ジェンダー研究

Special Section

第 21 号2018 年

Gender and Political Leadership◆Interview with Mari Miura

The Gender Parity Law in Japan: The Potential to Change
Women’s Under-representation
The special section, “Gender and Political Leadership,” features an interview
with Prof. Mari Miura of Sophia University. Prof. Miura has played an essential
role in mobilizing the Law for the Promotion of Gender Parity in Politics (政治分野における男⼥共同参画推進法, the Gender Parity Law). Upon thehistorical passage of the Gender Parity Law on May 16th 2018, the Journalinterviewed her on the political process leading to the passage of the law, therole of women’s groups, and the potential of the law for the enhancement of
women’s political representation in Japan.

The Gender Parity Law, or the Law toPromote Co-participation of Men and
Women in Politics, was legislated on April
16th, 2018. This is a significant change withrespect to women’s representation in Japan.
Can you explain the key points of the law?

Q

The law stipulates as a basic principlethat political parties, while theirfreedom of political activities are secured,
should aim at parity in the number of maleand female candidates in national and local
elections（衆議院、参議院及び地⽅議会の選挙において、政党等の政治活動の⾃由を確保しつつ、男⼥の候補者の数ができる限り均等となることを⽬指して⾏わ
れ る も の と す る ）． Under this basic
principle, the law places an obligation onpolitical parties to endeavor to makevoluntary measures such as the establishment

Aof numerical targets. That is, the Gender
Parity Law encourages political parties toimplement quotas in order to achieve the goalof gender parity.
The fact that gender parity in candidate
nomination is stipulated as a basic principle
in the law is significant. Even though the law
is not compulsory and does not bind politicalparties, I believe that the enactment will havean impact and can change people’s
expectations.
In addition, the Gender Parity Law
obligates the central and local governments
to implement policy to achieve genderequality in politics. We can expect that the
Cabinet Ministry and the Ministry of General
Affairs conduct research to reveal various
hurdles for women to run for office andpromote institutional changes regarding
formal and informal rules of assemblies and87Interview with Mari Miuraelections.
The law was prepared by the allpartisan parliamentary group of
women’s political participation andempowerment（政治分野における⼥性の参画と活躍を推進する議員連盟）．You
are the academic advisor of the working teamof the parliamentary group and became
involved in the law-making process. Why
didn’t the parliamentary group aim to
introduce a compulsory quota law? Wouldn’t
it be better to legalize quotas?

Q

The parliamentary group was indeed
originally aiming at legislating aquota law. However, they think that a legal
quota is unconstitutional, so they decided tomake a non-compulsory bill. Is it reallyunconstitutional? I don’t think so. But, this is
the advice they received at that time. Laws
related to the status of DMs (Diet Members)
and electoral systems are usually proposed as
private member’s bills, drafted and proposed
by DM, as opposed to government bills. Thus,a quota law needs to be proposed as a private
member’s bill. For private member’s bills,
the Legislative Bureau (LB) of the House ofRepresentatives (HoR) or the House ofCouncilors (HoC) provides legal assistance.
The LB participated in all the working-team
meetings and checked the constitutionality
and any contradictions with other laws andregulations. It thought that quotas wereunconstitutional because they violate thefreedom of association. That is, politicalparties have the freedom to recruit andnominate their own candidates. The

A

88

constitution also stipulates that people should
not be discriminated against based on sex.
Thus, the LB considers that legal quotas
infringe upon men’s freedom to run for officeand this discriminates against men.
This is not just its own view. It has been themainstream view of Japanese constitutionallaw scholars. The LB analyzed academic
research by constitutional scholars and did
not find any publications that strongly
support the constitutionality of legal quotas.
In spring 2015, I asked around in academia tofind a constitutional law scholar who could
back me, but I was not able to find one at thetime. The quota issue was not yet a hot topic,
and constitutional law scholars did not pay
much attention to it.
How about amending the constitution
to introduce quotas? Many countries
have done that.

Q

The Japanese postwar constitution
has not been amended even once andits amendment is a divisive issue in theJapanese party system. In fact, it is extremely
difficult to amend. It is not as necessary toamend it compared to much longer
constitutions, partly because it is very short,and the electoral system and many of thegovernmental structures are determined bylaws and not by the constitution. Moreover,
all the pro-amendment political forces so far
are conservatives. They aim to amend it tolimit civil liberties. So, the progressive camp
has been put in a defensive position.

