Japan’s ‘‘Coalition of the Willing’’ on
Security Policies
by Robert Pekkanen and Ellis S. Krauss
Robert Pekkanen (pekkanen@u.washington.edu) is assistant professor of international studies
at the University of Washington. Ellis S. Krauss (ekrauss@ucsd.edu) is professor of international relations and Pacific studies at the University of California, San Diego. This paper is basedon a paper presented at fpri’s January 27, 2005, conference, ‘‘Party Politics and Foreign Policy inEast Asia,’’ held in Philadelphia. The authors thank Michael Strausz for his research assistance.

In 1991, Japan was vilified by many for its ‘‘failure’’ to contribute boots on
the ground to the U.S.-led Gulf War. Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu (1989–91) found it difficult to gain support for any cooperation with the U.S.-led
coalition in that conflict. Today, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces are stationed in acompound in Samuur, Iraq, part of President Bush’s ‘‘coalition of the willing,’’and four of its destroyers are positioned in the Indian Ocean to aid thecounterterrorism effort in Afghanistan. While many of the United States’ nato
allies have been reluctant to aid current American security efforts, especially in
Iraq, Japan has been among the staunchest supporters of American militaryventures in the Middle East and of its stance toward North Korean nuclear
development. As a result, Washington has moved from ‘‘bashing Japan’’ in the
1980s over trade policy and ‘‘passing Japan’’—ignoring it in favor of the rest of
Asia—to lauding it for surpassing most of American’s other defense partners.
Some even see Japan as having now been permanently ‘‘locked in’’ toAmerican global strategy.1
Japan’s contributions are of far morely than mere symbolic value,
reflecting real and substantial shifts in the country’s security policies. Up until
recently, many thought of Japan as America’s ‘‘reluctant ally,’’ a country whose
pacifist citizenry and ‘‘Peace Constitution’’—the ‘‘antiwar’’ clause of which,
Article 9, proscribed any but a limited military dedicated solely to the defenseof the home islands—prevented it from involvement in any U.S. militaryventures. During just the last twenty-five years, a chief cabinet secretary resigned
in protest when a cabinet member used the word ‘‘alliance’’ to describe Japan’s
relationship with the United States, and the National Diet, Japan’s parliament,
1

Christopher W. Hughes, Japan’s Reemergence as a ‘Normal’ Military Power (ISS/Oxford
University Press: Adelphi Paper 368-9, 2004).
# 2005 Published by Elsevier Limited on behalf of Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Summer 2005|

429

PEKKANEN and KRAUSS
debated whether local governments had to give permission for Self-Defense
Force tanks to ignore traffic lights if Japan were being attacked.
Although party politics plays a critical role in determining Japan’s
security policies, it is often neglected as a factor in the transformation of thosepolicies, which scholars tend to attribute either to external factors, such as thewar on terror and the rise of China, or to domestic factors, such as thestrengthening of the prime minister’s legal policymaking authority. Four
primary explanations have emerged:
1. Public opinion. Perhaps the most widespread explanation roots
Japan’s security policies in public opinion. Many saw pacific public opinion as
the primary reason for Japan’s earlier strict interpretation of Article 9.2 But evenas early as the 1980s there was a noticeable trend toward greater public
acceptance of the Self-Defense Forces and of Japan’s becoming a ‘‘normal
nation’’ again.3 It seemed that as the public’s attitudes shifted, so did Japan’s
security policies. However, it can be questioned whether public opinion reallyis a brake on Japan’s defense policy, if it ever was.4 After all, Japan sent SelfDefense Forces to Iraq even though almost 80 percent of the Japanese public
opposed the U.S. invasion —a level similar to those of European countries that
did not send troops—and a slight majority also opposed sending Self-Defense
Forces there.5
2. Realist calculations. Another explanation stems from realist international relations theory. In the new, post–Cold War international environment, the argument goes, the main factors spurring Japan’s more assertive
defense posture are a resurgent China and an increasingly threatening North
Korea.6 But do China and North Korea actually pose a greater threat than theussr did? Chinese military capabilities still lag far behind the ussr’s in 1989.
Also, like all realist assertions, this one assumes a simple stimulus-response
2

See, e.g., Yoshihide Soeya, ‘‘Japan: Normative Constraints Versus Structural Imperatives,’’in Muthiah Alagappa, ed., Asian Security Practice: Material and Ideational Influences (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), pp. 228–31; and Thomas U. Berger, ‘‘From Sword to
Chrysanthemum: Japan’s Culture of Anti-Militarism,’’ International Security, Spring 1993.
3
On public attitudes toward the Self-Defense Forces, see Michio Muramatsu and Ellis S.
Krauss, ‘‘The Conservative Policy Line and the Development of Patterned Pluralism,’’ in Kozo
Yamamura and Yasukichi Yasuba, eds., The Political Economy of Japan: Volume 1: The
Domestic Transformation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), especially pp. 526–7.
On Japan’s becoming a ‘‘normal nation’’ again, see Ichiro Ozawa, Blueprint for a New Japan:
The Rethinking of a Nation (New York: Kodansha America, 1994).
4
Jennifer M. Lind, ‘‘Pacifism or Passing the Buck: Testing Theories of Japanese Security
Policy,’’ International Security, Summer 2004.
5
Richard P. Cronin, William Cooper, Mark Manyin, and Larry A. Niksch, ‘‘Japan-U.S.
Relations: Issues for Congress,’’ Congressional Research Service, Report IB97004, Sept. 7,
2004, pp. 5–6; ‘‘Japanese Troops Due in Iraq, Opinion Split at Home,’’ Washington Post,
Jan. 18, 2004; Norimitsu Onishi, ‘‘Japan Approves Deployment of Troops to Aid U.S. in Iraq,’’
New York Times, Dec. 9, 2003.
6
See, e.g., Michael J. Green, Japan’s Reluctant Realism (New York: Palgrave, 2001).

