To use this site, please disable the ad blocking feature and reload the page.
This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies.
Users accessing this site from EEA countries and UK are unable to view this site without your consent. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Making a mockery of elections that sustain democracy is intolerable. The ruling and opposition parties should properly discuss how election activities should be conducted and aim for early legal revisions.
During the campaign for July’s Tokyo gubernatorial election, a large number of posters unrelated to the election were put up on official poster boards. In response to this issue, the ruling and opposition parties have begun discussions at their working-level meetings on revising the Public Offices Election Law.
The NHK Party political organization sold the right to put up election posters in its allotted spaces on the boards. As a result, the boards were flooded with posters, including advertisements for adult entertainment establishments and pictures drawn by children.
The boards are meant to be used to make candidates known to voters, and they are financed by public funds. It is especially intolerable to use them to make money.
At the discussions between the ruling and opposition parties, the ruling coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito proposed prohibiting the use of poster board space for commercial purposes and imposing fines for violations. It is reported that the opposition parties, except for the Japanese Communist Party, generally showed understanding of the proposal.
While it is quite natural to prohibit practices that seem to use elections for commercial purposes, it cannot be said that this alone is sufficient. If a candidate claims to have given away their right to put up posters for free, would that make posters unrelated to elections acceptable?
In another case during the Tokyo gubernatorial election campaign, a candidate put up a poster showing a female acquaintance of his, who was almost completely naked.
The ruling parties intend to establish new regulations that would prohibit posters with degrading content. They plan not to establish penalties.
Can provisions without legally binding power prevent posters that offend public order and morals?
The current Public Offices Election Law does not restrict the content of posters at all. This is because the law attaches importance to freedom of expression and freedom of elections as guaranteed by the Constitution.
On the other hand, the Constitution also stipulates that rights such as freedom of expression can only be exercised for “the public welfare.” In light of this, it should be possible to establish regulations with a certain degree of legally binding power in order to maintain dignity, without coming into conflict with the Constitution.
In recent years, cases of abnormal, prankish behavior were noticeable, such as candidates starting to take off their clothes or uttering a string of indecent words during political broadcasts.
The ruling parties say that they will not establish new regulations on political broadcasts for candidates because provisions for maintaining dignity in political broadcasts already exist. However, the reality is that the provisions are being disregarded.
Some political parties are cautious about regulating political broadcasts on the grounds that intervention into the content could infringe on freedom of expression.
However, why does restoring election campaigns to a normal form constitute an infringement of freedom of expression? Simply asserting freedom of expression and allowing the status quo to go unchecked could itself shake the very foundations of free and democratic elections.