Aジェンダー研究

When we were discussing the possibilityof a quota law at the parliamentary group, theAbe administration tried to forcefully enact
the security bills, which many constitutionallaw scholars and citizens consider
unconstitutional. At the constitutional
committee of the HoR, a public hearing
inviting three constitutional law scholars was
conducted in June 2015, and Masahiro
Nakagawa, the president of the parliamentarygroup, asked them about the constitutionalityof the security bills. Much to the surprise of
the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), all thetestimony, including that of the scholar the
LDP had appointed, proclaimed the security
bills unconstitutional. This became a turning
point of civic activism against the security
bills and the Abe administration. Since Mr.
Nakagawa was the one who asked thiscritical question at the public hearing, there
was no way that the parliamentary groupwould draft a bill, which could be
unconstitutional.
I realized that it was too early to discuss
legal quotas in Japan and I needed to haveallies among constitutional law scholars.
Now, Yasue Nukazuka, a constitutional law
scholar who studies French parity law, argues
that the partial introduction of compulsory
quotas is not unconstitutional as long as, forinstance, only proportional representation(PR) uses quotas and the single-seat districts(SSDs) do not (the electoral system of the
HoR combines PR and SSDs).
Let me go back to the situation in MayJune 2015. The parliamentary group gave up

第 21 号2018 年

on the idea of drafting the legal quota andinstead aimed to introduce a principle law
without any biding measures. I thought that if
the legal quota was impossible, the principleof “gender parity” should be stipulated andthus proposed in that way. Japanese
government documents often used the term
“women’s quota”（⼥性枠），but I thought
quotas should be introduced for both men andwomen. I explained the spread of gender
parity around the world, and all the membersof the working team of the parliamentarygroup liked the idea.
I see. That is why gender parity was
stipulated in the law. But, I have heardthat the wording of the law was controversial.
The final version says “equality in thenumber” or “kintō”（均等）．Why is the word
so controversial?

Q

The problem is how to translate theword “parity.” I proposed theprinciple of gender proportionality（性別⽐例原則）．The population is composed of
50% women and 50% men. Well, actually,
there are more women than men, but roughly
half and half. Representation should be
proportional to the gender balance in asociety. That is gender proportionality. I did
not use the terms “men” or “women,” but“gender” （ 性 別 ）， meaning that sexual
minorities should not be left out. It might not
be realistic yet, but eventually, a quota should
be considered for anyone who transcends thegender identity of men or women.
Proportionality comes from the terminology
used in Taiwan. Quotas are usually translatedA

89

Interview with Mari Miura

into “wariate”（割当）or “waku”（枠）inJapanese, but “proportionality” has more
flexibility,
allowing
40%-60%ofrepresentation as well.
The working team decided to use the term“the principle of gender proportionality”（性別⽐例原則）in the Public Offices Election
Law which we also discussed amending. For
the principle law, the legislative bureau of the
HoR drafted the actual wording and used the“same number” of men and women（男⼥同数）．Parity was then translated into exactly
the same number. Some members of theworking team hesitated to use such strong
wording, but they accepted the wording
because the law stipulated that politicalparties are obligated to “aim at”（⽬指す）this. The principle of gender parity is anormative goal so parties should be able to atleast “aim at” this goal.
This was in August 2015. The members of
the working team then had to negotiate
within each party and obtain approval. At thetime, none of them thought that the principle
law would be controversial because it was
not compulsory and parties would be able tojust “aim at” parity.
There was no supplementary session of theDiet in the fall of 2015. The Abe government
forcefully enacted the security bills in
September, a day before the end of theordinary session. Prime Minister Abe did notwant to have another session in the fall,
which would open up opportunities for
opposition parties to continue to criticize the90

