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.
Elections are the foundation of democracy, and the decision to ban posters that undermine their integrity can be seen as a step forward. However, this alone will not be enough to resolve the mess surrounding elections.
If Diet members are prioritizing their own advantage in elections and are reluctant to take measures to improve the situation, including through legislation, then why not establish a third-party entity made up of experts in order to deliberate on the issue in depth?
The revised Public Offices Election Law, which most notably features new regulations on election posters, has been passed by a majority, with support from both the ruling and opposition parties. It will come into effect after a one-month period of public notification.
The revised law requires all election candidates to include their names on their campaign posters. It levies a fine of up to ¥1 million on those who post advertisements or publicity unrelated to the election.
In the Tokyo gubernatorial election last year, the NHK Party political group in effect sold its right to display posters, and advertisements for adult entertainment establishments and pictures drawn by children were posted on campaign poster boards. The latest revision of the law was designed with this problem in mind.
However, it is unclear how effective the regulations will be. During the Diet deliberations, the Liberal Democratic Party, which proposed the bill, argued that it is the voters who decide whether a poster lacks integrity. The LDP also said that only posters that are clearly in violation of the law, such as advertisements, will be removed.
The LDP probably means that deciding whether a poster is appropriate should be left to voters, but it is highly unlikely that this will prevent the misuse of posters.
And the problem is not limited to posters. Information on social media that is difficult to verify is now affecting the results of elections. Also, so-called “double-horsepower campaigning,” in which candidates who have no intention of being elected support other candidates, is becoming rampant.
The revised law only states in the supplementary provisions that “the matter will be examined and necessary measures will be taken.”
During the Diet deliberations, many parties expressed caution about regulating unverified information, saying that the response should not make regulations come above all else. It seems that they want to use social media to help their own political campaigns.
The debate over double-horsepower campaigning is also going off the rails. The LDP has been calling on voters to support Komeito in the proportional representation blocs in exchange for support from Komeito in its own single-seat constituencies, but they are afraid that this may also be considered double-horsepower campaigning.
Double-horsepower campaigning and electoral cooperation between political parties are completely different. Can they not make that distinction?
The House of Representatives’ electoral system was given its current form after a report by an advisory council, which was mainly made up of experts. Why not have the regulation of social media and other issues also discussed in a way that avoids strategic considerations of party interests?
