Party Leader Debates in Diet: Short Time Limits Prevent Substantive Debate

Editorial

16:05 JST, November 27, 2025

The purpose of debate between party leaders in the Diet should be for ruling and opposition party leaders to discuss major policies that concern the nation’s very foundations from a broader perspective.

However, with leaders of midsize and small parties allotted only several minutes each, debate cannot be deepened. Ruling and opposition parties should reconsider how the Diet is managed, including extending the debate time.

The first debate between party leaders was held since the Cabinet of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi was launched.

The first thing that Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan President Yoshihiko Noda brought up was Takaichi’s response in the Diet regarding a potential Taiwan contingency.

During a recent House of Representatives Budget Committee meeting, Takaichi said that if China imposed a maritime blockade against Taiwan and the U.S. military came to support the island, and China then used armed force, it “could be deemed a survival-threatening situation” for Japan.

Noda pressed Takaichi, asking whether she “feels responsible” for the worsening of Japan-China relations resulting from Beijing’s backlash against her remarks concerning the exercise of the right of collective self-defense in a limited manner.

Takaichi stated that if she did not delve into specifics, the opposition could “potentially halt deliberations at the Budget Committee meeting, so I answered sincerely.” She added that the government’s unified position is to make judgments based on each specific situation.

It is true that Takaichi’s remarks went beyond the government’s conventional position on the issue. However, they were in response to repeated questioning by Katsuya Okada of the CDPJ during the Budget Committee meeting.

Noda’s stance is difficult to understand — it sets aside the CDPJ’s responsibility for persistently pressing for Takaichi’s response and instead blames her.

Noda also mentioned the nationalization of the Senkaku Islands in 2012 when he was prime minister, which drew fierce opposition from China. He argued that the current situation is “perhaps more serious than the friction caused by the nationalization.” What is the point in debating which is more serious, comparing the past to the present?

Yuichiro Tamaki, leader of the Democratic Party for the People, demanded that the “annual income barrier,” or the income threshold for the imposition of income tax, be raised to ¥1.78 million. “I hope we will walk together toward that goal,” the prime minister said.

Takaichi’s response was apparently aimed at securing the DPFP’s cooperation in government administration, but it must not be forgotten that simply expanding the tax exemption threshold reduces tax revenue.

Komeito leader Tetsuo Saito called for maintaining the three nonnuclear principles. Sanseito leader Sohei Kamiya asked for Takaichi’s view on establishing an anti-espionage law.

While 28 minutes were allotted to Noda, the other party leaders had shorter times, with eight minutes for Tamaki, six minutes for Saito and three minutes for Kamiya, making it impossible for them to go into depth in the discussions.

Compared to other countries, Japan’s prime ministers devote significant time to Diet deliberations. It would be an idea to consider reducing the number of days the prime minister attends Budget Committee meetings and increasing the time allocated for debates between party leaders to compensate.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Nov. 27, 2025)