government’s undemocratic attitude. DMs
are not around when the sessions are off. So
the discussions within each party did not
move forward much. But we did not thinkthat the principle law would be a problem,
and the working team shifted its focal point
to the Public Offices Election Law and thePolitical Parties Subsidies Law, which I willtalk about later.
The ordinary session began in January
2016. Opposition parties approved thecontent of the Gender Parity Law, but it was
not easy to push it on the formal agenda
within the LDP. Ms. Noriko Miyagawa, amember of the working team, was a key actor
in the LDP and talked to as many of hercolleagues as possible to try to convince them.
Eventually, in April, the LDP decided to holda joint section (bukai) meeting of women’s
empowerment and electoral systems. I was
invited as a keynote speaker and explained
the basic information of quotas andworldwide trends. Interestingly, someparticipants were very positive, even about
legal quotas. However, some were strongly
opposed. Some were positive to parity, but
not quotas.
Ms. Miyagawa thought that the idea ofparity would be more acceptable within the
LDP. My explanation was that quotas are a“means” to achieve gender equality, butparity, or equal participation of men andwomen in decision-making, is a democratic“principle.” It is difficult to refute the equal
participation of men and women when theratio of men to women is roughly equal in a

ジェンダー研究

society. As was the case in France,
conservative camps are more likely to accept
the differences between men and women.
They understand that women’s perspectives
need to be reflected in decision-making
because women differ from men. Moreover,some people do not like quotas simply
because they don’t know much about them. It
is an endless process to demystify the concept
and convince people of the merits. Ms.
Miyagawa thus explained to her colleagues
that the principle law is not a quota law, but aparity law.
The decision-making process within the
LDP is bottom up and consensus-oriented(although there has been a significant change
under Prime Minster Abe). If opposition
voices are loud, they postpone decisions. It is
unclear how many are actually positive or
negative toward the bill, but the important
thing is the atmosphere of the section
meetings. Anyone can participate in suchmeetings. That is, if there is someone who isstrongly opposed, that person can participate
in a section meeting and obstruct law making.
In late May 2016, the LDP held the second
joint section meeting, in which I also
participated as an observer. Someparticipants supported the bill, but quite anumber of them expressed their concerns.
One of the senior DMs who is close to Prime
Minister Abe said that “equal number” is toostrong and instead proposed the term“balance” (kinkō). The section meeting thenpostponed the decision. The LDP proposed
replacing “the same number” with “balance”

第 21 号2018 年

to the opposition parties but the opposition
parties did not accept such a compromise.
Why didn’t opposition parties refuse
the use of the term “balance”? Itsounds much weaker than “the same number,”although in English “gender balance” does
not sound that bad, either.

Q

In order to understand the opposition
parties’ reaction, I need to explain thehistory of the labor law. In the Japanese labormarket, the gap between regular and nonregular workers is enormous. Most part-timeworkers receive low wages and benefits andcontract terms are short. In order toameliorate the situation, the Part-timeWorkers Law was enacted in the 1990s.
Feminists wanted to introduce the principleof “equal treatment” (kintō taigū), but the
government only accepted the term“balanced treatment” (kinkō taigū), whichallowed for “discrimination based on rational
grounds.” So, when opposition parties,
especially female DMs, heard the term“balance” (kinkō), they recalled the history of
the labor law and reacted against the wording.
In fact, “balance” sounds as if 30% is enough.
The women’s ratio at the HoR was less than
10% at the time. It does not come as asurprise if conservative politicians think that
30% is enough.

A

The final wording used is “equality”(kintō) in the number of men andwomen. Does this sound appropriate inJapanese?

Q

91Interview with Mari Miura

There is another term in Japanesemeaning “equality,” that is, “byōdō.”The “byōdō” of men and women is stipulated
in the Constitution and this is the term that the
women’s movement prefers to use. However,the LDP has rejected the term. When the
Equal Employment Opportunity Law wasenacted in 1985, women’s organizations
demanded byōdō law. But, the government
used the term kintō. So, kintō already means
something slightly less than byōdō.
Nonetheless, in practical terms, there is notmuch difference between byōdō and kintō. It
is more of a symbolic difference. So, it is notwrong to translate kintō as “equality.”A

It was Kōmeitō’s initiative to forge aconsensus between the ruling coalition andopposition parties. Ms. Michiyo Takagi
proposed the term kintō, and eventually
opposition parties accepted it. In fact, awomen’s organization which lobbied for the
introduction of quotas, the Association to
Promote Gender Quotas, or Q no kai, isheaded by Ryoko Akamatsu, a former
Minister of Education. When the Equal
Employment Opportunity Law was enacted,
she was the director of the Ministry of Labor
in charge of the legislation. So, the use of theterm kintō was not controversial within Q nokai. Moreover, the parliamentary groupphrased it “equality in the number” (kazu nokintō) instead of just “equality,” which
implies the same number. At the very least,
opposition parties were able to interpret itthat way.

92

Once all the parties had agreed on theterm kintō, it should not have been too
difficult to pass it, right?

Q

Yes, but the agreement arrived muchlater. In May-June 2016, the rulingpartiesandtheoppositionwereconfrontational as the election of the HoC
was scheduled in July. They wereincentivized not to make an easy compromise
but to stick to their guns so that they could
appeal to their supporting base. In February,
the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which
was frustrated by the slow pace of the LDP,
officially approved that it would propose theGender Parity Law in a Diet session. This act
signaled to the LDP that the DPJ might evenpropose it alone without the LDP. Since
Prime Minister Abe had advocated theempowerment of women, the LDP did notwant to give the impression to voters that his
intention was not sincere. The DPJ’s decisionpushed the LDP to hold section meetings that
I talked about earlier. Then, as I said, the LDP
proposed the term “balance” (kinkō) and
opposition parties rejected it.

A

At the time, there was not much time left
before the end of the session. The opposition
parties wanted to claim that they submitted
the bill to the Diet, while the ruling parties
could not. So they proposed the original billusing the term “equal number” to the Diet.
The ruling parties did not hide their fury,
condemning the opposition that they had
proposed the bill as if it was their own,
although all the parties had prepared for it,
including the ruling parties. Since theジェンダー研究

election was approaching in a month, bothsides were blaming each other.

Q

So when and why did all the parties
agree?

It took a few months for everything tocalm down. In the fall of 2016, Ms.
Noriko Miyagawa and Ms. Seiko Noda
worked hard to get approval from the LDP on
the term kintō. During Prime Minister’s“Question Time” in the Diet, Renhō, the thenpresident of the Democratic Party, asked
Prime Minister Abe about the Gender Parity
Law, which I think hastened the LDP’s
decision. At the very end of the
supplementary session in December, the LDP
and Kōmeitō proposed their own law.

A

Now, two propositions were submitted to
the Diet; one by the opposition using the term“the same number,” and the other by theruling parties using the term “equality”(kintō). Moreover, the ruling parties replaced
the phrase that parties “are obligated to aimat” （ ⽬ 指 さ な け れ ば な ら な い ） with“should aim at”（⽬指すものとする）．
The opposition parties prioritized thepassage of the law, so they did not oppose thelaw drafted by the ruling parties. Eventually,
the parliamentary group agreed that thechairperson of the Committee of Cabinet
Affairs propose the bill. Customarily, whenchairpersons of Diet committees propose
bills, the deliberation process becomes
simpler and the committee passes them on
the same day that the bills are introduced.

Q

第 21 号2018 年

But the bill was not voted on in 2017.
Why?

The ordinary session starts fromJanuary and lasts for 150 days if there
is no extension. The Diet first deliberates thebudget bill, which is usually passed by midMarch. Private member’s bills aredeliberated customarily only after all thegovernment’s bills are passed. If there is acontroversial bill in a relevant committee,
there is less likely to be time left for private
member’s bills. In 2017 this was not the case,but the Prime Minister’s office avoided
parliamentary deliberations because Prime
Minister Abe was embroiled in a scandal
involving a school land deal. The LDP did
not hold sessions unless necessary. So, eventhough all the parties agreed on the Gender
Parity Law and the chairperson of theCommittee Cabinet promised to propose thelaw, he was not able to do so because thesession was not held.

A

Q

So, why was the bill passed in 2018?

