After Japan's house of Councilors voted down a government bill for the privatization of the postal services last Monday, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi invoked Article 7 of the Constitution, dissolving the House of Representatives and calling for snap elections. The decision has polarized opinion in the political arena.
Many political commentators and politicians have criticized Koizumi's decision for being "unnecessary" and "stubborn," and believe that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is not going to come out well in an early election set for Sept. 11. Even former prime minister Yoshiro Mori, a long-time supporter of Koizumi, criticized his move, describing Koizumi as "an eccentric among eccentrics." He believes that the move will divide the LDP and prevent the party from gaining a parliamentary majority in the upcoming elections. In short, he believes that Koizumi's decision is political suicide.
However, opinion polls by a number of Japanese media outlets indicate that over half of the general public support Koizumi's decision, which they see as honoring his pledges to the public. By risking his political life, Koizumi may see his political fortunes revived from the ashes. But he is taking an enormous risk.
Since the enactment of Japan's post-World War II constitution, the lower house has been dissolved on 21 occasions, including this most recent instance. Former prime minister Shigeru Yoshida dissolved the lower house in 1954 when threatened by a vote of no confidence. In 1990, then prime minster Toshiki Kaifu dissolved the lower house over the issue of a consumption tax. In 1969, then prime minister Sato Eisaku dissolved the lower house after the legitimacy of the Cabinet was challenged. To boost his popularity, former Primer Minister Yoshiro Mori also dissolved parliament. In short, the right to dissolve parliament has long been viewed as an "heirloom" of successive Japanese prime ministers as a method of last resort to solve political issues or stalemates.
Even since President Chen Shui-bian (
In this situation, the Executive Yuan and the president are reacting to pressure from the legislature; they do not have the right to initiate the legislature's dissolution. While lawmakers can obstruct bills over their three-year term, as long as they do not propose a vote of no confidence they can sit out their term, and there is no other means available for the legislature to be dissolved and a new election to be called.
The perpetuation of political stalemates, whether over policies proposed by the government or calls for reform from the public, serve to wear down political ideals.
If the legislature needs to be dissolved, then dissolved it should be. The government should be bold and put the issue to the public rather than allow a political stalemate to continue unresolved. This is the lesson we should learn from Koizumi's actions. In future amendments of the Constitution, we should also give serious consideration to granting the government the right to initiate the dissolution of the legislature.
Yeh Hung-ling is a student of the graduate school of Political Science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS