The memorandum was prepared primarily to bring out the points of
similarity and dissimilarity in the subject plans on leading issues of
Constitutional reform (the comparative positions are shown in convenient
tabular form in an Appendix to the Memorandum) and only secondarily as a
critical analysis of those plans. The study should permit rapid
comparison of the individual and collective positions of the leading
political parties on the issues of Constitutional
[Page 170]
reform with the Government’s draft
revision released by the Cabinet on March 6, 1946. This ably and
carefully prepared memorandum should be of real value in providing in
readily usable form a comparison of the expressed views of important and
influential Japanese groups on the vital question of Constitutional
reform. The Cabinet draft plan is being forwarded under cover of a
subsequent despatch.21
[Enclosure—Extract]
Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office
of the Acting Political Adviser in Japan
Comparative Analysis of the
Published Constitution Revision Plans of the Japan Progressive,
Liberal, Socialist and Communist Parties, Two Private Study
Groups, and Dr. Takano Iwasaburo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
constitutional amendments
The Progressives, Liberals and the CIA22
specifically provide, and the Socialists clearly imply, that the
Diet shall have the power of initiating Constitutional amendments.
The Socialists and the CIA provide
that such amendments shall require the presence of two-thirds of the
members of both Houses and the approval of a majority of those
present. Dr. Takano, and, by implication, the Progressives, the
Liberals and the FBA,23 since
they make no mention of the matter, would continue the procedure
stipulated in the existing Constitution, requiring the presence of
two-thirds of the members of both Houses and the consent of
two-thirds of those present. The CIA
would permit the Constitution to be amended by popular plebiscite,
requiring the approval of a majority of the voters.
The above presentation reveals a complicated cross-pattern of
agreement and disagreement. Outstanding among the points of
agreement is the fact that the Progressives, the Liberals, the
Socialists, the FBA and the CIA, all, in fact except the Communists
and Dr. Takano, representing a small minority of opinion, favor the
British over the American form of democratic government, as would be
expected considering how much closer the existing Japanese
governmental structure and tradition is to the British system than
to our own.
[Page 171]
Within this group, the Progressives, Socialists and the CIA are agreed that the Cabinet shall
be responsible to the Diet; that new Prime Ministers shall be
appointed on the recommendation of the Presidents of the two Houses
of the Diet; that the House of Representatives elected by and from
the general population shall be supreme over the Upper House; that
the Upper House shall be entirely or in greater part elected by and
from the various occupational groups; that the Diet shall not be
closed, or, in the case of the Progressives, may meet at will; that
the Privy Council and the peerage shall be abolished; that
fundamental human rights shall be guaranteed; that the independence
of the judiciary shall be ensured; that no budget shall go into
effect without the prior approval of the Diet, or, in some
circumstances, in the case of the Progressives, the Diet Standing
Committee; and that Constitutional amendments may be initiated and
decided by stipulated majorities of the Diet.
The Liberals and the FBA, on the
other hand, propose no change in the present procedure for the
appointment of Prime Ministers; make no provision, or, in the case
of the Liberals, inadequate provision, for the supremacy of the
Lower over the Upper House; fail to provide for the democratization
of the Upper House; fail to increase the length of the annual
session of the Diet or to provide that the Diet may meet at will;
fail to ensure that no budget shall go into effect without the prior
approval of the Diet; do nothing, in the case of the Liberals, to
abolish or reform the peerage; and fail in the case of the FBA, to confer power on the Diet to
initiate Constitutional amendments.
It may be stated that, generally speaking, the Progressive, Socialist
and CIA drafts succeed and the
Liberal and FBA drafts fail to
establish the essentials of democratic government. Even the former,
however, lack precision and explicitness on key points. None of the
three, for example, expressly provides for a Cabinet; none actually
states that the Cabinet must resign or appeal to the electorate on a
vote of no-confidence by the Lower House; only the CIA provides that the Presidents of the
two Houses of the Diet, who are to recommend new Prime Ministers to
the Emperor, shall be elected by the Diet membership; and only the
CIA speaks of the joint responsibility of the Cabinet to the
Diet, But while these omissions are unquestionably an important
defect of the drafts, there is little reason to believe that they
are deliberate. The fuller explanations of party leaders and members
leave little doubt that the lack of explicitness is attributable to
inexpert drafting and the desire for brevity and simplicity, and
that genuinely democratic forms are intended. The plans are
preliminary drafts, not finished legal documents, and were
necessarily limited in newspaper space.
[Page 172]
Although the Progressive, Socialist and CIA plans reveal many points of similarity in
establishing the essentials of British-type, democratic government,
the Progressives, joined by the Liberals and FBA, present a very different point of view from the
Socialists, the Communists and the CIA on the issues of the Emperor and free private
enterprise versus a controlled economy. Regarding the former, all
six drafts state or clearly imply that the Emperor’s powers shall be
purely nominal and that he shall have neither political nor legal
responsibility. The conservative group, however, being of the
opinion that the Emperor should be retained as a stabilizing
influence (partly from reasons of self-interest but in many cases
also from a genuine conviction that democracy can be more firmly and
lastingly introduced under the Emperor than without him), desire the
retention of at least part of his theoretical powers. The leftist
group, on the other hand, consider the Emperor institution a source
of strength to their conservative opponents and a hindrance to their
plans. Recognizing that in the present state of public opinion
complete abolition of the institution is impossible, they
nevertheless desire him stripped of theoretical as well as practical
power and his prerogatives limited to purely ceremonial
functions.
Difference of view on the desirability of retaining the capitalistic
system or establishing a socialistic economy follows the same party
lines. While the Liberals have chosen to insert in their draft
specific provisions for the protection of private property and
freedom of enterprise and the Progressives make no mention of the
matter, the difference is doubtless merely a matter of tactics, as
there can be little question of the Progressives’ equally strong
support of the free private enterprise system. The Socialists and
the CIA for their part explicitly
provide in their respective drafts that private property rights
shall be subject to limitation for the general welfare. These
fundamental conflicts, on the status of the Emperor and the nature
of Japan’s economy, should be at least partially resolved in the
coming elections.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