The parliamentary group tried tomodify the custom that the Diet
deliberates private member’s bills only after
all the government’s bills are deliberated,arguing that the Gender Parity Law is
exceptional, as it is directly related to Diet
members. Mr. Nakagawa joined the Cabinet
Committee in order to directly negotiate thescheduling and indeed he succeeded inmoving the deliberation date ahead of thegovernment’s bills. The chairperson of theA

93Interview with Mari Miura

Cabinet Committee proposed the bill andreceived unanimous support on April 11th.
The plenary session of the HoR voted thenext day. Then, at the HoC, the Cabinet
Committee passed it on May 15th and so did
the plenary session on May 16th.
Partly because all the parties had alreadyagreed on the content and partly because the
LDP needed to claim the credit for good law
making amid numerous scandals, the law wasenacted in May 2018.
Interestingly, at the Cabinet Committee ofthe HoR, Kimie Hatano (Japan Communist
Party) was allowed to make a statement
before the vote and stated that all the parties
confirmed that “equality in the number”
legally means the same thing as “the same
number.” Her statement was officially
recorded in the Diet minutes. Women in civilsociety can use it to demand 50:50
representation.

Q

What was the role of women’sorganizations?

They are the most important factor inraising awareness in society. I
mentioned earlier the Association to Promote
Gender Quotas, which is simply called Q no
kai (Association Q). It was created in 2013
with about 60 women’s organizations.
Executive organizations include WIN WIN(Women in New World-International
Network), AFER (Alliance of Feminist
Representatives), BPW (National Federationof Business and Professional Women’s Clubs

A

94

in Japan), the Japanese Association ofInternational Women’s Rights, etc. Q no kai
has held numerous meetings at the Diet
members’ building to invite and lobby
interested parliamentarians. In 2014, during
such a meeting, Mr. Masahiro Nakagawa
proposed setting up a parliamentary group,
and it was in 2015 that the parliamentarygroup was in fact created, with Ms. Seiko
Noda as general secretary and Ms. Kuniko
Kouda as executive director. So, it can be said
that the parliamentary group was born fromQ no kai.
Q no kai’s tactics basically concentrate on
lobbying. Core members frequently visit
parliamentarians’ offices and hand in theirdemand of legislating the Gender Parity Law.
Some of the members are former
parliamentarians, which gives it an advantage
in that they know who to talk to, and when.
Their frequent contact with DMs was
definitely one of the factors of the legislation.
On the other hand, advocacy and outreach toyoung women are the challenges that they
face. They do have a Facebook page, but nota homepage nor a twitter account. Since it isa federation of the existing women’sorganizations and an individual member
cannot join, it is mostly run by senior
feminists who are close to Ms. Ryoko
Akamatsu.

Q

Most women’s organizations in Japan
seem to be facing big challenges.

A

That’s right. Many of the women’sorganizations suffer from a lack ofジェンダー研究generational turnover and staff members. In
order to compensate for their frugal resources,
they often hold meetings at the Diet members’building to maximize their influence anddraw attention from the mass media.
With respect to the quota movement, there
has always been quite a lot of media attention.
The publication of my edited volume,
Gender Quotas (in Japanese; Akashi Shoten,2014), was timely. It was the first academic
book on the subject in Japanese and thus it
contributed to the diffusion of the quota idea
in Japanese society. Most journalists whointerviewed me either read the book or my
web essay that summarized the book. So, I
believe that I was able to demystify quotas
among journalists.
One of the reasons that the media keeps aneye on the issue is that the number of female
journalists has increased recently. They also
face the glass ceiling and difficulty in striking
a work-life balance. They are personally keenon the issue of women’s underrepresentationin politics.
In order to keep the media’s attention,
public events that they can report on need tobe constantly held. Q no kai holds meetings
at the Diet members’ building on
international women’s day (March 8),
Women’s suffrage day (April 10), and usually
the beginning and the end of eachparliamentary session. I have also organized
several events. The biggest one was tocelebrate the 70th anniversary of women’s
suffrage in Japan in 2016, with about 400

第 21 号2018 年

participants. The Institute of Gender Studies
at Ochanomizu University has also organized
several international symposia. So, at least
every two months, there have been somepublic events related to quotas or women’s
underrepresentation, which I think havecontributed to raising social awareness.
Could you also explain theamendments of the Political Parties
Subsidies Law and Public Offices Election
Law?

