[Here follow excerpts from correspondence between the Far Eastern
Commission and General MacArthur in regard to a policy statement on
the new Japanese constitution, already printed.]
5. At its 27th meeting on August 8, 1946, Committee No. 3:
Constitutional and Legal Reform, the United States member brought
General MacArthur’s request74 to the attention of the
Committee but the Committee refused to reconsider this point and
approved, with the United States member reserving his position, the
following statement for inclusion in a consultative message (SC–012/15):
“(a) Cabinet.
In reference to the policy decision of the Commission that
“the prime minister and ministers of state, all of whom
shall be civilians and of whom a majority, including the
prime minister, shall be selected from the Diet, shall form
a Cabinet collectively responsible to the legislature”
(FEC–031/19), the
Commission desired to strengthen the dependence of the
executive upon the Diet and to ensure that the executive
would not be composed entirely of persons without direct
obligations to the electors.
“The Commission has considered this point very carefully, and
during the course of its discussions took note of the fact
that most countries, where parliamentary systems are in
operation similar to that envisaged for Japan, have adopted
either in practice or in their Constitutions the principle
that all of the ministers of state should be members of the
legislature.
“The following is a brief summary of the principal reasons
why the Commission inserted in it the provision referred to:
- “(i) In the parliamentary system of government the
direct responsibility of the Cabinet to the
legislature is fundamental. This is best secured if
the ministers of state are members of the
legislature.
- “(ii) It is essential to provide, within the
limits of possible action under the Potsdam
Declaration and other controlling documents,
safeguards against the regaining of power by
bureaucrats and reactionary elements. This situation
would be much less likely to occur if a majority of
the cabinet ministers were themselves answerable to
their electors.
- “(iii) Furthermore, in the particular case of
Japan, where the Diet has been traditionally
subordinate to the executive, it is
[Page 294]
essential to provide a
framework which enhances the influence of the Diet
and ensures its control over the executive.
“Some members of the Commission were strongly of the opinion
that all cabinet ministers should be members of the Diet,
but the Commission realized the particular relevance to
Japan of the point made by the Supreme Commander, namely,
that such a limitation ‘would deprive the Japanese
Government of the services, in ministerial capacities, of
many men of possibly higher qualifications than might be
found in the legislative body.’ Hence the Commission decided
as a matter of policy that only a majority of the ministers
of state need be members of the Diet and considers that this
requirement gives sufficient freedom of choice and at the
same time enhances the essentially democratic structure of
the Constitution. In view of the fact that Japan has not
followed this practice in the past, it is impossible to rely
upon established procedure to ensure that it will be
followed in the future, and the Commission adheres to its
previous policy decision that the Constitution should
contain a provision on this point.”
