So began yet another election narrative–that the voters had to vote against the DPJ in order to send it the message that they hate being taken for fools–and that they hate tax hikes, even when more than 60 percent of the populace believes the consumption tax hike to 10 percent inevitable. Unmistakable are the echoes of the traditional model of using the upper election as a means of punishing the arrogant, overbearing ruling party, even though the ruling party in this instance is the DPJ, which has been in power less than a year.
And not content with this, in the past few days the media and the parties have attempted to gin up another view of the election: that it’s all about policies. This development is largely a consequence of trying to justify the profusion of micro-parties, mostly of the right of the political spectrum, which are fighting to differentiate themselves from the two major parties in some way.
Under the D’Hondt proportional election system, which favours larger parties, and with the 73 district seats set to go to the DPJ or the LDP almost in their entirety, several of the micro-parties are in danger of winning no seats at all. The parties and the media have collaborated in a desperate attempt to outline their differences from one another. However, with the abbreviated election season of only three weeks, there’s been no easy way of introducing or explaining policies, even for the major parties, as Kan found out to his party’s detriment on the consumption tax.
It’s not surprising, therefore, that a sizable minority of the electorate still remains undecided. If they aren’t sure what this election is really about, they have a multitude of story lines from which to draw their conclusions.
There is, of course, a more fundamental reason why many voters are confused and unable to make a choice, even on the eve of a historic first election under a non-LDP government–and that is the lack of a clear national purpose. Japanese voters are highly educated, law-abiding (for the most part) and eager participants in their own democracy. Ask most of them what Japan’s national goals are, however, and you’ll draw an embarrassed silence, or some dangerous platitude like ‘to live at peace with other countries.’
Without goals or aims, it’s extremely difficult to choose which path to take. Or, in this case, which party or person you want to vote for.
Michael Cucek is a Research Associate at the MIT Center for International Studies and an independent political consultant. He is based in Tokyo.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Ralph Sato
I agree with Gabriel’s view of the situation in Japanese politics. The LDP’s no confidence vote (which failed) on PM Kan due to his “mishandling” of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is an example of the meaningless political gamesmanship that has gripped politics in Japan for several decades. The public discerns that this is one cause of the malaise that haunts politics in Japan, when they reacted negatively to the LDP no confidence vote. Broad policy changes may be necessary in some areas like energy policy but overall it would be more desirable to grind through the current political process than to risk upheaval.
cna training
My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!
Gabriel
Certainly this election is not meaningless, it will be an indication of just how strong the need for change really was for the Japanese public when they voted in the DPJ this time, unlike the short lived one year term in 1993/94.
The 1993/94 electoral reforms aimed to abolish among other things corruption such as pork barrelling and personalised politics the likes of which had contributed to the almost uninterupted rule of the LDP. It is unfortunate and perhaps a little ironic that the drivers of this ‘long-run’ reform agenda, particularly Ozawa, have now exited for the very evils the reformists were against.
The alternative as it was proposed, among other things, should be elections based on policy, which now are arguably possible with what appears to be the beginnings of a functioning two party system (whereas previously, in the 1993 election, the DPJ was largely successful due to alliances with other smaller parties).
It should also be noted that the undecided or perhaps ambivalent voter is certainly not new to Japan. The dilemma appears to be how to best reach these ‘floating voters’, not, as the article suggests, to create a new national agenda or set of national policy platforms. We should give the Japanese voters more credit, they have elected for change and reform, these things take time.
The other element that contributed to the reign of the LDP was their style of campaigning, and is another reason why this election along with those to come will be important to see whether a less corrupt and fairer election campaign may now evolve. One of the reforms mentioned in this article was the restriction of campaigning to three weeks. This is necessary given the stranglehold the LDP had over the election campaign through its overrepresentation in rural areas, strong second/third/fourth generation local support groups (koenkai), and their ability to provide localised, personalised rewards to these voters. Three weeks may be a prudent amount of time to capture the interest of the undecided cohort, rather than too little.
The results of this election then from the perspective of a reform agenda set in motion almost 20 years ago will be very significant indeed.
Dr. Mahendra Prakash
Democracy has always provided space for people of a particular country to get associated with through voting (decision power). In Japan, if people are not interested much in any election, that is very dangerous for the democratic pattern adopted by the politicians. Politicians should make contact with voters and appeal comprehensively for their support in the elections. The interest generated by the politicians and their parties would certainly emphasize interest among the people to take part in the elections and, further, this act will be helpful for democratization process in Japan. Japan is an advance country; the unwillingness by the masses for the ‘election’ will reflect the non-commitment of political leadership. This must be corrected for the political future of the Japan.
Ryosuke KAMI
Meaningless election is a taboo word. If an election is conducted sans violence, fraud, or “miscount” as in Japan, however the result may seem pointless, democratic election is never meaningless. Once an election should be conceived as such, a path to ugly despotism, be it of the extreme rightist streak or of the extreme leftist variety, will be gaping ahead. Germany saw it. Japan saw it. Election, evidently, never comes with complete satisfaction to any voter. It is always a compromise. Japan may lack quality leaders, Japanese voters, I trust, still can discern the difference between a political party whose end goal is just winning an election and never beyond, or one whose perceived mission is administering the affairs of state.
Dr Michael Vaughan
There is certainly a great deal of voter disillusionment with the political process in Japan. Many voters see no connection between the politicians they elect and the effect (beneficial or otherwise) they have on their lives. Prime Minister Kan’s greatest tactical (and electorally costly) error was to change policy mid-stream over the hated consumption tax. It should be remembered that this issue brought down the Hashimoto Government in 1997; and it could badly erode the lack-lustre 40% support polls currently give to the now-struggling DPJ. This Election does have meaning – but with one in three voters (or 35 million people) not knowing or not caring for whom they will cast their ballot – Japan’s leaders must fashion a new set of goals and values for the nation to follow.