430

|

Orbis

Japanmodel that treats domestic politics as a black box. It does not explain variationin the four cases we examine later in this paper—(1) the passage of antiterrorism legislation in 2002, (2) the passage of the Emergency Measures Laws
in 2003, (3) the dispatch of Self-Defense Forces to Iraq in 2004, and (4) thedebate about constitutional revision in 2005. Finally, Japan’s limp militaryresponse to the 1991 Gulf War came after the end of the Cold War.
3. Asian concerns. This explanation emphasizes diminished Asianobjections to Japan’s militarization, noting that Japan has demonstrated its
relatively benign intentions through successful peacekeeping operations.7
This argument assumes that Asian concerns had operated as a restraint prior
to Japan’s security initiatives, which is debatable. Despite Chinese objections,
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has continued to visit the Yasukuni Shrine toJapan’s fallen soldiers of World War ii; Japan continues to participate with theUnited States in Theater Missile Defense; and it continues to send mixed signals
about whether it would aid the United States in a war with China over Taiwan.
4. Domestic institutions. Tomahito Shinoda of the International University of Japan has made a strong beginning on examining other causes of thetransformation, arguing that it resulted primarily from changes to institutional
structures, including electoral and administrative reforms.8 However, heleaves outside his scope party politics. Institutional change needs to beconnected to the wider political and party transformations that occurred only
partially as a result of these reforms.
The better explanation for the transformation would link (a) theinterrelated, simultaneous effects on domestic politics of a shift in the international system, (b) multifaceted changes in the party system after a major
electoral reform, and (c) the strengthened prime ministership. For it was thereform of party and parliamentary politics in Japan in the 1990s that laid thegroundwork for the general direction of Japanese security policy since 2000.
The ’55 System
U.S. policy toward Japan reversed course after the onset of the Cold
War in 1948. Where Washington had earlier sought democratization anddemilitarization—it imposed the Peace Constitution of 1947 as a means oftransforming Japan into an unarmed and only lightly industrialized nation—it
now desired a rearmed and reindustrialized Japan as an ally against the ussr.
Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida’s skillful bargaining with Washington in theearly 1950s led to the signing of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, which gave theUnited States unfettered use of bases in Japan for operations against the ussr
7Paul Midford, ‘‘Japan’s Response to Terror: Dispatching the SDF to the Arabian Sea,’’ Asian
Survey, Mar.-Apr. 2003.
8
Tomohito Shinoda, ‘‘Koizumi’s Top-Down Leadership in the Anti-Terrorism Legislation:
The Impact of Political Institutional Changes, SAIS Review, Winter-Spring 2003.

Summer 2005|

431

PEKKANEN and KRAUSSand China, along with a partially rearmed Japan in the form of Self-Defense
Forces of about a quarter million men. In exchange, Japan’s military was
limited under a strict interpretation of Article 9 as justifying only defensive
armed forces. Most of Japan’s defense, including nuclear, was entrusted to theAmericans, so that Japan could concentrate on economic growth.9
But even this was too much for Japan’s Left. Those liberals andSocialists who had supported the constitution and previous reforms now
turned against the Americans and their anticommunist foreign policy. At theLeft’s forefront was the Japan Socialist Party (jsp—now the Social Democratic
Party). The Right, led by two conservative parties that had disliked the
Occupation’s previous democratization policies as too liberal and its demilitarization policies as violating Japan’s sovereign right to maintain militaryforces in case of attack, now strongly supported the Americans’ anticommunist
and rearmament goals. An institutionalized Right-Left split developed within
the parliament once the Liberal Democratic Party (ldp) was formed in 1955
from the two conservative parties in response to the reunification of theSocialists’ rightwing and leftwing. The ldp failed to gather the two-thirds
majority of seats in the Diet needed to revise the constitution, while the jsp
held on to about one-third of the votes and seats.
By 1960 this polarization came to a massive confrontation overrenewal of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. The Left opposed the Treaty as a
violation of Article 9, but the heavy-handed tactics of Prime Minister Nobusuke
Kishi’s ldp administration in forcing it through the Diet mobilized evenmoderates and leftists against the government. At one point, half a million
individuals demonstrated in Tokyo’s streets and the nation seemed poised on
the brink of civil war.10 After Kishi was forced to resign, more moderate
factions assumed leadership of the ldp. The Socialists, who had been gaining
strength at the ballot box and so expected to take power, also withdrew fromthe brink. Any issue related to defense, Article 9, and the alliance with theUnited States provoked intense parliamentary confrontation, and sometimes inthe streets as well. A ritualized game developed in parliament whereby the ldp
generally avoided such issues, instead concentrating on rapid economic
growth, an issue through which it could elicit wide support. The jsp had
acquired a de facto veto power over any security measures: they could boycott
9Kenneth B. Pyle, ‘‘Japan’s Postwar National Purpose,’’ ch. 3 of his The Japanese Question:
Power and Purpose in a New Era (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1996); Richard J. Samuels,
Machiavelli’s Children: Leaders and Their Legacies in Italy and Japan (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003), pp. 200-11. The same chapter contains an interesting comparison to Alcide
De Gasperi, the Italian leader who faced a similar postwar situation to Yoshida’s. On how the
Yoshida Doctrine is playing out today as a ‘‘dual hedge’’ in the security and economic
dimensions, see Eric Heginbotham and Richard J. Samuels, ‘‘Japan’s Dual Hedge,’’ Foreign
Affairs, Sept./Oct. 2002.
10
Robert A. Scalapino and Junnosuke Masumi, Parties and Politics in Contemporary Japan(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962), ch. V (‘‘The Crisis of May-June, 1960’’).

