor of a leading party.
Comments
Post a Comment