Discussion over Constitution Diffuses

Commission on the Constitution of the House of Representatives discussed on May 8th what prime minister’s “right of dissolution” is. It has been a longtime consensus that the prime minister possesses power to dissolve the House of Representatives, according to Article 7 or 69 of the Constitution, some opposition parties questioned discretional exercise of the “right”. The discussion over constitutional amendment is diffusing, since the leading coalition by Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito lost their majority in the election last October. 

Based on Article 7, which stipulates Cabinet’s advice and approval to the Emperor, former prime ministers dissolved the House of Representatives before term of the lawmakers was not expired. For instance, Shinzo Abe dissolved the house in 2017, raising low birth rate and launching missiles by North Korea as national crises. It was the time when Abe was in trouble with scandal of Moritomo Gakuen and Kake Gakuen. The opposition parties denied them as causes for dissolution, doubting the decision as political maneuver.

 

In the discussion of the council, Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) argued that dissolution of Abe in 2014 and 2017 was maneuvers and revealed that CDPJ was preparing for a bill that would demand the prime minister to report the House the date of dissolution and its reason in advance. Although the LDP protested that idea, pro-amendment Japan Innovation Party (Nippon Ishin-no Kai) and Democratic Party for the People (DPP) supported the idea of CDPJ.

 

Division among the parties that uphold constitutional amendment emerged on another point. Article 53 determines that Cabinet must convoke extraordinary session of the Diet with a quarter of members’ requirement in one of the two houses. But, Abe or his successor Yoshihide Suga did not meet the request of convocation. CDPJ proposed in the council to include a provision in the Constitution that Cabinet must convoke the Diet within 20 days. While LDP and Komeito opposed to the idea, DPP and Ishin sided with CDPJ.

 

Under the leadership of Abe, the discussion over constitutional amendment was focused on some points, including writing “self-defense force” down in the Constitution or adding emergency clause in case the Lower House is empty after dissolution or the term of the members is expiredaa. Although, Suga and Fumio Kishida succeeded that discussion, it was possible only in a situation that the leading parties had majority in the House.

 

After last October, the chairperson of the council was replaced by Yukio Edano, former head of the CDPJ. The discussion for amendment was diffused rather than converged. The talking points in current ordinary session expanded from regulation of commercial message in referendum for constitutional amendment to necessity for regulation on fake information in the referendum. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba had no clear vision for the amendment, even though he is willing to promote constitutional discussion to take care of the conservatives in LDP.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Amendment of Local Autonomy Law

Request for Final Nuclear Disposal Site

Death Penalty Demanded on Criminal of Arson