The present geopolitical situation in East Asia may have looked conducive, even compelling, for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to set a 2020 target to rewrite the country’s controversial post-war pacifist Constitution. Nevertheless, the move to accord legal recognition to the country’s military, which has already grown to assume international commitments, must clear many legislative hurdles.
The country’s 1947 Constitution has been at the centre of competing narratives, in much the same way as the contentious historical accounts on Japan’s pre-eminent part in the Second World War.
Article 9, the bone of contention
The document drafted by the Supreme Command of the Allied Powers (SCAP) divided the Japanese Diet between the conservatives and nationalists on the one hand and the social democrats on the other. Whereas the former view the Constitution as an imposition on Tokyo, the latter see the text as a canon of progressive and forward-looking principles. At the heart of these divisions lies Article 9 through which Japan renounced the use of force in the resolution of international disputes and proclaimed never to maintain land, sea and air forces. The charter merely made provision for the country’s own defence, which resulted in the establishment of the Self-Defence Forces (SDF).
However, the beginnings of a gradual shift away from a strict commitment to pacifism were soon to become evident. The 1954 Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement between Tokyo and Washington assured Japan external protection in exchange for the installation of permanent U.S. military bases in the country. The quid pro quo could hardly have been an antidote against an assertive nationalism following Japan’s economic and industrial triumph through the decades. If anything, an accent on national sovereignty underscored the need for a more pragmatic interpretation of the essence of pacifism in relation to the growing military might of neighbouring China.
The execution in January 2015 of two Japanese hostages by the Islamic State (IS) may have strengthened the voices that have been eager to see the end of the ‘no war clause’. The 2015 law on collective self-defence nearly ensured that. The measure authorises Japanese forces to join a battle to defend the nation’s allies, even where its territory is not at threat.
Mr. Abe would hope that the proposed amendment would combine the piecemeal measures of the past and reorient the Constitution to the current geopolitical realities. But it will require a two-thirds backing in both Houses of Parliament and also a simple majority in a popular referendum. To jettison the foundational tenets of peace in any Constitution seems a morally regressive act.
