No Reason for State Power Expansion Is Explained
A bill for revising Local Autonomy Act passed the House of Representatives and was sent to the Upper House late May. The revision was proposed to enhance state power over local government in the situation of emergency such as pandemic or natural disaster. The question is whether that revision is necessary even other laws determine the role of the national government and local ones. That question remained even after the discussion in the Lower House.
Before the end of the World War II, Japan had been upholding a highly centralized government system topped by the Emperor. That structure was broken down after the war and the Constitution of Japan introduced a chapter for autonomy. “Regulations concerning organization and operations of local public entities shall be fixed by law in accordance with the principle of local autonomy,” says Article 92 of the constitution.
What “the principle of local autonomy” means has been a talking point in constitutional discussions. One answer was the parity between the national government and local ones. The Consolidative Decentralization Act 2000 determines that the status of those governments is equal.
The act abolished “agency delegated functions” in which the national government had power of permission, order or observation over local governments. The local governments became to have some limited obligation to execute delegated jobs, such as administrating national elections, issuing passport, maintaining state highway or management of family register.
The revision of Local Autonomy Act in this session of the Diet invites doubts on the national government overturning the discussion for autonomy in Japan in the past. The bill includes provisions that enables the national government to instruct the local governments to follow national policies.
That power was proposed in a governmental council for reviewing the measures in COVID-19, in which hospitals and clinics were in confusion by ill coordination over preventive measures, and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida endorsed that discussion.
However, confusion in the hospitals was not brought by disobedience of local governments against the national government, but by undecisive policy taken by the national government in the unprecedented pandemic. The national government, for example, issued a guidance for the people to consult with a hospital when they had a fever of 37.5°C or higher. Lacking medical basis, that instruction brought local community confusion.
In the discussion in the House of Representatives, the government did not show possible situation in which the national government would need to exercise “the power of instruction.” To the questions about possibility of using excessive power, the government reiterated that it would consider local autonomy or that the provision would be applied only in an emergency. The reason why a law that overturn the parity between the national and the local is necessary has not been explained.
Comments
Post a Comment