Employing Rhetoric over Political Reform

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba participated in the discussion of Committee on Budget, which is the main venue for detailed debate over policies in the Diet, for the first time as the prime minister. The discussion was focused on political reform about how to regulate secret spendings of political funds. While the opposition parties demanded abolition of donations from private companies or organizations to political parties, Ishiba employed rhetoric for fending off those arguments.

It is usual for the Diet to have intensive discussion between the prime minister and opposition leaders in the committee, following prime minister’s policy speech and party leaders’ questions in plenary meetings in both Houses. Having elected as the prime minister in October, Ishiba did not have a chance to answer questions in the committee, due to political schedule, including dissolution of the House of Representatives and having general election of the House.

 

In the discussion of the committee of the Lower House on December 4th, the head of Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ), Yoshihiko Noda, proposed complete abolition of donation from companies and organizations. Ishiba brought Article 21 of the Constitution of Japan as the reason why his Liberal Democratic Party would not approve the abolition. The article guarantees the people in Japan freedom of speech. Is donation speech, anyway?

 

“A company expresses its opinion through donation,” said Ishiba in the discussion. If this logic stands, any company can unlimitedly make donations to a specific party, possibly causing distortion in execution of policies. Yes, there is the same discussion in foreign countries. But it is doubtful for the argument to be applied to the leading party of Japan, which lawmakers were indicted with obscure management of secret funds.

 

Ishiba contradicted Noda with saying that disclosure is more important than abolition. However, Ishiba is the president of a party which has long been involved in distributing secret fund to its members. Who can guarantee that Ishiba will be able to completely disclose all the secret funds? The logic, disclosure more than abolition, does not assure implementation for disclosing all the funds. Abolition is more persuasive than disclosure as a way toward political reform. In short, both disclosure and abolition are important.

 

Ishiba and LDP leaders reiterates that the party may not take a standpoint: private donation is good, and donation by company is bad. Some opposition parties argues that corporate donations should be banned and individual donation should be allowed. Japan Communist Party, for example, stands on donations from party members. But current discussion over political reform is not the choice of collective donation or individual. It is about donation from companies and organizations is good or bad.

 

Noda also requested the LDP to have further investigation on LDP lawmakers. Ishiba dismissed it, because no new fact has been discovered. Even if no new fact is found, it is understandable that further investigation is needed for following up an insufficient previous investigation. The people are watching whether rhetoric can salvage an ailing administration.