432

|

Orbis

JapanDiet sessions or bring them to a halt with procedural delays if the ldp
attempted to get an unpopular security measure passed. Since Japan’s ordinary
parliamentary session is only half a year, the ldp would then be unable to passother legislation during a session and would appear antidemocratic if it
exercised its majority single-handedly.
This pattern was possible because Japan then had a multi-member
district, single non-transferable vote electoral system. Unlike in single-member
systems such as the U.S. House of Representatives or the uk’s House ofCommons, a voter in Japan had one vote, but more than one person waselected—in most districts the top 3, 4, or even 5 vote-getters. This electoral
system contributed to the dominance of the ldp, the only party large enoughto run more than one candidate in nearly every district. The system also
encouraged a limited multi-party opposition, since minority parties could
capture a seat with only 15-20 percent of the vote in a district. This enabled the
jsp to maintain enough seats to remain the main opposition party, and also
encouraged, over time, the growth of smaller opposition parties. These
included the Democratic Socialist Party (dsp), a more centrist splinter groupfrom the jsp; the Japanese Communist Party; and the Clean Government Party(cgp), an offshoot of a Buddhist movement that achieved some electoral
success after the 1960s and also was inclined toward maintaining the security
status quo and Article 9. Although the ldp and jsp both lost seats after the
1970s to these smaller opposition parties, together the Socialist, Clean Government, and Communist parties—all of which opposed military expansion—
could always muster about two-fifths of votes and seats in parliament. This wasenough to make the ldp leery of attempting to push through a more militant
defense policy over opposition objections.
Nor was there a strong leader in the ldp who could unify his party onsuch issues. By pitting ldp candidates against each other, the single nontransferable vote system helped to perpetuate intra-party factionalism. In order
to become prime minister, a faction leader had to ally with other faction
leaders. Being beholden to these other leaders for his job weakened his power.
Although the factions were not based on policy differences but on pursuit of
the premier post, some factions, such as the one led by Masayoshi Ohira andKiichi Miyazawa during the 1970s to the ’90s, were more favorably inclined tomaintaining the status quo on defense and not antagonizing the opposition.
Therefore, the single non-transferable vote system that reinforced party
factionalism and a weak prime minister also contributed to the perpetuationof the ’55 system and its avoidance of controversial defense issues.

The End of the Cold War and New Domestic Party Cleavages
After 1989, Japan began to transcend the old party system, which had
been polarized around Cold War security issues. No event signified this better
Summer 2005|

433

PEKKANEN and KRAUSS
than the surprising coalition in 1994 between the ldp and its erstwhile major
ideological enemy, the jsp. The ldp lost power when about thirty of its members
defected in 1993 over electoral reform issues, and the coalition that came to
power (which included all of the major opposition parties except the Communists) pushed through an electoral reform bill in 1994, but then split apart when
the jsp deserted to form its own ‘‘odd couple’’ coalition with the ldp, bringing thelatter back to power. Such a coalition would have been unthinkable before 1989.
The price the Socialists paid for being able to have one of their leaders
made prime minister was having to abandon their core principles: a strict
interpretation of Article 9 and opposition to the military alliance with the UnitedStates and maintaining Self-Defense Forces. In return for recognizing the ldp’s
interpretation of the constitution and its stance on the alliance, jsp leader
Tomiichi Murayama became prime minister of an otherwise ldp-dominatedcabinet. The jsp’s ‘‘public conversion’’ on security permitted a revision in 1995
of the National Defense Program Outline, which had not been amended
since its adoption in 1976.
Trading security principles for the premiership, however, turned out tobe a Faustian bargain for the jsp, for whom Murayama was able to do little
except manage to finally give an apology to the Chinese for Japan’s aggression
in 1937-45. Meanwhile, many supporters left the party in disgust over its
abandoning its long-held principles. Had the jsp moved to the center twenty
years earlier, when much of the Japanese public was beginning to do so, it
could have become a viable alternative governing party to the ldp.11 Instead,by waiting so long and then changing so precipitously, the jsp began its exit asa force on the political stage. In the 1996 elections that brought in the ldp’s
Hashimoto Cabinet, the jsp received less than half the votes it had in the 1993
election and only three seats.
The New Electoral System
The jsp’s demise was aided by the advent of a new electoral system in
the 1996 election. The short-lived coalition government of 1993–94 owed
much to the end of the Cold War and the jsp’s public recanting on security
issues. Without these events, it is quite unlikely that either the dsp—which had
split from the jsp in 1960 over differences on the alliance and defense issues
and which was almost as conservative as the ldp on security matters—or the
jsp would have been willing to enter the same coalition. This would have
prevented the opposition coalition from obtaining enough votes to come to
power and thus, in the less than a year it was in office, to accomplish two
important pieces of legislation—electoral reform and campaign financereform—that further changed the party system.
11

Gerald L. Curtis, The Japanese Way of Politics (New York: Columbia University Press,
1988), pp. 145–8.

