┌（゜Д゜）┘英字新聞
Diet should start review of Constitution ASAP
On Constitution Day today, we should return once more to the supreme law and contemplate the future of the nation.
The National Referendum Law, which stipulates the process to amend the Constitution, was approved at the Diet two years ago. The law is epochal because the people need it to revise the basic law at their own initiative.
Since the Diet approved the referendum bill, however, discussions on constitutional amendment have lost momentum. A distorted power arrangement in which the ruling coalition parties have a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, but the opposition bloc controls the House of Councillors has obtained in the Diet since the upper house election in July 2007.This situation has led to needless confrontations between the ruling and opposition parties. As a matter of priority, the nation's lawmakers have the responsibility to take bold measures at the earliest opportunity to deal with the ongoing global economic crisis.
But the Diet has been dragging its feet in discussing constitutional revision.
Issues related to the top law are raised every day at the Diet.
The roles of the upper and lower houses must be reviewed as soon as possible since it is a fact that the "divided Diet" situation often results in the two chambers malfunctioning.
===
SDF's hands tied
If you listen to Diet deliberations on the dispatch of Maritime Self-Defense Force vessels to counter pirates in waters off Somalia or on countermeasures for North Korea's test launch of a ballistic missile, it becomes apparent that the government's interpretation of the nation's right of collective self-defense prevents the Self-Defense Forces from working effectively because the interpretation asserts that Japan possesses but may not exercise its collective self-defense right.
With the Diet approval of the National Referendum Law in 2007, panels set up at both Diet houses were supposed to address details of constitutional revision for the three years prior to the law being put into force.
But the panels still exist only in name because the Diet has failed to decide provisions relating to them, including the number of their members.
The ruling bloc finally presented a bill on the panels' functions to the lower house Steering Committee last month.
But the panels still exist only in name because the Diet has failed to decide provisions relating to them, including the number of their members.
The ruling bloc finally presented a bill on the panels' functions to the lower house Steering Committee last month. But the opposition bloc is unwilling to discuss it.
The Democratic Party of Japan criticized the ruling bloc for railroading the bill into the deliberation phase, accusing it of making political capital out of the Constitution.
But we think the DPJ is wrong on this point. The national referendum law was a composite of two bills proposed respectively by the Liberal Democratic Party and the DPJ. Nevertheless, the DPJ opposed the national referendum bill at the time it was deliberated for political motives ahead of the upper house election.
===
DPJ playing politics
The DPJ has many members who support constitutional revision, including its President Ichiro Ozawa and Secretary General Yukio Hatoyama. The results of a Yomiuri Shimbun poll also show that a majority of DPJ supporters agree on the need to revise the top law.
Nonetheless, the party has shied away from discussions on constitutional amendment apparently to avoid intraparty conflicts in advance of the lower house election as some DPJ members remain cautious about revising the top law. It is also obvious that, with an eye on the forthcoming election, the DPJ has considered the political implications of the issue and has decided to give priority to its electoral alliance with the Social Democratic Party and the other parties that are keen to keep Constitution as is.
The panels have already wasted two years. In addition to constitutional revision, they should move ahead quickly on other pending issues they are tasked with dealing with, such as the creation of laws related to granting voting rights to 18- and 19-year-olds.
Both the ruling and opposition parties should put more effort into getting the constitutional panels functioning as soon as possible.
On Constitution Day today, we should return once more to the supreme law and contemplate the future of the nation.
The National Referendum Law, which stipulates the process to amend the Constitution, was approved at the Diet two years ago. The law is epochal because the people need it to revise the basic law at their own initiative.
Since the Diet approved the referendum bill, however, discussions on constitutional amendment have lost momentum. A distorted power arrangement in which the ruling coalition parties have a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, but the opposition bloc controls the House of Councillors has obtained in the Diet since the upper house election in July 2007.This situation has led to needless confrontations between the ruling and opposition parties. As a matter of priority, the nation's lawmakers have the responsibility to take bold measures at the earliest opportunity to deal with the ongoing global economic crisis.
But the Diet has been dragging its feet in discussing constitutional revision.
Issues related to the top law are raised every day at the Diet.
The roles of the upper and lower houses must be reviewed as soon as possible since it is a fact that the "divided Diet" situation often results in the two chambers malfunctioning.
===
SDF's hands tied
If you listen to Diet deliberations on the dispatch of Maritime Self-Defense Force vessels to counter pirates in waters off Somalia or on countermeasures for North Korea's test launch of a ballistic missile, it becomes apparent that the government's interpretation of the nation's right of collective self-defense prevents the Self-Defense Forces from working effectively because the interpretation asserts that Japan possesses but may not exercise its collective self-defense right.
With the Diet approval of the National Referendum Law in 2007, panels set up at both Diet houses were supposed to address details of constitutional revision for the three years prior to the law being put into force.
But the panels still exist only in name because the Diet has failed to decide provisions relating to them, including the number of their members.
The ruling bloc finally presented a bill on the panels' functions to the lower house Steering Committee last month.
But the panels still exist only in name because the Diet has failed to decide provisions relating to them, including the number of their members.
The ruling bloc finally presented a bill on the panels' functions to the lower house Steering Committee last month. But the opposition bloc is unwilling to discuss it.
The Democratic Party of Japan criticized the ruling bloc for railroading the bill into the deliberation phase, accusing it of making political capital out of the Constitution.
But we think the DPJ is wrong on this point. The national referendum law was a composite of two bills proposed respectively by the Liberal Democratic Party and the DPJ. Nevertheless, the DPJ opposed the national referendum bill at the time it was deliberated for political motives ahead of the upper house election.
===
DPJ playing politics
The DPJ has many members who support constitutional revision, including its President Ichiro Ozawa and Secretary General Yukio Hatoyama. The results of a Yomiuri Shimbun poll also show that a majority of DPJ supporters agree on the need to revise the top law.
Nonetheless, the party has shied away from discussions on constitutional amendment apparently to avoid intraparty conflicts in advance of the lower house election as some DPJ members remain cautious about revising the top law. It is also obvious that, with an eye on the forthcoming election, the DPJ has considered the political implications of the issue and has decided to give priority to its electoral alliance with the Social Democratic Party and the other parties that are keen to keep Constitution as is.
The panels have already wasted two years. In addition to constitutional revision, they should move ahead quickly on other pending issues they are tasked with dealing with, such as the creation of laws related to granting voting rights to 18- and 19-year-olds.
Both the ruling and opposition parties should put more effort into getting the constitutional panels functioning as soon as possible.
コメント 0