Upper House committee approves national referendum bill
Posted by Matt Dioguardi on May 12th, 2007
The Asahi Shimbun reports:
An Upper House special committee Friday passed a bill to set up a national referendum system–required to revise the Constitution–but did not include a minimum voter turnout limit.
Here are the main points of the bill:
- National referendums will only be held over constitutional revisions;
- The referendum voting age would be 18 or older;
- Central government bureaucrats would face legal restrictions on political activities on the referendum; and
- Bureaucrats and teachers would be prohibited from using their positions to campaign on issues covered in the referendum.
As I understand this the primary things that the DPJ had wanted when the debate arose in the lower house were:
- Allow referendums for other “important national issues” as well as constitutional reform.
- Minimum voting age should be 20 years old
- There should be a minimum voter turn out.
The LDP had offered as a sort of back room deal to add to the referendum bill the possibility to hold referendums over “issues concerning the nation’s system of governance; and issues relating to ethics concerning life science.” However, it would have still been primarily an LDP plan.
The DPJ wanted their version accepted and may have been a bit dogmatic on this point. Supposedly, because of the DPJ’s dogmatic stance, the LDP decided to wrap up the debate quickly. The DPJ were then upset and claimed that the issue never received a fair hearing. The bill passed the lower house [committee?] during a lot of theatrics.
To read the Yomiuri Shimbun’s fairly detailed take on this go here.
The notion to prohibit “Bureaucrats and teachers from using their positions to campaign on issues” is kind of interesting. It makes sense, but then again, perhaps if the educational system allowed for more private schools it’d make less sense. Teachers must teach without giving opinions on things that really matter? Have to think about that …
May 12th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Matt,
I enjoy your blog, but I wanted to put out something about the age limit in the referendum bill.
It is the DPJ that supported lowering the age limit for the referendum to 18, while the LDP opposed it. The change in the Upper House bill is a product of the LDP’s trying to compromise with the DPJ.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Hi, I enjoy your blog too. I have a question. I read in the Asahi today “The national referendum law will not take effect until three years after it becomes law. During that period, no constitutional revision bills can be submitted to or discussed in the Diet”. Why three years? I don’t grasp the logic behind this time period. Thanks
May 13th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Okay, I should have gotten the part about moving the voting age down being the DPJ’s idea. I really appreciate this correction. I’m still a little confused here though.
2007/04/18 Ozawa ignoring warning signs, Takashi Oda, The Yomiuri Shimbun:
2007/05/06 The constitution revision blitz, Observing Japan
2007/03/07 国民投票法案、月内に衆院通過の方針 与党、単独採決も Asahi Shimbun:
Very rough translation: The ruling party and the DPJ agreed in committee about the point the DPJ had emphasized of lowering the voting age to 18. But the ruling party did not agree about expanding the referendum to include other important governmental issues as the DPJ had requested.
I’m still confused about the timing here. Was it like this?
Is that correct? Note some articles in the media did not clarify that the idea to move the voting age to 18 was a DPJ request.
2007/04/20 Head wind for Japanese change, Hisane Masaki, Asia Times.
This would imply that the bill contained the provision before it reached the upper house. And it makes it sound as if it were an LDP provision. Clearly the former is an error, but is the later as well?
Also by the same writer in a different paper,
2007/04/20 Japan’s March Toward Constitutional Changes, Oh My News, Hisane Masaki:
Here’s one more place,
2007/03/20 Nat’l referendum bill unlikely to be enacted before Constitution day, Kyodo News:
Anyway, the LDP were being really flexible here, I think. It does at least appear that Ozawa was being intransigent just for the sake of playing politics. That was a big concession to lower the voting age. And clearly the LDP were even willing to make other concessions as well.
May 13th, 2007 at 6:03 am
I don’t know, but it intuitively made sense to me. This is a hot issue, and I think everyone wants a slow cautious approach. It wouldn’t look good to rush through a referendum bill and them immediately hold such a referendum. It would look too much like everyone was getting caught up in the heat of events without thinking long term. Just a guess. Even if that’s right I’m sure there are other reasons as well.
May 13th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
2007/04/14 Constitution referendum bill clears Lower House, Masami Ito, The Japan Times:
Okay, this seems to explain the issue regarding the voting age. In a previous session the LDP submitted a bill with the age set at 20, the DPJ had submitted one with the age 18. Neither bill must have gotten very far. The session ended last December. Now, here we are in a new session. This time around, as a sort of compromise, the LDP’s bill from the beginning had the age set at 18.
I think this is correct but am not sure. However, it contradicts what is being claimed at the Japan Observer which is: “This issue is still under discussion as the Upper House debates the bill.”
While I really appreciate the Japan Observer correcting me in that the DPJ is responsible for pushing for the lower age, I don’t think the Japan Observer is correct that the issue is still under discussion. Though clearly I could be in error myself.
Here is another article related to this:
2007/01/11 Ruling bloc to skip DPJ nod on referendum bill, The Japan Times.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Matt, teachers should teach without giving opinions on important matters, especially current political matters. Remember that teachers have power over their students, and a student cannot really speak up against a teacher that expresses views that the student finds objectionable. It is inherently unfair for a teacher to do that, and in my opinion there is no way that the power differential between student and teacher could ever be equalized to make that possible.
I remember as a student grandstanding teachers were a source of frustration to me. At the time I could not really understand why, but these days I look back and realise that it was an ideological abuse of power.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
[…] stories were used to cover up or ignore other more important issues, such as the passage of the new national referendum law and the protests at Henoko Bay: […]