434

|

Orbis

JapanThe electoral reform of 1994 introduced a new, hybrid mixed-member
electoral system consisting of 300 single-member districts, along with 200 (later
reduced to 180) seats elected through party-list, proportional-representation
regional districts, a system similar to those of several continental European
democracies. Voters would get two ballots: one for an individual in the singlemember district and one for the party in the proportional-representation
regional constituencies, with the candidates elected based on their pre-election party-list ranking. This provided the strong link to constituents afforded bysingle-member districts and also proportional-representation legislators who
could focus on providing public goods such as security.
The new, mixed-member system had several important consequences
for the structure of Japan’s party system. Such systems encourage voters not towaste their vote for any but the two largest parties, since smaller parties havelittle chance of picking up many seats in winner-take-all districts.12 Thus it
accelerated the decline of the jsp to a shadow of its former self. But the singlemember district system also encouraged other small parties to reunite. Moderate center parties united into the New Frontier Party, which became thesecond largest and main opposition to the ldp in the 1996 election.
The mixed-member system also had significant consequences for the
ldp. As a larger party, it benefited from and was able to capture a majority ofseats in single-member districts. On the other hand, because proportional
representation allowed even smaller parties to gain representation with a small
percentage of the vote, the mixed-member system encouraged a limited
multiparty system, with a couple of larger parties and a few smaller ones.
This made it more difficult for the ldp to gain the majority of seats in the Dietthat it had enjoyed for most of the postwar years, and therefore forced it tobring other parties into coalition with it to retain power and a majority of seats.
As it turned out, the jsp was again one of the two smaller parties the
ldp chose to bring into its coalition. Again, however, the ldp dominated theHashimoto cabinet, and because the jsp had already modified its stance on the
U.S. alliance and U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty, this government was able
to stop the drift in the alliance that had been occurring since 1989.13 In 1996,
Prime Minister Hashimoto and President Clinton reaffirmed their commitment
to the alliance and the Treaty, beginning a continuing process of strengthening
the security relationship.
Part of this process was the passage in the spring/summer of 1999 of arevised ‘‘Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation,’’14 which provide the12

Duverger’s Law states that the number of parties will equal the average number ofrepresentatives in districts plus 1. Thus in a single-member districts system, the likelihood isfor a two-party system. Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in
the Modern State, translated by Barbara and Robert North (New York: Wiley, 1954).
13
Yoichi Funabashi, Alliance Adrift (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1999).
14
The Guidelines are available at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan’s website,www.mofa.go.jp.

Summer 2005|

435

PEKKANEN and KRAUSS
operational outline for implementing the Security Treaty and had not beenrevised since 1978. These laws legitimized Japan’s aiding the activities of U.S.
forces ‘‘in areas surrounding Japan [shuhen] that had an important impact on
Japan’s peace and security,’’ even in conflicts that did not immediately involvea direct attack on Japan. This was the first time the Self-Defense Forces wereauthorized to be involved in more than the defense of Japan per se. Thislegislation shifted the emphasis of the Security Treaty from Article 5, which
focused on the defense of Japan and had always been the core of the alliance,
to Article 6, dealing with regional stability, hitherto a more subsidiary purposeof the alliance.15
The revised Guidelines were only the first in a series of new security
initiatives Japan took over the next five years. These included antiterrorism
legislation in the wake of 9/11, which allowed it to send destroyers to theIndian Ocean; laws to allow the dispatch of Self-Defense Forces to Iraq under
the rubric of the U.S. alliance rather than un peacekeeping; and legislation toenhance the ability of the Self-Defense Forces and government to function intimes of national emergency.
None of these would have been possible without the new electoral
system. The hybrid mixed-member system kept the opposition parties suspended between the need to unite, in order to pool votes against the ldp, andthe need to retain separate identities, by relying on the proportional-representation system to guarantee them a minimum number of seats.16 The
centripetal force of the single-member districts induced the smaller parties
to first coalesce into the New Frontier Party; then the centrifugal force ofproportional representation worked to help disband it a few years later.
Meanwhile, the newly formed Democratic Party of Japan (dpj) soon attracted
splinter groups and parties that stood a better chance of influence and even
eventual power if they joined together—even if they had fundamental disagreements on security issues, as the Socialists and the Liberals did. The dpj
soon became the chief and largest opposition party. Like the ldp, it does betterin the single-member districts than in the proportional-representation vote.
The proportional-representation portion, however, supported the continuing
existence of the cgp, which went into a coalition government with the ldp
despite some initial differences on security matters.
The hybrid system’s formal and informal alliances and constant splitstransformed the basic cleavage of the ’55 party system, which had been
between the ldp and jsp over security and defense. Differences over security
15

