By Takashi Narazaki and Tsubasa Yokoyama,
7 July 2022
Flag of Japan (photo credit: David Peteron / pixabay)
Even if constitutional revision proponents secure a two-thirds majority in the Upper House, differences in opinion over what should be changed could thwart any effort on what would be an unprecedented undertaking.
The different stances are evident in arguments made by four parties--the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, junior coalition partner Komeito, and opposition parties Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) and the Democratic Party for the People--about pacifist Article 9.
Both the LDP and Nippon Ishin want to maintain the current wording in Article 9 about renouncing war as a sovereign right. They also want to leave intact the wording that prohibits Japan from maintaining land, sea and air forces.
But the parties do want to add wording to the article to make clear the legal existence of the Self-Defense Forces. [...] There are also differences over another proposed amendment for dealing with major emergencies, such as natural disasters.
The LDP and Nippon Ishin are proposing a temporary concentration of government authority during such emergencies and allowing Cabinet orders to have the same effect as laws.
But Komeito and the DPP say that Diet authority should be maintained even during such emergencies. They are calling for a measure to extend the terms of lawmakers if they end during a major emergency.
Read the full article here: Asahi Shimbun
Post new comment