Q

The parliamentary group has also
discussed
theseamendments.
Japanese citizens, not voters, annually pay
250 yen for political party subsidies, whichamounts to 32 billion yen. The total amountis distributed to parties with more than 5parliamentarians and 2% of votes inproportional representation, depending on
the share of elected officials at both the Upperand Lower Houses and of votes at the mostrecent elections. The Japan Communist Party(JCP) refuses to receive state subsidies, andits share is also distributed to other parties.
My proposal was that half of the subsidies are
distributed according to each party’s share ofmale and female Diet members. The
parliamentary group liked the idea, but the
JCP did not agree to amend the law, as it only
demanded its abolition. The parliamentarygroup gave up on pursuing the amendment inorder to maintain the all-partisan nature of
their activities.

A

The amendment of the Public Offices
Election Law is a little complicated. The

95

Interview with Mari Miura

Figure 1. A Zipper System for Dual-listed and PR Candidates.

lower house has 475 seats (reduced to 465 in2017), including 180 seats under proportional
representation (PR). The rest are the firstpast-the-post system (FPTP) under singleseat districts (SSDs). In order to enforce theprinciple of gender parity, the most effective
way is that a party alternates male and female
candidates in its PR list. However, the dual
candidacy system makes it difficult to makesuch a list.
Seventy to eighty percent of candidates run
in both SSDs and PR blocs at the same time.
Parties usually rank those “dual listed”
candidates in the same position on the PR
party list, often at the first or second rank.
Those who won in SSDs are removed fromthe PR lists, and then the person who getselected from the same rank on the PR lists isdetermined by the “best loser” provision.
That is, the PR seats are allocated to
candidates based on their performance in

96

Male Candidates Group
1st
2nd➤➤➤➤➤➤

PR-Only Candidates➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤

Dual-Listed Candidates

List Order1２
2nd ➤➤➤➤➤➤ ３
４
A ➤➤➤➤➤➤ ５
６
B ➤➤➤➤➤➤ ７
８
C ➤➤➤➤➤➤ ９
１０
D ➤➤➤➤➤➤ １１
１２
E ➤➤➤➤➤➤ １３
１４
F ➤➤➤➤➤➤ １５
１６
G ➤➤➤➤➤➤ １７
１８
:
：
:
：
1st

➤➤➤➤➤➤

Female Candidates Group

3rd
4th
5th
6th
A
B
C
:
:

their SSDs relative to the SSD winner.
A typical case is that a party lists 25
candidates—20 are dual-listed candidates
and 5 are PR-only candidates. All 20 duallisted candidates are ranked in first place,then PR-only candidates are individuallylisted from 21st to 25th; among 20 dual-listed
candidates, 2 or 3 are women. If this party
wins the election, there is a chance that PRonly candidates could also be elected. But, if
not, seats allocated to the party will be takenby the best losers of SSDs. Therefore, thepresence of PR is not of much help for
women to be elected.
The simplest way to reform the Public
Offices Election Law is to abolish the duallisted candidate system. In fact, voters do not
like it because it appears unfair that SSD
losers come back like zombies under PR. The
impediment lies in the regulation that allows

ジェンダー研究第 21 号2018 年

Table 1. Four Scenarios of Gender Parity Regulation.
Gender Order

Gender Ratio

Men

Women

The Results of 2014 Election

no regulation

no regulation

153

27

Scenario 1

Men, Womenno regulation

124

56

Scenario 2

Women, Men

no regulation

117

63

Scenario 3

Men, Women

50/50

106

74

Scenario 4

Women, Men

50/50

74

106

parties to rank a dual-listed candidate at thesame position. If such a regulation isremoved, parties are compelled to rank all
their candidates and strategize theappearance and balance of their list.
Moreover, quotas can be introduced here inan effective way.
Mr. Masahiro Nakagawa, the president of
the parliamentary group, made it clear at the
beginning of working-team meetings that hedid not have the intention to amend theelectoral system. I had to submit a proposalthat would work under the dual-listed
candidate system. I came up with the idea toalternate a male and female group of duallisted candidates. If a party lists 16 male and4 female dual-listed candidates, the first andthird rank are the female group, and thesecond and fourth are the male group. Amongeach group, one person will be electedaccording to the best loser principle. Thisway, gender alternation among dual-listed
candidates can be achieved. However, theproblem is the gender disparity of SSD
candidates. In this example, alternate
placement can be undertaken only up to thefourth rank. The 5th to the 20th ranks are takenby the male group, and so this does not help