Chris Hughes and Akiko Fukushima, ‘‘Japan-U.S. Security Relations—Toward Bilateralism
Plus?’’ in Ellis S. Krauss and T. J. Pempel, eds., Beyond Bilateralism: The U.S.-Japan Relationshipin the New Asia-Pacific (Stanford University Press, 2003), p. 72.
16
Karen E. Cox and Leonard J. Schoppa, ‘‘Interaction Effects in Mixed-Member Electoral
Systems: Theory and Evidence From Germany, Japan, and Italy,’’ Comparative Political Studies,vol. 35, no. 9 (2002), discusses the effects of the two kinds of systems as well as the complicated‘‘interaction effects’’ of combining them into a mixed-member system.

436

|

Orbis

Japanmatters no longer cut as deeply between parties. The chief opposition party,
the dpj, is partially composed of former ldp legislators, such as Hatoyama
Yukio, who are much closer to the ldp on defense than pre-reform, opposition-party Diet members had been. Security differences may be less ideological and more pragmatic, but they now run within the parties. Thus some of
the former ldp members’ new party colleagues are former Socialists who,
while more accommodating after Murayama’s compromises with the ldp of1994, nonetheless remain more leftist about such matters than their former ldp
counterparts.17
At the same time, the cgp is torn between its former, more pacifist
principles on defense and the temptation to compromise with the ldp in orderto stay in power. Finally, the hybrid system makes intra-party differences on
defense a potential cause for further splits, especially within the dpj. There are
now numerous new options for each party on these issues. The dpj must
continually try to hammer out a defense position vis-à-vis the ldp that gives it aseparate, if not too oppositional, identity, while also satisfying both former
conservatives and former leftist parts of the party, who often disagree on thesematters. The cgp must weigh maintaining its more dovish identity against its
need to stay in power by creating common defense policies with the ldp. And
the ldp, always a party that combined strong hawks and members who are
more moderate on defense, can now manipulate the divisions within the otherparties and identify common ground based on which they can get moderate
defense initiatives passed. This new era of inter-party negotiation, intra-party
compromises, and convoluted policymaking within and between the parties
set the stage for new initiatives on defense. All that was still required was anenhanced role for the prime minister.
The New Prominence of the Prime Minister
It is usually taken for granted that Prime Minister Koizumi has pushed
his party and nation into its new, strong defense posture, enabled by new
public attitudes and/or his popularity. Both of these have helped, but more
important is a longer-term structural change in the role of prime minister,
especially in security matters.
Up until the 1980s, the prime minister’s influence in policymaking wasweak. He was hamstrung by rival faction leaders, a strong bureaucracy, and‘‘tribes’’ of influential veteran colleagues (zoku) in specific policy areas who
parlayed their long experience in legislative committees into near-control over17

See Leonard J. Schoppa, ‘‘Neoliberal Economic Policy Preferences of the ‘New Left’:
Home-Grown or an Anglo-American Import?’’ in Rikki Kersten and David Williams, eds.,
The Left in Japanese Politics (forthcoming, Routledge, Nov. 2005).

Summer 2005|

437

PEKKANEN and KRAUSS
policy in those areas. Domestically, he was able only to throw some extra energy
behind a given policy initiative.18 In foreign policy, maintaining good relations
with the United States and bringing back occasional ‘‘souvenirs’’ (omiyage) ofconcessions on trips to Washington were his main policy resources.
Even today, these characteristics are seen as continuing the country’s‘‘leadership deficit,’’ limiting Koizumi’s ability to bring about economic
reform.19 However, particularly in the area of foreign policy and defense,
the last twenty years have witnessed a strengthening of the premier’s role inJapan. These transformations began with Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone(1982–87), who used television to cultivate an image at home as a world leader
and undertook unprecedented defense and security measures, such as extending the Self-Defense Forces’ protection of Japan’s sea lanes and concluding a
military technology transfer agreement with the United States.20
Nakasone’s security initiatives were primarily executive decisions that
did not require major legislative action, and subsequent prime ministers until
Koizumi did not undertake equivalent initiatives. However, the process ofcarving out a separate role for the prime minister—making him less theundifferentiated creature of his party and more of an independent player—
had begun. Future prime ministers, such as Motohiro Hosokawa, the popular
leader of the 1993–94 opposition coalition, and Ryutaro Hashimoto (1996–98),
would use similar tactics of popular appeal and exploiting Japan’s newfoundeconomic strength to increase their power at home. As a result, the prime
minister has over time become more active in parliamentary election campaigns and more extensively covered by the media, and his image now has agreater influence on elections.21 He has also become more active in chairing
policymaking commissions, participating in overseas meetings, and hosting
foreign guests, thus giving him more policy influence and media ‘‘photo ops.’’
This has given him enhanced resources to exercise influence, especially inmaking foreign policy.
Institutional reforms have reinforced this trend. The 2001 administrative reform of the Japanese government gave the prime minister a more
central role in security and crisis policymaking.22 The 1994 House of Representatives electoral reform buttressed his power: by giving them more control
over nominations, proportional representation strengthens the prime minister
18

