1947 Constitution of Japan Has come to the present without any amendment since it came into effect.
This is unusual compared to other countries, 1949 The German Constitution was enacted in Germany 60 times so far, 1958 The French Constitution enacted in Japan has also been amended 24 times. Also, 1787 The American Constitution enacted in Japan has also been amended six times after the war.
In recent years in Japan, Constitutional amendment of Japan The movement towards is getting hectic.
The Liberal Democratic Party [strong> clearly states the existence of the Self-Defense Forces in Article 9 of the Constitution ] [ Emergency response ] [ Free education ] [ Dissolution of the constituency of the House of Councilors ] We are planning to present the four amendments to the Diet.
So far, the debate over the constitutional amendment in Japan has been centered around Article 9.
The procedure for amending the Constitution in Japan is supported by two-thirds or more of the members of both Houses of Representatives. Once obtained, the Diet proposes a constitutional amendment to the people. After that, a referendum will be held and the constitutional amendment will be approved if more than half agree.
Currently, more than two-thirds of the members of the Diet belong to political parties that are willing to amend the Constitution, and it is quite possible that the amendment will be proposed and the referendum will be reached.
But why is there a move to amend the Constitution of Japan, which had not been amended so far? ??
Enforcement of the Constitution of Japan and the birth of the Self-Defense Forces
Constitution of Japan Is 1947 It was enforced in.
However, Article 9 was never a smooth start.
At the beginning of the enforcement of the Constitution, the Communist Party, which is currently opposed to the revision of Article 9, [ abandoning the right of self-defense risks jeopardizing the independence of the people . ] Was negative for Article 9. There were also many opposition to the abandonment of the war and the symbolic emperor system among some of the right-wing forces that had been banished from public office.
Under such circumstances, the United States itself, which has forced the establishment of a peace constitution, will change Japan's occupation policy in 1948 amid intensifying conflicts due to the Cold War. He turned to the recovery of economic and industrial power in order to make Japan a breakwater for the expansion of socialist power.
In addition, the US Ministry of Defense planned to reorganize the Japanese army. In this way, the Japanese Constitution, which abandoned the army, was already in a situation where its consistency with Article 9 was questioned.
However, McArthur, who commanded the GHQ, opposed Japan's rearmament and confronted the Defense Minister. In Japan as well, Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida thought that early re-arming would be a heavy financial burden and would delay reconstruction, and tried to avoid re-arming with the help of MacArthur.
However, in 1950, the Korean War broke out and the situation changed significantly.
As the US military stationed in Japan was mobilized to the Korean Peninsula, there were no troops to guard Japan, and MacArthur ordered the establishment of a police reserve. In response to this, Prime Minister Yoshida also created the National Police Reserve [later the Self-Defense Forces].
The 1955 system where constitutional amendment was impossible
1955 The Liberal Democratic Party will take power, and the Socialist Party will continue to be the first opposition party [ 1955 system 】It began. This system lasted for 40 years and collapsed in the early 90's when Japan was shaken by the Gulf War and PKO dispatch.
Originally, the Liberal Democratic Party was a conservative Democratic Party of Japan . And Liberal Party Is a party formed by joining.
Constitutional amendment since the party was formed Has been listed in the party policy.
In particular, members of the former Democratic Party of Japan [ the current constitution is imposed by the United States, and we need to recreate it ourselves . ], And the former Liberal Party accepted this.
However, under the 1955 system, it was rare that even discussions on constitutional amendment were raised.
Socialist Party Innovators who advocate Article 9 occupy more than one-third of the seats in the Diet, and as a matter of fact, it was difficult for the Diet to propose a constitutional amendment.
The rigid constitution has strict requirements for proposing such constitutional amendments. It is considered that the strictness of this requirement is one of the factors that the revision of the Constitution of Japan has never been done.
In addition, it was one of the factors that the amendment did not include the fact that it was possible to refuse the increase in defense spending from the United States with Article 9 of the Constitution as a shield. However, the Self-Defense Forces alone cannot protect Japan, so I supplemented it in the Japan-US Security Treaty and matched it with Tsuji.
In this way, the Liberal Democratic Party put the amount of money that did not have to be budgeted for defense spending into economic policy, and Japan proceeded to high economic growth.
Before the 1955 system, the people were seeking re-arming.
As mentioned earlier, the constitutional amendment was impossible and the merit was small during the 1955 system.
So how was it before the 1955 system? ??
September 1951 According to the Asahi Shimbun poll, [ Japan has also signed a peace treaty and has become an independent country, so we must build an army to protect our country . When asked whether they agree or disagree with the opinion, [Agree] accounted for 71%.
However, 1954 Self-Defense Forces Law Was established, and public opinion changed when the National Safety Forces and the Security Forces were integrated and the Self-Defense Forces were established.
Also in the Asahi Shimbun November 1955 According to a poll, 37% agreed with the Article 9 revision and 42% disagreed with it. In subsequent investigations, the Constitutionalists will gradually become the majority.
Some opponents [strong> If it is possible to have a Self-Defense Force without amending Article 9 of the Constitution, there is no need to have a regular army without amending it ] It seems that some people thought.
In this way, the coexistence of Article 9 of the Constitution and the Self-Defense Forces was approved by many people, and it was not amended under the 1955 system.
Constitutional amendment has accelerated since the inauguration of the first Abe administration
2006 When the first Abe administration is inaugurated, the movement for constitutional amendment will begin to accelerate.
At that time, the gap between the Article 9 of the Constitution and the actual activities of the Self-Defense Forces was a problem in Japan. 2003 Iraq Special Measures Law for postwar reconstruction assistance after the Iraq War ] Has been enacted, and PKO activities so far Unlike, activities in unsafe areas can force the Self-Defense Forces to use force.
Is it okay to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces to such a dangerous area? In the first place, there were voices asking what was the consistency between the current activities of the Self-Defense Forces and Article 9 of the Constitution, which stipulates the non-retention of force and the approval or disapproval of the right to engage.
Under such circumstances, there was a lot of debate about whether the existence of the Self-Defense Forces should be clearly stated in Article 9 due to the constitutional amendment.
Prime Minister Abe was a clear reformist.
2007 Referendum Law that stipulates the method of referendum to be held after the amendment is proposed. Is established. In the Liberal Democratic Party manifesto of the Upper House election held in the same year [ 10-year constitutional amendment proposal ] Has been pledged.
However, the Liberal Democratic Party was defeated in this election, and Prime Minister Abe resigned. After that, the Liberal Democratic Party continued to be low, and the Democratic Party, which was the opposition party, finally took power and it was no longer a matter of constitutional amendment.
But 2012 Prime Minister Abe will return to the government and will be motivated to change the constitution again.
Changes in the interpretation of the Constitution make it possible to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces overseas ...
Iraq Special Measures Law Was questioned for consistency with Article 9 of the Constitution when was enacted, but 1992 PKO Cooperation Law A similar debate arose at that time.
What is PKO? United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Therefore, personnel dispatched from member countries under the control of the United Nations are working to monitor the ceasefire and maintain security in conflict areas.
Japan is 1991 Gulf War At that time, the United States asked me to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces to the multinational forces, but the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces was unconstitutional and I canceled the overseas dispatch. Instead, he sent a large amount of money to the multinational army, but it was not appreciated internationally.
Therefore, from around this time, [ Japan should not only protect its own peace, but also focus more on international contribution . ] Has come out in Japan.
Until now, the government has [ constitutionally not allowed to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces in many cases. ], But in the PKO cooperation bill, [ If you do not use force, dispatching is not unconstitutional ] I showed the view.
In this way, we realized overseas dispatch by changing the interpretation without changing Article 9 of the Constitution.
This was later [ the exercise of the right of collective self-defense is unconstitutional The same thing was repeated at the time of the security-related law that was enacted by changing the conventional interpretation of the government.
The fact that Article 9 of the Constitution was put into operation by interpretation rather than amendment is one of the reasons why Japan has not been amended.
The 1946 revision of the new constitution by Ashida makes it possible to interpret the constitution ...
The Japanese government submitted the new constitution to the Diet in March 1946 . was.
It is said that it was made by the Japanese government on the surface, but most of it was made under the guidance of GHQ.
GHQ urged the Japanese government to revise the Constitution, thinking that the Constitution of the Empire of Japan drove Japan to militarism. Therefore, the government made a draft constitutional amendment and submitted it to GHQ, but since the content was not in line with GHQ and beyond, GHQ prepared a draft and presented it to the Japanese government.
Then, the Japanese government prepared a new constitution based on the draft and submitted it to the Diet.
The Diet deliberates on the draft constitution, and in the process, the part related to Article 9 is amended.
Before modification
Wars in which national sovereignty is exercised and threats or use of force by force are permanently abandoned as a means of resolving disputes with other countries.
The Army, Navy, Air Force and other forces must not hold this. The state's right to engage does not recognize this.
Corrected
The Japanese people sincerely seek international peace based on justice and order, and the war in which national rights are exercised and the threat or use of force by force are means of resolving international conflicts . Abandon this forever.
To achieve the purpose of the previous section , Army, Navy, Air Force and other forces do not hold this. The state's right to engage does not recognize this.
This Ashida correction Then, it is said that it is a means of resolving international disputes and to achieve the purpose of the preceding paragraph, but with this amendment, [ as a means of resolving international disputes, it does not retain its strength, but it denies the retention of its strength for self-defense. Not ] There is room for interpretation.
And this will regard the existence of the later Self-Defense Forces as constitutional.
Looking at it in this way, it can be said that Article 9 of the Constitution and the Self-Defense Forces have a history of how to achieve their consistency. And even now, discussions on the revision of Article 9 will continue to flourish in order to ensure its consistency.