Stipulation of SDF: Kishida Should Have Announced His Intention When Diet Was in Session

Editorial

15:00 JST, August 11, 2024

Won’t Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s action pour cold water on the discussions held repeatedly between the ruling and opposition parties on the creation of a contingency clause?

At a meeting of the Liberal Democratic Party’s Headquarters for the Promotion of Revision of the Constitution, Kishida expressed his intention to explicitly stipulate the existence of the Self-Defense Forces, in addition to creating a contingency clause, in the party’s draft proposal to revise the Constitution. The prime minister instructed the LDP, of which he is president, to sort out points of contention by the end of the month.

“The era of just talking about constitutional revision is over. The question now is how to realize it,” Kishida said at the meeting.

In 2018, during time of the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Cabinet, the LDP put together a revision proposal to stipulate the maintenance of the SDF as an enforcing organization with the prime minister as the supreme commander, while keeping Article 9 in its current form. The aim was to dispel the argument that the SDF is unconstitutional.

Kishida must have thought it would be easier to build consensus within the party by using a proposal compiled during the Abe administration. He may also have been thinking of capturing conservative votes, in anticipation of the LDP’s presidential election next month.

However, some members of the LDP feel that instead of stipulating the existence of the SDF, the second paragraph of Article 9 should be deleted and the exercise of the right to self-defense should be stipulated. Their argument is that constitutional restrictions will remain unless the right to self-defense is stipulated

Meanwhile, the Commissions of the Constitution in both the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors have held in-depth discussions this year between the ruling and opposition parties about a contingency clause. Such a clause would extend the terms of House of Representatives members who had just lost their seats due to a dissolution of the lower house or because their terms had expired so that they could respond to a large-scale disaster and any other emergency.

The current Constitution also stipulates an emergency convocation of the upper house as a provision for times of crisis. But it is not realistic to entrust various functions to an emergency assembly, such as passing budgets and bills, and ratifying and approving treaties. It would make sense to include a contingency clause in the Constitution.

The Japan Innovation Party and the Democratic Party for the People have presented draft provisions they jointly compiled regarding a contingency clause. The LDP has presented a similar draft.

Due to opposition from parties including the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, draft provisions for revising the Constitution were not produced. But both the ruling and opposition parties assumed that a contingency clause would be the first item to be put to a national referendum.

Under these circumstances, Kishida’s instruction that the existence of the SDF should be stipulated in his party’s draft proposal has caused some puzzlement even within the LDP. Some believe that the commissions’ discussions on a contingency clause may go back to the drawing board.

If the prime minister had been thinking from the start of stipulating the existence of the SDF in his party’s constitutional revision draft, shouldn’t he have announced it when the Diet was in session and have the Commissions on the Constitution in both houses discuss the matter?

The LDP should call on junior coalition partner Komeito and the opposition parties to discuss the issue so that the prime minister’s abrupt announcement will not cause confusion in the debate on constitutional revision.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Aug. 11, 2024)