Kenji Hayao, The Japanese Prime Minister and Public Policy (Pittsburgh: University ofPittsburgh Press, 1989).
19
See, e.g., Aurelia George Mulgan, ‘‘Japan: A Setting Sun?’’ Foreign Affairs, July/Aug. 2000,
and her Japan’s Failed Revolution: Koizumi and the Politics of Economic Reform (Canberra:
Asia Pacific Press, 2002).
20
Michio Muramatsu, ‘‘In Search of National Identity: The Politics and Policies of the
Nakasone Administration,’’ Journal of Japanese Studies, Summer 1987.
21
Ellis S. Krauss and Benjamin Nyblade, ‘‘ ‘Presidentialization’ in Japan? The Prime Minister,Media and Elections in Japan,’’ British Journal of Political Science, April 2005.
22
Shinoda, ‘‘Koizumi’s Top-Down Leadership,’’ pp. 25–28.

438

|

Orbis

Japanand party leaders over backbenchers.23 That reform, along with its companion,
campaign-finance reform, also severely weakened the party factions, depriving them of power over both nominations and candidate funding. Finally, by
producing coalition governments, which necessitate inter-party bargaining on
policy, the hybrid system allows the prime minister and his cabinet to play agreater role in initiating and negotiating policy.24
The following case studies illustrate how these transformed domestic
structural variables made possible the major security transitions of the past four
years.
Case 1: Antiterrorism Legislation
After the 9/11 attacks, Prime Minister Koizumi wanted to show prompt
support for the United States. Japan’s failure to do more than provide money toaid the coalition’s cause in the Gulf War had subjected it to scathing criticism aspracticing only ‘‘checkbook diplomacy’’ while other countries sent their young
men to die for Kuwait’s freedom. This time, Koizumi proposed a plan to send
the Self-Defense Forces to the Indian Ocean to give non-combat support to
U.S. forces operating there, to provide humanitarian aid and fund rescue andreconstruction efforts in the region and to strengthen the protection of U.S.
bases in Japan. Most Japanese supported providing this aid to American
military operations.25
Talks within the ruling coalition of the ldp, the cgp, and the small
Conservative Party began, and a general consensus was quickly reached
before the outline of the proposed new laws was even explained to theleaders of the ldp’s major foreign policy committees. The top-down nature of
the prime minister’s and then the coalition leaders’ initiative, reversing the
ldp’s standard pre-1990s legislative process, was clear,26 and the initiative
overcame the resistance of major faction leaders.
The concerns of the ldp’s main coalition partner, the more dovish cgp,
were allayed when the ldp compromised on some issues, most notably
putting a two-year time limit on the deployment in the Indian Ocean. The
cgp dropped its initial proposal that the un had to authorize the action. By
early October, the ruling coalition had agreed in principle to the bills. Intensive
negotiations were then held between and among the ruling coalition and thedpj, which also supported the legislation but had specific concerns reflecting
its own divided party.
23

A previous 1983 reform in the House of Councillors had also added a proportionalrepresentation portion to that body’s electoral system.
24
Ellis S. Krauss and Robert Pekkanen, ‘‘Explaining Party Adaptation to Electoral Reform:
The Discreet Charm of the LDP?’’ Journal of Japanese Studies, Winter 2004.
25
Shinoda, ‘‘Koizumi’s Top-Down Leadership,’’ pp. 29–30.
26
Ibid., pp. 30–31.

Summer 2005|

439

PEKKANEN and KRAUSSIn the post–Cold War climate, differences on defense issues among theparties were less intense and subject to negotiation. The former inter-party
cleavages had yielded to intra-party differences within the ldp, more so within
the cgp, and most especially within the dpj. Electoral reform had necessitatedcomplex negotiations among a tripartite ruling coalition government. It also
made possible a more moderate opposition. The entire process from beginning to end was a top-down success for the prime minister and the leaders of
the ruling coalition.
Case 2: Sending Self-Defense Forces to Iraq
The process by which Japan wound up dispatching Self-Defense
Forces to Iraq reflects similar patterns. The legislation originated with Koizumi
and the cabinet in fall 2002, when informal discussions began within thecabinet secretariat. In March 2003, with the U.S. invasion imminent, thesecurity group within the secretariat met again. In May, after the U.S. military
victory, Koizumi met with President Bush and publicly promised that Japan
would offer non-combat support for the United States there. There were two
immediate issues to be resolved on which there was some intra-party disagreement: whether the Self-Defense Forces would be responsible for handling wmd and what the weapons transport arrangements would be. It was
resolved that the law would not allow Self-Defense Forces to handle wmd, anda compromise was reached on weapons transport. But outside these councils
there was less easily resolved opposition from ldp factions, whose leaders
opposed Koizumi and sought to embarrass him before the upcoming ldp
election for party president. Meanwhile, there was some disgruntlement
within the ldp’s coalition partner, the cgp, even if its official statements
had been positive about the proposed bill.27
Party leadership, however, quickly moved to short-circuit the opposition and ended further discussion. Despite deep-seated ldp resistance, thatparty was willing to give ground on a proposed reform of the Basic Education
Law in exchange for the cgp’s support. Meanwhile, Naoto Kan, thenpresident of the opposition dpj, avoided taking a firm stand on the issue,
attempting to keep his divided party’s options open. On June 3 heannounced a double-negative position—‘‘We are not taking the stance that
we will automatically not support necessary reconstruction in Iraq’’—even
27

Tomohito Shinoda, ‘‘Japan’s Policy Process on Iraq,’’ presentation given to the authors at
SAIS, October 2004; Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 10, 2003; ‘‘Diet Discusses Arms and Ammunition Transportation,’’ Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 11, 2003; ‘‘Politics, Money, and Iraq Act: Led
by LDP; CGP is Complaining,’’ Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 30, 2003; ‘‘Real Discussion on New
Iraq Act has Begun,’’ Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 11, 2003; ‘‘Draft of New Iraq Act to be
Submitted to Diet Today,’’ Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 13, 2003; ‘‘Draft of New Iraq Act to be
Submitted on June 13,’’ Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 5, 2003.

