# Constitutional Imperialism in Japan/Chapter 1

I. The Imperial Prerogative
The sovereignty of the Emperor is the fundamental principle of the Japanese Constitution. Article I reads as follows:
The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by a line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal.
The late Prince Ito, the chief compiler of the Constitution, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the Empire of Japan, says of this article:
It is meant that the Emperor on the Throne combines in Himself the sovereignty of the State and the government of the country and of His subjects.
The "divine right of kings" was carried to such an extreme in England that Charles I lost his head; but in Japan "the divine right of the Emperor" is acknowledged to a degree of which no Stuart ever even dreamed. Uyehara, in his Political Development of Japan sets forth that point very vividly: he asserts that the Emperor of Japan can use "more effectively than Louis XIV" the latter's famous expression, "L'Etat c'est moi," And then the Japanese writer sums up the status of the Emperor as follows:
He is to the Japanese mind the Supreme Being in the Cosmos of Japan, as God is in the Universe to the pantheistic philosopher. From him everything emanates; in him everything subsists; there is nothing on the soil of Japan existent independent of him. He is the sole owner of the Empire, the author of law, justice, privilege, and honor, and the symbol of the unity of the Japanese nation. He has no pope or archbishop to crown him at his accession. He is supreme in all temporal affairs of the State as well as in all spiritual matters, and he is the foundation of Japanese social and civic morality.
​As a corollary of this fundamental principle, the Emperor is "sacred and inviolable."
Ito says: The Emperor is Heaven-descended, divine and sacred; He is preeminent above all His subjects. He must be reverenced and is inviolable. . . . Not only shall there be no irreverence for the Emperor's person, but also shall He not be made a topic of derogatory comment nor one of discussion.
It is really unthinkable that any Japanese Emperor could ever suffer the fate of Charles I of England. It was this idea of imperial sanctity that made the people discredit, at first, the report of the anarchist conspiracy of 1910. It must however be acknowledged, that even the Emperor is not always exempt from being the subject of discussion. And yet on the whole he is generally considered sacred, so that attempts to drag him into politics are resented. An apparent attempt to utilize for partisan purposes an imperial rescript by the new young Emperor is believed to have ruined Katsura's last ministry in 1913. And the failure of Saionji at that time to make the Seiyukai yield to what was said to be the imperial desire in that case is thought to have compelled him to give up the leadership of that party and retire to private life.
Dr. McLaren, in a lecture before the Asiatic Society of Japan, spoke as follows on this point:
The tremendous prestige of the Imperial name had been used continually for the defense of the Government. . . . The divine descent of the Monarch had been made to bear the whole burden of the oligarchical form of government. . . . The oligarchy and the monarchy had been merged into a single governing power, which continued to exist through the reverence of the people for the Throne."
This idea of the sacredness of the imperial name has given rise to some ridiculous instances of so-called lèse majesté. For instance, the Ministry was censured in 1893 "for its carelessness in maintaining the dignity of the crown." It happened ​that an English lawyer, counsel for the Japanese government, in a case before the English Consular Court at Yokohama, had used the name of the Emperor in his plea!
The Constitution further states positively that
The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in himself the rights of sovereignty and exercising them, according to the provisions of the present Constitution.
Ito, in his comments on this article, refers to the Emperor as
This Most Exalted Personage who thus holds in His hands, as it were, all the ramifying threads of the political life of the country, just as the brain, in the human body, is the primitive source of all mental activity manifested through the four limbs and the different parts of the body.
Not only does the Emperor thus exercise the executive power of the State, but, according to a specific article: "The Emperor exercises the legislative power with the consent of the Imperial Diet." And, as the Emperor, by Article VI, " gives sanction to laws and orders them to be promulgated and executed," it naturally and logically follows, according to Ito, that "He also possesses the power to refuse His sanction." On this point, Uyehara writes as follows:
The sanction of the Sovereign to a bill is the final point in Japanese legislation. The Emperor is absolutely free either to give or refuse sanction. Therefore, you may say that the Emperor has an absolute veto over all legislation. There is no constitutional way for the Diet to over-ride this veto of the Emperor."
Moreover, the imperial control of the legislative organ, the Imperial Diet, is seen in the fact that, by Article VII, "The Emperor convokes the Imperial Diet, opens, closes and prorogues it, and dissolves the House of Representatives."
The fact that the Constitution reserves to the Emperor cer​tain powers is not so different from the custom of conferring such "reserved rights" upon the executive in other countries as to require special comment. It is sufficient to call attention to Articles XI–XVI.
There is, however, one constitutional provision which requires special notice under this topic of "The Imperial Prerogative." The Constitution cannot be amended unless a project to that effect is submitted by imperial order to the Imperial Diet. Then, in neither House, can an amendment be debated unless two-thirds of its members are present; and no amendment can be passed unless two-thirds of the members present approve. Ito explains why the Diet cannot initiate an amendment by saying that "the right of making amendments to the Constitution must belong to the Emperor Himself, as He is the sole author of it." But just as the late Emperor, now known as Meiji Tenno, granted the Constitution in response to a desire or a demand, so doubtless any prudent emperor will heed public opinion with reference to amendments.
It may be said in general concerning the imperial authority in Japan that, while nominally and theoretically it is not limited, yet practically it is somewhat limited. Uyehara says: "Neither custom nor law, written or unwritten, nor the Constitution limits his ultimate sovereign power; He is the Supreme Lord and Absolute Master of the Empire."
Yet the Emperor does not interfere in the actual administration of affairs; he reigns but he does not rule. The late Emperor took a deep personal interest in the affairs of state, but never showed the slightest desire to exercise "personal rule." It is, therefore, not difficult for an emperor, unless he is a man of strong personality, to be at the same time an "absolute monarch" and an absolute figure-head. That was often the case in Old Japan; and it is not an impossibility even in New Japan. Uyehara affirms most positively that "it is not the personality of the Emperor ... upon which the strength and the value of the Japanese monarchy depend"; ​and he claims that it is "the unique history and tradition of the imperial throne"; but we make bold to say, even in opposition to a Japanese, that the personality of the sovereign is of special importance. It is possible that, in general, the imperial personality weighs more than the individual personality. But in the case of the late Emperor, Meiji Tenno, his own personality, in the sense of his individuality, was no small element in the loyalty and patriotism of thousands of his subjects. And it is not an invidious comparison to state that the feeling toward the present Emperor does not seem as yet to be the same as that toward his illustrious father, Mutsuhito the Great.
* ↑ Igirisu Horitsu Gakko, Tokyo, 1889, p. 3.
* ↑ Dutton, New York, 1910, pp. 19–24.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 23.
* ↑ Commentaries, p. 6.
* ↑ Japan Advertiser, Tokyo, 19 June, 1913.
* ↑ Article IV.
* ↑ Op. cit., p. 7.
* ↑ Article V.
* ↑ Op. cit., p. 11.
* ↑ Political Development of Japan, p. 128.
* ↑ Appendix.
* ↑ Article LXXIII.
* ↑ Op. cit., p. 140.
* ↑ Op. cit., p. 193–194.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 201.