Where does the responsibility stop? Responsibility in Japanese politics

Fleeting responsibility

The latest political scandal to shake Japanese public opinion was the habitual collection and distribution of undeclared funds by factions of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. What seemed stranger this time, however, was the way the country’s political leaders – both ruling and opposition parties – hammered home the concept of responsibility in connection with the scandal.

Why should this seem strange? For starters, the creation of these undeclared slush funds is an illegal action, contrary to the Law on the Control of Political Funds. Even if one accepts the argument that the legal responsibility for this crime lies not with the Diet members themselves, but rather with their staff members who organized the fundraising events, the action as a whole clearly goes against the letter and spirit of the law.

When we confront the news of this crime with the demand to know why it was committed or how the illicitly gained funds were used, it is as if we are asking a burglar himself to tell us everything he has done. do. The pressing issue here is not the responsibility of the criminals, but how they will be punished – the sincerity with which they reflect on their crimes and their words and deeds of atonement.

We have finally seen some of the parties involved punished by the PLD for their role in the scandal, but we have seen very little light on the process by which this slush fund was created, nor on the people responsible for its creation .

The Individual or the Collective?

Now is the time for Japan to take a closer look at the processes by which its policy decisions are made. In this regard, a An enlightening exchange took place in April 1975 between Miyazawa Kiichi, then Japanese Foreign Minister, and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

“I have to tell you that Japanese decision-making absolutely fascinates me,” Kissinger said, going on to detail a key difference between policy-making processes in Japan and the United States. Japan does not have individuals who make bold decisions themselves and take responsibility for them; “In Japan, you have to make decisions from the ground up, in your usual way. »

In response to this, Miyazawa emphasized that political decisions, especially important ones, are not made by individuals in Japan. “It is entirely possible to make new, even bold, decisions in Japan, but they cannot come from the leadership without careful preparatory work.”

Indeed, decision-making in Japan emphasizes groundwork, careful consultation, and broad stakeholder participation. In perhaps the most important policy decision of the postwar period, Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei’s decision in 1972 to normalize diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, Tanaka brought in an opposition leader, enlisting Kōmeitō Chairman Takeiri Yoshikatsu to play a key role, traveling to Beijing ahead of the normalization talks. Within the ruling LDP, pro-Taiwan legislators were also asked to travel to Taipei and other friends of the PRC to Beijing, where they helped lay the groundwork for this momentous decision. Once their work was complete, Tanaka himself was able to travel to China in September 1972 to sign the joint communiqué.

Watching for consensus pitfalls

This is the Japanese method: focusing on finding a collective consensus. Its disadvantages are the time it takes to get things done and the lack of clarity about who is responsible for a given decision. On the other hand, however, it succeeds in drawing a line between the different actors involved and the positions they occupy. Responsibility for decisions does not rest solely on the shoulders of individuals occupying positions such as prime minister, minister or party chairman, and the authority of these positions – the title and status of a minister or prime minister – in results. less likely to be harmed by the consequences of these decisions. By comparison, in countries where there is more emphasis on individual responsibility in political decisions, the authority of key positions like president or prime minister can be undermined when a decision goes wrong.

The Japanese consensual approach also places great importance on the explanations proposed. The process of explaining a decision is a way of indirectly involving other actors in the decision-making process, somehow helping to indirectly share responsibility for the final outcome with a larger number of parties.

It must be admitted, however, that while this type of approach to reaching consensus may be ideal when forward-looking policy is on the agenda, in cases like the current slush fund scandal – when decisions concern the “darker side” of important politics – this can lead to covering up things that need to be brought out into the open. It is of course a good thing to change the law on the control of political funds, but we must be wary of the possibility that individual politicians, hiding in the shadows of collective efforts to shape the new law, will maintain their ethical positions lax and leave loopholes to exploit them.

This is the first in “My Perspective,” a new series of opinion pieces written by a rotating team of three editors. We hope to regularly publish their thoughts on national and international affairs, culture, history, and more.

(Originally written in Japanese. Banner photo: Lawmakers pass a bill to amend the Political Funds Control Act in the House of Representatives on June 6, 2024. © Jiji.)