440

|

Orbis

Japanthough the Liberal and Social Democratic Parties had already decided against
supporting the deployment. But pressure from within his own party continued to mount. dpj inspection teams that had visited Iraq and intra-party
study groups began to issue reports arguing against dispatching Self-Defense
Forces.28
A key figure in the dpj internal politics was Seiji Maehara, a pragmatist
on security issues who favors revising Article 9. Maehara’s view was that all
Diet members, whether in the ruling camp or the opposition, should work
together to achieve war-contingency legislation.29 Talks ultimately broke
down, however. The legislation was passed, supported by only the rulingcoalition; two top ldp lawmakers walked out in protest.
The Iraq legislation again shows the effects of a sublimated andlessened cleavage between parties. They argued over differences of policy,
not ideology or pro-defense vs. anti-defense. It also shows the intra-party
divisions on these substantive issues, a coalition government that needed toachieve consensus, and top-down prime ministerial leadership that overcame
resistance from factional opponents.
Case 3: Emergency Measures Laws
The government submitted three Emergency Measures Bills (yuuji
rippou) to the Diet on April 17, 2002. However, an opposition boycott of someDiet sessions on the grounds that there had been insufficient deliberation
meant that nothing happened during the 2002 legislative session. The cgp’s
position during this time was described as ‘‘cautious.’’ In April 2003, the Diet
began its session with deliberations on the bills; the dpj proposed its own
version of them later that month. The parties were divided on the issues ofgiving the Self-Defense Forces access to private land, the definition of an
emergency, and how to address security concerns such as the spy ships
appearing in Japanese waters.30
28‘‘Completed,’’ Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 30, 2003; ‘‘Politics, Money, and Iraq Act;’’‘‘Government Party Helps Each Other on the Election for the House of Representatives: CGP has
Influence, LDP and CGP to Endorse Candidacies without Question,’’ Nihon Keizai Shinbun,
June 6, 2003; ‘‘We Should be Part of Iraq’s Reconstruction,’’ Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 4, 2003;‘‘DP Accommodates New Iraq Act,’’ Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 11, 2003; ‘‘DP Waiting to See
What Happens,’’ Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 13, 2003; ‘‘Is Baghdad Safe Enough for SDF? It
Depends on Which Party You Ask,’’ Japan Times, July 2, 2003; ‘‘DPJ Against the Draft, Act
Revised, Waiting for Government Party’s Reaction,’’ Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 13, 2003.
29‘‘DPJ Security Advocate Bridges Internal, LDP Gaps,’’ Japan Times, June 19, 2003.
30‘‘State to Debate Emergency Measures,’’ Nikkei Weekly, Apr. 22, 2002; ‘‘Emergency Bills
Back on Track,’’ Japan Times, Apr. 28, 2002, and ‘‘Military Bills Put Off Until Next Diet Session,’’Asahi Shimbun, June 14, 2002; ‘‘Diet Panel Starts Debating Attack Response Legislation,’’ Japan
Times, Apr. 19, 2003; and ‘‘Minshuto Offers Its own Emergency Bills,’’ Asahi Shimbun, May 2,
2003.

Summer 2005|

441

PEKKANEN and KRAUSS
Once again, Koizumi faced opposition from his own party and the dpj
was divided. Yukio Hatoyama’s group wanted to approve the ldp’s proposal,
even after the dpj released its own version of the law. Former socialists wereintensely critical of the ldp version. ldp and dpj leaders met in May, and Kan andKoizumi announced agreement on compromise legislation. The ldp and dpj
were able to work out a compromise solution without the ldp’s having to accede
to demands by the cgp to include elaborate safeguards for human rights.31
The dpj is clearly a party with which the ldp can work on security
issues. This case provided evidence of that fact to cgp politicians, who after
2003 had to be even more mindful of a possible ldp-dpj agreement that would
leave them out in the cold.
Almost Case 4: Constitutional Revision in 2005?
Constitutional revision is another important branch of security policy
in which intra- and inter-party bargaining will play a crucial role, as constitutional revision requires two-thirds majorities in both Houses of the Diet and amajority in a national referendum. However, many factors point to some kindof constitutional revision occurring in the near future. Japan’s quasi-public
Japan Broadcasting Corporation found in 2002 that 58 percent supported
constitutional revision, up from 35 percent a decade earlier, as did a poll by themoderately leftist Asahi newspaper. Other papers’ polls have found evenstronger support, with younger people more likely to favor revision than thosein their 40s and older. Polls asking specifically about revision of Article 9 andwhether to allow collective self-defense find lesser but growing support. The
increased salience of the U.S.-Japan alliance in today’s security climate means
many Japanese want more flexibility to cooperate with the United States than
Article 9 appears to provide.
Second, the ldp appears determined to push for a revision to coincidewith its fiftieth anniversary. The conservative Yomiuri newspaper, for example, found in 2002 that 55 percent of Diet members favored revision of Article
9, up from 41 percent five years earlier. A survey it undertook in 2004 foundthat support had grown to overwhelming levels, and 84.5 percent of legislators
in both houses supported constitutional revision. A Mainichi Shimbun surveythat year found that 78 percent of Diet Members supported revision; thisincluded 96 percent of ldp members, 80 percent of cgp members, and 73
percent of dpj legislators (every member of the Communist Party and the jspsuccessor party, the Social Democratic Party of Japan, was opposed). In theDiet, as with the general public, support for revising Article 9 is lower—30
percent for Clause 1 (the renunciation of war) and 43 percent for Clause 2(the renunciation of war potential). With Koizumi’s term as prime ministerending in September 2006, it is not hard to imagine a sustained push from the
31

