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.
Now that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party has suffered a crushing defeat in a general election held after the dissolution of the House of Representatives, decisive actions that were taken by Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba to seek the public’s judgment on his Cabinet, the course that Ishiba should take is obvious. He cannot remain in power and prolong the political turmoil.
It is common practice in the political world for the prime minister to quickly decide whether to resign from that post.
As a result of the lower house election, the ruling coalition of the LDP and Komeito now holds 215 seats, far short of the goal of a combined majority in the lower house, which was set by Ishiba as the “line for victory.” The LDP itself holds only 191 seats.
Far from victory line
The LDP’s seats have fallen below 200 for the first time since 2009, when the LDP lost the reins of government to the then Democratic Party of Japan, and for the second time since the LDP was formed. This can be called a historic defeat for the LDP.
Ishiba is trying to stay in power, even as “minority ruling parties” that have fallen short of a majority of the lower house seats, by granting unaffiliated and other candidates who won their seats retroactive status as LDP official candidates and through the cooperation of some opposition parties. At a press conference following the election, he said, “I will fulfill the responsibilities of the prime minister by promoting national politics.”
Ishiba has the Democratic Party for the People in mind as a partner for cooperation. He seems to consider it possible to work with the DPFP because the party has a policy of “resolution rather than confrontation” and has in the past taken concerted action with the LDP in voting on budget proposals and legislative bills.
However, even if the prime minister, who lost the lower house election, can maintain power under the framework of minority ruling parties, it will be difficult to realize necessary bills and policies against the majority opposition parties in the Diet, a situation that will only prolong the confusion.
Ishiba must be aware of the weight of his responsibility and must not make the wrong decision.
The prime minister is probably right when he said that the largest reason for the defeat in the lower house election was that “the public’s suspicion, distrust and anger over the issue of politics and money has not been dispelled.”
However, it is also true that the new administration’s tactics in the lower house election campaign were incoherent and worked against it in many respects.
In the first place, it is unusual for the upcoming prime minister to announce the schedule for a lower house dissolution before taking office. Many people felt uncomfortable with Ishiba’s action.
Repeated mistakes by LDP leadership
During the LDP presidential election campaign, Ishiba expressed a cautious view about an early dissolution of the lower house. But, once he became prime minister, he decided to dissolve it in the fastest time frame of the postwar period when counting from the point he took office, without holding a Budget Committee meeting.
Shinjiro Koizumi, the chairperson of the LDP’s Election Strategy Committee, is believed to have advised the prime minister to take this measure. Koizumi called for an early dissolution during the party’s presidential election campaign.
It appears that the LDP tried to use the sense of renewal immediately after the change of prime minister as a weapon to compete in the lower house election, but it was Ishiba who accepted the proposal, which must have given voters the impression that he lacked sincerity.
In addition, the LDP leadership repeatedly changed its policy on whether to officially endorse former Diet members and others who failed to record funds they received in their political funds reports.
In the final stages of the election campaign, it was revealed that the LDP had provided ¥20 million to party branches represented by candidates who had no official party endorsement, which was the same amount as that paid to each official party candidate, leading to criticism that not officially endorsing the relevant party members was a hollow gesture.
If the Ishiba administration continues to repeat such blunders, it is no wonder that it is losing support. This is not a problem that can be solved by having the leadership take responsibility.
In contrast to the LDP that has suffered a significant defeat, the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan and the DPFP made strides. They may have been seen by voters as an alternative to the LDP-Komeito coalition. The Japan Innovation Party and the Japanese Communist Party reduced their number of seats.
In Europe, there has been a notable surge in far-right parties that proclaim a policy of putting their own country first due to dissatisfaction with soaring energy and other prices.
In this lower house election, forces that make radical claims gained a certain amount of support, but their spread was limited, and it may be safe to assume that Japanese voters supported moderate conservative and centrist approaches. It is desirable that the new framework of government will reflect this public sentiment.
The CDPJ has begun to work to maneuver to build a majority with other opposition parties. The focus will be on whether CDPJ leader Yoshihiko Noda will be able to bring opposition parties together to realize a change of government.
Policy unity is essential
However, it is hard to say that Noda’s intraparty base is solid. The CDPJ is a collection of various politicians who support liberal and centrist approaches, among others, and the party’s lawmakers cannot be said to agree even on its basic policies, such as security and energy.
Under such circumstances, is it possible for the CDPJ to hold policy discussions with other opposition parties? First of all, it will be essential to firmly establish basic policies within the party.
Even if the opposition parties were to cooperate with each other, a government would not be stable if their philosophies and basic policies diverge. In fact, the Cabinet of former Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa, a coalition government formed in 1993 by seven parties and one parliamentary group, was constantly at odds over policies and fell apart in less than one year.
The international situation has become increasingly tense, and Japan faces a mountain of pressing issues, including the declining birth rate, social security system reform and economic revitalization. Each political party also must not forget their grave responsibility.
