Sunday, August 16, 2009

It's not 1954 all over again

At a press conference over the weekend, Okada Katsuya, the DPJ's secretary-general stressed that because Hatoyama will be winning the mandate for the party, Hatoyama should serve a full four-year term (which, Okada stated, a DPJ government will serve so that it is able to accomplish its goals).

After four prime ministers in four years, I can understand why Okada would emphasize that Hatoyama will continue to serve the full term — with the party's 2010 leadership election being no obstacle — but in practical terms, I hope that the DPJ manages to find someone else to govern in Hatoyama's place.

Ultimately this election will not turn on the party leaders. And if the DPJ wins, its success or failure will depend on its ability to make the prime minister less the focus of attention. Kan Naoto and other DPJ officials, after all, have stressed the importance of bolstering the power of the cabinet as an institution, as opposed to the personal power of the prime minister. The LDP's revolving door in its leadership has been a function of an undue emphasis on the man occupying the prime minister's chair (even as the LDP systematically undermined his power).

However, the general election is now less than two weeks away, and undoubtedly as it approaches we will hear more about the clash between Aso Taro and Hatoyama Ichiro, the scions from storied political families now serving as the leaders of the LDP and the DPJ respectively. (We already got a hint of this in the article mentioned here.)

But the interesting thing about this election is how little in common it has with 1954, when Hatoyama Ichiro won the battle to replace Yoshida Shigeru and cleared the way for the creation of the LDP in the process.

Yes, there is the personal interest angle of having these two at the heads of the leading parties in 2009, but what's interesting is not how this shows how little Japan has changed, but rather how much it has changed since 1954. The war between Yoshida and Hatoyama was fought in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms, as conservatives like Kishi worked to assemble a coalition of conservatives that could govern in Yoshida's places.

And today? Two parties, one vaguely center-left, the other center-right, fighting openly, having debates, publishing manifestos, touring the country, the stuff of democracy. For now, it seems like voters will be making their decisions on 30 August more on the basis of these aspects of the campaign than the party's messengers. And if personality matters, it is probably the personality of the candidates in their district rather than that of the distant party leader that matters most. The fact that Hatoyama and Aso are those party leaders is more a coincidence, a function of the odds in favor of hereditary politicians serving in important posts.

But I think the media has a tendency to cast everything in terms of individuals, which is why one reads stories about the role that Aso has played in the downfall of the LDP (when for the most part Aso has simply found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time). Similarly, the drama between Aso and Hatoyama is apparently more compelling than the drama of an opposition party being in a position to defeat the LDP decisively for the first time since the LDP's birth in 1955.

This campaign is unquestionably about the parties: the public's loss of confidence in the LDP as a ruling party (of which Aso is but the tiniest of symptoms), and the DPJ's struggle to convince the public that it can be trusted with power.


wataru said...

Good and important observations. I would give just a little more weight, though, to the role of Aso in the LDP's (presumed) downfall. The public might have been more forgiving of the LDP's repeated failings if they had managed to come up with another Koizumi-like figure, false charms and all.

Tobias Harris said...

I'm not so sure about that: I think it's important that both Fukuda and Aso started with lower public approval ratings than their immediate predecessors. I think that trend has more to do with growing disgust with the LDP as a whole than with the merits of the leaders.

Janne Morén said...

Just a quibble: the DPJ is not center-left by any stretch of the defnition. It's center-right, with the LDP being, well, center-right as well but smeared out wider over the political landscape.

One danger of a two-party system is that people tend to define "left" and "right" simply from the point of view of where the electoral median happens to reside at any one point. The US is a good example, where the Democrats of the 1960's would count their own party of today as a solidly conservative party.

By any kind of ideological definition of left and right, conservative and liberal, you have two center-right parties fighting for power today.

Tobias Harris said...


I don't disagree with you: I generally dislike using left and right when talking about Japanese parties. I broke my own rule simply to make the point that we have two parties that are somewhat distinct, campaigning (more or less) on the basis of policies.

And, incidentally, I don't agree with the common notion that the DPJ is simply an "offshoot" of the LDP. Yes, some senior members of the DPJ began their careers in the LDP or the Socialists, but given when they began their careers, what parties were they supposed to begin their careers in? I think in the case of Ozawa or Hatoyama, in being ex-LDP the ex is as or more important than the LDP.

My point is that when journalists reference the clash between Hatoyama and Yoshida, it leaves the impression that the fight between the LDP and the DPJ is simply a family affair, a struggle between the LDP and a rebellious faction. The DPJ is more than that.

PaxAmericana said...


I'd like to hear what puts the DPJ over onto the right. Not that I'm disagreeing, but I'm not sure what to call them. And the LDP seems to be just a status quo party of existing interests that are, it's true, on the right overall.

And the issue of US Democrats is more complicated than that. There used to be lots of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. These don't exist any more. At the same time, big money has taken over both parties to the point that they both regularly betray their supporters, and even their purported ideologies.

A big reason for the increasing discontent in the US today is that it seems both parties represent the top in a top-bottom political system.

Adam said...

OK, how about this:


Everyone satisfied?