442‘‘LDP Seeks Early End to Talks on Military Emergency Bills,’’ Asahi Shimbun, May 10, 2003.

|

Orbis

Japanprime minister’s office in 2005. He announced in August 2003 that the ldp
would formulate plans for the revision and repeated this as a campaign pledge
before the Lower House elections in 2003. Reports on five-year-long studies by
each of the House of Representatives’ and the House of Councilors’ commissions on the constitution are expected this spring.
Clearly, the exact provisions of any amendment to Article 9 will be
subject to inter- and intra-party bargaining. Within the ldp, some merely want toproduce a native document, even if Article 9 is only modestly rewritten, whileothers are more concerned with liberating Japan’s security policy from constitutional constraints. Across the aisle, some liberals in the dpj strongly resist any
revision, but several party leaders, including prominent dpj legislators such as
Ichiro Ozawa and Yukio Hatoyama, are already on the record as favoring
revision.32 In January 2004, then dpj President Kan announced that his party
would work on its own proposal for revision, to be completed by 2006. Current
dpj President Katsuya Okada touched on the issue briefly in July 2004 in a
Washington, D.C. speech, though the party distanced itself from his remarks.
The cgp has expressed an interest in the creation of new rights in the constitution, such as ‘‘environmental rights,’’ which would ease logrolling with the ldp.
Conclusion
The end of the Cold War, shifts in public opinion, different perceived
external threats, diminished regional constraints, and institutional reform may
have been the necessary conditions for Koizumi’s security polices, but they are
not alone sufficient explanations without an examination of party politics.
Without the structural changes in party politics brought about byelectoral reform and the new role of the prime minister, abetted by otherinstitutional reforms, the antiterrorism bill and the Iraq bill could not havepassed. Even though the dpj contains pacifist former jsp members, it hews to amuch more centrist line. In part, this is determined by its need to appeal to themedian voter in a revamped electoral system. Consider the case of Seiji
Maehara, so important to the formulation of dpj policy in the cases above.
Yukio Edano, another prominent young dpj legislator, describes him as‘‘neither a hawk nor conservative. He’s a realist and a politician who emerged
after the so-called 1955-system era.’’33 A political career like Maehara’s only
became possible after the end of the ’55-system—the changes in the party
system and parties themselves wrought by electoral reform are responsible forpragmatists like Maehara, instead of ideologues, making security policy for the32

Ichiro Ozawa even penned ‘‘A Draft Proposal for Revision of Japan’s Constitution’’ in theinfluential journal Bungei Shunju in September 1999. Hatoyama made his proposals in 1999,
while he was DPJ president, also in Bungei Shunju. ‘‘Acknowledge the SDF as Armed Forces,’’
October 1999.
33‘‘DPJ Security Advocate Bridges Internal, LDP Gaps’’Japan Times, June 19, 2003.

Summer 2005|

443

PEKKANEN and KRAUSS
leading opposition party. Further, only the splits and recombinations among
the parties brought about by the electoral system made possible the emergence of a moderate opposition party like the dpj.
Inter-party dynamics are another crucial part of the story. Coalition
government itself concentrates policymaking at the level of party leadership.
Were the ldp ruling alone, Koizumi might have faced a vastly different
reaction to his innovative decision-making. Furthermore, according to an
ldp minister familiar with the making of security policy, jsp and ldp participation in the Murayama coalition government was another critical step. This
coalition forced jsp members who eventually migrated to the dpj to become
more pragmatic and willing to deal within their new party.34

The sequencing and interrelationships of these factors was crucial.35
The end of the Cold War diminished domestic party cleavages, making
possible the coalition government that passed the electoral reform, which
in turn strengthened and expanded the role of the prime minister, allowing forthe further diminution of the ’55-system cleavages. The new intra- and interparty dynamics create tensions in policymaking that will work themselves out
differently case by case, with the only certainty being compromise:no one among the prime minister, the opposition, and the ldp
rank-and-file will get everything they want on any issue.

34

Interview with LDP House of Representatives Diet member, Aug. 26, 2004.
On the importance of timing and sequence in creating a particular pattern of politicaloutcomes, see Paul Pierson, Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), pp. 54–78.
35

444

|

Orbis