Press translations [Japan]. Political Series 0163, 1946-01-09.
Date9 January, 1946
translation numberpolitical-0685
call numberDS801 .S85
Persistent Identifier
POLITICAL SERIES: 163
ITEM 1 Powerful Development of Democratic System (6th of the series) - Mainichi Shimbun - 8 Jan 46. Translator: J. Weiller.
Full Translation:
The following, men took part in a round table conference on the development of democracy:
ABE, Yoshishige - Director of the First High School MIZUTANI, Chozaburo - JAPAN Social Democratic Party SHIGA,
Yoshio - JAPAN Communist Party MIYAZAWA, Toshiyoshi - Professor at TOKYO Imperial University MIROBUSHI, Takanobu - A
Critic MINOLE, Pyokichi - Associate Editor of the MAINICHI Shimbun
SHIGA: I ask Mr. MIZUTANI, what is your concrete idea of the adjustment and curtailment
of the Emperor's prerogative?
MIZUTANI: Speaking of the existing constitution it means the deletion of Articles
one to four. Article one should be amended
to read that the Emperor of JAPAN holds an honary position and supervises national
ceremonies in this country.
SHIGA: Then What about the question as to Who has the supreme authority?
MIZUTANI: The Social Democratic Part, adopts the view that he is the personification
of the nation and the supreme power lies
with the Nation, We have made it clear that it rests with neither the Emperor nor
the people but with the nation. However,
personally, I should like to take the view that the prerogative rests with the Emperor
and the people.
SHIGA: And in what praportion?
MIZUTANI: I can hardly express it in a percentage, but like the words of "King in
Parliament" of the English Constitutional
Monarchical system, it means that His Majesty becomes a constituent of the Diet.
SHIGA: In ENGLAND in the operation of the Constitution the prerogative rest with
the people, but where in JAPAN?
MIZUTAMI: Nor instance, the Emperor's veto has never been exercised and in substance
the prerogative is in the people's hands,
but I understand in form it lies with both the King and the Parliament.
SKIGA: But I doubt the advisability of separating the form from the substance.
MIZUTANI: In ENGLAND, though the supreme power lies with the people, since she is
not a republic but a monarchy, according to
the English interpretation of the Constitution the supreme power is in the King and
the people. It is so Then the King
commissions the cabinet, convenes the Parliament and internationally represents the
country. With these
POLITICAL SERIES 165 (Continued)
ITEM 1 (Continued)
points in view I do not take it that the prerogative rests wholly with the people
as you say.
SHIGA: Then do you really consider that the English system, where the supreme power
is in form in the King but in substance in
the people, should be applied to JAPAN so that the supreme power lie in substance
with the people but in form with the
Emperor?
MIZUTANI: As my own personal opinion, I think the prerogative both in form and substance
lies with the Emperor and the
people.
SKIGA: Then it is inconsistent with transplanting the English Constitutional Monarchy
since you said that the form is in the
King, and the substance in the people.
MIZUTANI: I ought to have said that in the case of ENGLAND too, the form and substance
are found in both.
SHIGA: I have never heard that they are in both.
MURUBUSHI: In the Belgian Constitution, it is written to that effect.
SHIGA: But in Artical 25 of the Belgian Constitution it is provided that the rights
are vested in the people.
NUROBUSHI: It is a legal theory and immaterial whether or not the prerogative belongs
to a judicial person called a nation.
The prerogative originates from the people, but, in the case of ruling, the Monarch
and the people are separated and both are
responsible. In ENGLAND, there is no such written constitution, but the prerogative
rests supposedly in the House of commons.
It has been so understood from early days so that in that country where there is no
statutory constitution, the prerogative
rests with the people. If it is thought proper to apply this to JAPAN, this separate
principle will not do.
MIZUTANI: In actual operation the English Government is playing the role as I mentioned
before but, it must be admitted that
the greater power lies with the Lower House. However as long as the English political
system is a constitutional Monarchy both
in form and substance, I do not consider that the supreme power lies with the people.
MUROBUSHI: In the future JAPAN, it will be a question of what to do with the Emperor
in a democracy. The promise of Democracy
from the beginning has been the consideration of whether or not the Emperor system
should, be continued.
MIZUTANI: I am entirely of the same opinion on that point. In the present revision
of the Constitution, instead of revising
here and there, the whole thing should be entirely rewritten from the start. That
is, instead of working out how to realize
democracy, under the Emperor System, I personally take the view that we should decide
what should be done with the Emperor
Under the democratic system. What is your conclusion, Mr. MIYSAWA?
MIYASAWA The practice of stating in the constitution that the prerogative lies with
the people is a mere idea. If it is
written that it rests with a Monarch, there remains no means to restrain him from
grasping all the power in his hands or if it
is provided that the people retain it, what can they do by merely carrying out elections
once in several years? It is a mere
political idea whether' it is written so or not in the Constitution, is not worthy
of much attention. If it is so stimulated
in the
- 2 -
POLITICAL SERIES 163 (Continued)
ITEM 1 (Continued)
Constitution, such a provision, like a political party's platform, is no more than
a declaration of an ideal. Coming to a
political question, it is very hard to define the political prerogative and we cannot
tell Where it actually lies.
In democratic countries like AMERICA and ENGLAND the term is rather ambiguous and
it may rest with the people. But from a
legal point of view it is almost impossible to say definitely where it lies in modem
countries. For instance, in a monarchy,
they say the monarch has the prerogative, but the Court of Justice is conducted in
JAPAN in the Emperor name; so the
constitution provides for it but actually the Emperor never gives a judgement. The
Court of Justice discharges its function
independently so that it can be said that jurisdicture is in the hands of the Court.
At the moment the Emperor enacts
legislation and the Diet simply participates in it. It can be said therefore that
its function is only negative, but if it
says no, legislation cannot be put into effect. My opinion may sound all too legal
and may not meet with your approval, but as
far as I am concerned I cannot say definitely where the prerogative lie:
SHIGA: Mr. MIYASAWA says that legally then the Diet says no they cannot force them
to-change their vote, but actually the
TOJO; Cabinet politically did so. Therefore if the question is interpreted legally
MIYASAWA: If considered in that light the prerogative is politically shifting from
time to time, so that it is difficult to
judge who has it in JAPAN. Roughly speaking up to now it can be said that it rested
with the militarists and ZAIBATSU.
DISTRIBUTION "X"
- 3 -
Loading...