Revolutions, it is often claimed, do not happen when people are desperate. They occur in times of rising expectations. Perhaps that is why they so often end in disappointment. Expectations, usually set too high to begin with, fail to be met, resulting in anger, disillusion and often in acts of terrifying violence.
Japan’s change of government last year — when the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) broke the almost uninterrupted monopoly on power held by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) since 1955 — was not a revolution. However, rather like the election of the first black president in the US, it did fizz with popular expectations, promising a fundamental shift from the past.
This was even truer of Japan than the US. The DPJ not only put many new faces into power, it was going to change the nature of Japanese politics. At last, Japan would become a fully functioning democracy and not a de facto one-party state run by bureaucrats.
To judge from the Japanese press, as well as the DPJ’s plunging poll ratings, disillusion has already set in. The permanent bureaucracy proved resistant and DPJ politicians, unaccustomed to power, made mistakes. One of the worst was Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s announcement in June of a consumption-tax hike just before the Upper House elections, which the DPJ went on to lose badly.
The other disappointment has been the government’s failure to get the US to move its Marine airbase out of Okinawa. This promise by the DPJ was meant to be part of Japan’s new assertiveness, a first step away from being a mere “aircraft carrier” for the US, as a former LDP prime minister once described his country.
If Japan’s status quo is to change, the country’s oddly skewed relationship with the US is a key factor. Too much dependence on US power has warped the development of Japanese democracy in ways that are not always sufficiently recognized by the US.
warped
Japan’s one-party state, under the conservative LDP, was a product of World War II and the Cold War. Like Italy, its old Axis partner during the war, Japan became a front-line state in the battle against communist powers. As in Italy, a right-wing party, backed by the US dominated politics for decades, denying the left any chance to take power. Even former Japanese war criminals, one of whom became prime minister in the late 1950s, turned into subservient allies of the US in the wars (hot and cold) against communism.
In fact, Japanese dependence on the US was even greater than that of Italy and other European powers. West European armies were embedded in NATO. Japan, whose armed forces were entirely blamed for driving the country into the catastrophic Pacific War, was not even supposed to have an army or navy after the war. During their occupation of Japan in the 1940s, the US wrote a new pacifist Constitution, which made the use of Japanese military force abroad unconstitutional. In matters of war and peace, Japan abdicated sovereignty.
Most Japanese were happy to be pacifists and concentrate on making money. Japanese governments could devote their energy to building up the country’s industrial wealth, while the US took care of security, and by extension much of Japan’s foreign policy. It was an arrangement that suited everyone: The Japanese became rich, the US had a compliant anti-communist vassal state and other Asians, even communist China, preferred Pax Americana to a revival of Japanese military clout.
However, this strategy came with a steep political price. A democracy that is over-dependent on an outside power and monopolized by one party, whose main role is to broker deals between big business and the bureaucracy, inevitably becomes stunted and corrupt.
political price
Italy, under the Christian Democrats, had the same problem. However, the end of the Cold War in Europe changed the political status quo — with mixed results, to be sure. Old parties lost power, which was a good thing. The vacuum was filled in Italy by the rise of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, which may have been less of a good thing. In East Asia, by contrast, the Cold War is not yet entirely over. North Korea still causes trouble, and China is nominally a communist state.
However, it is a very different world from the one left in ruins in 1945. For one thing, China has become a great power and Japan, like other Asian countries, must adapt to new circumstances. Although it is the only Asian democracy able to balance the power of China, the system established after World War II is not well suited to this task.
This was recognized by the DPJ, which would like Japan to play a more independent role, as a more equal ally, rather than a mere protectorate of the US, and thus be a more assertive political player in Asia. Hence, the first symbolic step was to get the US to move its marines from Okinawa, an island that has carried the burden of a US military presence for much too long.
The US did not see things that way. The DPJ threatened to change comfortable old arrangements, whereby the US could more or less tell the Japanese what to do. As a result, the US showed little patience with Japan on the question of Okinawa, and has barely concealed its contempt for the DPJ government, feeding popular disappointment with its performance so far.
The US seems to prefer an obedient one-party state to a difficult, faltering, but more democratic partner in Asia. US President Barack Obama’s administration, struggling to fulfill its own promises of change, should be more understanding of its Japanese counterpart. If the US is as serious about promoting freedom abroad as it claims, it should not be hindering the efforts of one of its closest allies to strengthen its democracy.
Ian Buruma is professor of democracy and human rights at Bard College, New York.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS