Rural Japan, elections, and political change

Over at the Social Science Japan forum maintained by the Institute of Social Science at the University of Tokyo — the subdued, scholarly alternative to NBR's US-Japan forum — Paul Midford of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology has sparked an interesting discussion, subsequently contributed to by Ethan Scheiner of UC-Davis (and author of Democracy Without Competition in Japan, a book in my to-read pile that may move up the list depending on this month's returns) and Chris Winkle, a PhD candidate at Munich University, and hopefully others to come.

Midford, looking at the same chart in Yomiuri that prompted Matt over at Liberal Japan to call the election a landslide for the DPJ, outlines recent political changes in rural Japan that give the DPJ hope that its rural strategy will yield results not just in the short term, but over the longer term. To Midford, the combination of shrinking budgets at the national level, municipal combinations and shrinking revenues at the local level, and postal privatization have combined to loosen the affection of rural voters for the LDP.

Scheiner and Winkle, meanwhile, ask good questions about the impact of this election on internal party structure in the DPJ and the LDP. Scheiner wonders whether a big DPJ win could increase the attractiveness of the DPJ to those who seek to enter politics; Winkle speculates about the impact of the election on the factional balance in the LDP.

I find Scheiner's point interesting, because the DPJ does indeed have a problem attracting quality, experienced candidates to contest the LDP across the board. To date the LDP remains more attractive to future politicians because it remains where the power lies; if one is entering politics to achieve a certain policy change, it does no good to join an opposition party whose prospects for power remain distant. The LDP also benefits from its "farm system" of local and prefectural assembly members, providing a ready supply of election-tested politicians who have developed their own local organizations from which to launch a campaign for national office. That is the significance of April's local election returns: even though the DPJ picked up a significant number of prefectural assembly seats nationwide relative to its previous seats, the LDP still holds 1212 prefectural assembly seats around the country. That is a deep pool of talent to draw upon for candidates for years to come, and it may be years before the DPJ is able to draw upon a similar pool of experienced candidates, if ever.

Scheiner is right to note that the flow of potential candidates will shift from the LDP to the DPJ only if the DPJ can follow up an Upper House election win with a significant gain in the Lower House — and whether that is likely depends on how long the government waits to call one.

Enter Jun Okumura, who went out on a limb today and called the next Lower House election for spring 2008 (and described the chain of events that will lead to it). His sequence is logical enough, and plausible, but it seems that the one unchanging reality of the timing of the next Lower House election is that the LDP knows that it will see its two-thirds majority cut. Opposition obstructionism in the Upper House and media outrage about the government's "ramming" legislation will have to be pretty intense before the LDP surrenders.

But first the Upper House election, ten days away, with the gap between the parties narrowing by the day.

LDP and DPJ split in by-elections

In today's by-elections for Upper House seats in Okinawa and Fukushima, the results surprised no one, with the LDP winning in Okinawa -- Abe personally campaigned hard -- and the DPJ winning in Fukushima.

As with the election results from two weeks ago, it's hard to make predictions for July based on these returns; as Jun Okumura notes, "What happens in Okinawa stays in Okinawa."

But now that the second round of local elections is finished, preparations for July will begin in earnest -- or at least in Kanagawa. 900 posters for DPJ candidates for Kanagawa's two contested seats arrived in the office late last week.

Japan's campaign trucks

Over at Japan Probe, James writes about Japan's ubiquitous -- during election season -- campaign sound trucks, about which I have a certain appreciation, having been on the working side of several election campaigns now. (See this post, for example.)

As annoying as noise pollution is at 8:30am, foreigners resident in Japan must realize the severe restrictions on campaigning in Japan.

Aside from the hilarious DPJ ad, how many television ads for candidates have you seen?

How many visits to your home by candidates have you had? Heard much about debates about policy? And how many foreigners, like yours truly, have you seen on the hustings? (I learned before the first round of local elections that I was prohibited from campaigning.)

My point is that political campaigns have little choice but to rely on blunt methods, like driving around sound trucks and handing out leaflets at train stations, in trying to put the candidate's name before the public. In short, the barriers to entry facing a first-time candidate are steep.

In the traditional formulation, Japanese politicians need three "bans" to enter politics: the jiban (local support base), kanban (name recognition), and kaban (money). Each factor depends heavily on interpersonal connections, meaning that while of course the voters have to vote on the candidates, the real work towards getting elected is behind the scenes. The reliance on superficial means of exposing oneself to the public, therefore, is a symptom of deeper problems in Japanese democracy.

So gripe, but realize that the problem is bigger than just noise: it is that noise drowns out substance in the public sphere, and that even today too many decisions are made away from public eyes.

LDP gloom in Kanagawa

In an article in yesterday's Shonan edition of the Yomiuri Shimbun -- as usual, not online -- entitled "The governor's expanding clout," LDP members of the Kanagawa prefectural assembly sound despondent in the face of Governor Matsuzawa's landslide victory Sunday, and, more significantly, the victory of DPJ and independent allies in campaigns for prefectural assembly seats -- giving Matsuzawa support with which to push his agenda, outlined in detail in his manifesto.

I found the passage about LDP fortunes interesting more for what it portends for the LDP at large than for its particular significance in Kanagawa. My translation follows:

The LDP prefectural representative Kuniyoshi Kazuo said, "It is possible that we can adjust and become of the same mind, sharing political ideology and ideas." However, in the LDP there is a growing feeling of despair that "there is a high possibility of falling to second-party status," and a veteran LDP representative said, "Mr. Koizumi said, 'I will destroy the LDP,' but in his own home of Kanagawa the LDP has been destroyed."

Looking to the July Upper House election battles in every prefecture, the LDP, feeling a pressing need to repair its organizational structure, is getting desperate. Kobayashi Yutaka, the Upper House member standing in the Kanagawa electoral district in this summer's election, said, "The gubernatorial election differs from an election with parties [the candidates in the election last week were all officially independent]. The points at issue are also different," but the LDP prefectural party chapter is rushing its analysis of this election's votes.

Those two paragraphs offer a fascinating look at where the LDP is today in predominantly urban prefectures. After Koizumi's failed attempt to convert the predominantly rural LDP into an urban party, I wonder if this gloom in Kanagawa isn't reflected in other urban constituencies. Have urban voters across Japan reverted to their pre-2001 distrust of the LDP? If so, what consequences will that have for the LDP in July?

That said, as Kuniyoshi's comment suggests, never underestimate the flexibility of the LDP in its pursuit of power.

Reading the local elections with an eye on July

I have held off from posting on the results of Sunday's local elections because I am not entirely sure what conclusion should be drawn.

I think it would be a mistake to draw too-firm conclusions about the prospects for July's Upper House elections from the results.

Is Ishihara's reelection a clear precursor of LDP victory in July? What about reformist Kanagawa Governor Matsuzawa Shigefumi, who won by an even larger margin of victory than Ishihara (albeit in a less crowded race)? What about the results of elections for prefectural assemblies, which saw the number of DPJ seats rise by 205 to 375, at the same time that the LDP's seats fall 1309 to 1212? (That's not a typo.) While obviously the discrepancy in the number of seats is substantial, what counts is the trend.

So, if you're looking for certainty, you've come to the wrong place. It is important to remember, however, that the LDP may be in for a tough time regardless of what happens between now and then because a number of the LDP candidates up for reelection this year were elected in 2001 as a result of Koizumi's long coattails (the 2001 Upper House election was held in July 2001, when Koizumi's popularity was in the 80s and the LDP's popularity was breaking fifty percent for the first time in years). Of the twenty-two new candidates elected in 2001 (both from PR lists and electoral districts across Japan), twenty are running for reelection this year. They constitute roughly a third of the LDP's 64 Upper House candidates. Will they be as successful this year, without headwinds provided by an extraordinarily popular reformist prime minister? (Information drawn from Nikkei's 2001 election coverage, Yahoo's 2001 election results, and the LDP's list of candidates for this year's elections.)

I don't know what the answer is, but I strongly suspect that incumbents who benefited from Koizumi's coattails will suffer from Abe's failure to carry on Koizumi's legacy, signified by the return to the LDP of the "postal rebels," party members who voted against the privatization of the Japan Post.

The heart of the matter

What Japan Thinks published the results of a survey by the Cabinet Office of what the Japanese people think about their society.

In part two, posted here, the survey found that approximately 75% of respondents answered in the negative to the question "do you think the government takes into consideration its citizens' opinions and thoughts." The answers to the subsequent question -- "how do you think the government could most take into consideration its citizens' opinions and thoughts" -- show, however, that there is little consensus on how to change this state of affairs.

These questions get to the crux of Japan's political problem. As I argued in this post, genuine political change will not come about as a result of a new series of top-down grand reforms, a twenty-first century sequel of the Meiji Restoration. Japanese politics will change only if it ceases to be a spectator sport, in which the governing class talks amongst itself while the Japanese people look on, occasionally excited, occasionally agitated, but mostly bored. The tantalizing promise of Koizumi was that he might break the cycle by getting the Japanese people to take an active interest in how their country is governed; that promise was, of course, unrealized.

But the problem remains. Popular discontent with political parties and politicians of all stripes remains high, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions from Sunday's local election results. I strongly doubt whether any political party will be able to channel that discontent into a popular movement capable of taking power (in a manner similar to Hosokawa Morihiro's path to power in 1993). More than a decade later, the Japanese public seems more cynical, more worn out, and less likely to embrace a reformist alternative to the LDP uncritically.

In other words, the Japanese people will have to take power themselves, by voicing their discontent through protest votes (and protests), by running for office themselves or supporting other citizen candidates, and by demanding openness and accountability from governments local, prefectural, and national. At every turn Japan's governing elite need to be reminded that their mandate comes from the Japanese people and that they must ultimately be accountable to the Japanese people. Democratic governance requires a constant conversation between government and governed; it's time the Japanese people took their proper place in that conversation.

George Bush helping Matsuoka?

George Bush, speaking to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, issued a challenge to Japan (and others):

Today, more than 100 countries have fully or partially opened their markets to U.S. beef. The objective of this administration, however, is to make sure that they're better than partially opened, they're fully opened, including the countries like Japan and Korea. We're also working to open up markets that have still got a ban on our imports. In other words, this is an important part of our foreign policy. When I'm talking to leaders and they've got an issue with American beef, it's on the agenda. I say, if you want to get the attention of the American people in a positive way, you open up your markets to U.S. beef. People understand that when it comes to being treated fairly in the world marketplace.

This might be just the thing to revive Japanese Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) Matsuoka Toshikatsu's sagging political fortunes, giving him the opportunity to pose as the defender of Japanese consumers from disease-ridden American beef (a role he has relished playing since the beginning of his political career).

Of course, it may well be too late for Matsuoka to save himself. Mainichi reports that Kamiwaki Hiroshi, a graduate professor of law at Kobe Gakuin University and head of a citizen's group called Political Funds Ombudsman, is preparing charges against Matsuoka for five years' worth of false reporting by his support group, The Matsuoka Toshikatsu New Century Politics and Economics Association. Kamiwaki said: "As is expected, the agriculture minister has not satisfied his obligation to provide an explanation; this illegal issue must not be neglected. Efforts to solve this case in the Diet have stalled, so I think that he must be indicted and the facts made clear in a courtroom." It is encouraging to see an NGO act independently to hold the government accountable. Stories like this suggest that there may be hope for Japan yet.

The question is whether Abe's stalwart defense (not to mention appointment to the cabinet) of a senior LDP politician with a long history of political activities of dubious legality will have consequences for the LDP in next month's local elections or July's Upper House elections. I would like to think it will, but then the Japanese public seems to have high tolerance for corrupt dealings by the LDP.