women much.
It is thus important to enforce the same
number of female and male candidates in thelist. In order to compensate for men’soverrepresentation in SSDs, parties must list
female-only PR candidates to match thenumber of male candidates. If 16 are maleand 4 are female, this party has to list 12 PRonly women candidates. Then, the gender
alternation rule should be applied all the way
through. The fifth would be female PR only,
the sixth a male in a dual-listed group, theseventh would again be female PR only, andso on. Figure 1 shows this concept.
PR seats are divided into 11 regional blocs
and small parties often get only one seat or so.
Large parties might have an odd or evennumber of seats. Under this system, thegender with an odd-number rank will gain
more seats. Table 1 shows a simulation using
the 2014 election, which elected 153 men and27 women in PR. Scenario 1 shows the casein which men take the odd ranking and thetotal number of male and female listed
candidates is unequal, using the actual
number. This way, 56 women would beelected, which is double the actual number.

97

Interview with Mari Miura

However, a huge gender gap still remains.
The best case is Scenario 4, which places
women at the odd ranking and ensures anequal number of male and female candidates.
So 106 women and 74 men can be electedunder this system. In the 2014 generalelection, 18 women were elected in SSDs.
Combined with 106 women, the ratio of
female members would be 26.1%.
It is really very complicated. How
was your idea accepted in theparliamentary group?

Q

The opposition parties liked the basic
idea. Mr. Nakagawa even called it the“Miura bill.” But, there were two hurdles.
First, the idea of gender grouping was not thatwelcome. Some preferred group candidates
based on “sex and others.” This allows
parties to create a third group in which theylist the candidates that they give special
treatment to, such as male candidates who arelikely to lose in SSDs. I do not think this is agood idea. The aim of the regulation would
become vague and so no one would
understand why parties have to create thesegroups. But the DPJ members of theparliamentary group considered a third groupnecessary to get approval from electorally
weak male members.

Ａ

Moreover, the legislative bureau of the
HoR does not accept the alternation of duallisted candidates and PR-only candidates.
They argued that these two groups cannot bemixed up. According to them, all the dual-

98

listed candidates ranked at the same position
should be treated as one bloc. Only when allof them are elected, then the PR-only
candidate ranked at the next position can beelected, given that seats are available. In thatcase, it is difficult to rapidly increase thenumber of female candidates. Parties
consider PR as a safety net for SSD losers. It
is less likely that they will place a substantial
number of PR-only candidates before duallisted ones.
The ruling parties were not able to consider
the amendment of the Public Offices Election
Law because they were stuck with the
Gender Parity Law, as I mentioned earlier.
The DPJ officially approved its amendment
plan mentioned above and submitted it to theDiet in 2016.

Q

In what other ways do you think Japan
can increase women representatives?

It is important to keep raising publicawareness about the actual situationof the gender gap. It is only quite recent thatpeople came to realize that women’s politicalrepresentation in Japan is very low comparedto that of other countries. According to IPU(Inter-Parliamentary Union), Japan was
ranked 158th as of January 2018. Suchsimple data needs to be widely known. I
launched a “parity campaign” in 2017 withyoung feminists to reach out to young womenand to close the information gap in Japanesesociety.

A

In addition, training programs for female

ジェンダー研究

political leaders need to get a boost. The
Gender Parity Law, as amended by the rulingparties, includes a clause that “the central andlocal governments are obligated to endeavor
to take measures to train and utilize humanresources for the promotion of genderequality in politics.” So far, “political schools”
run by prominent politicians function as agateway to politics. Systematic training, bothpartisan and unpartisan, needs to be offered.
Ki-young Shin, associate professor of theInstitute of Gender Studies, Ochanomizu
University, and I visited 14 training programs
for women’s political leadership in the US in2017 and also observed a well-establishedtraining program, “Ready to Run,” organizedby the Center for American Women and
Politics, Rutgers University, in 2018. We then

第 21 号2018 年

created a legal entity in Japan, the Academy
for Gender Parity, this spring to offer training
programs mainly to young women. Two
programs are already planned to be held in
the first half of 2018. We hope to incorporate
what we learned in the US in our curriculum.
I believe that academia can make a big
contribution in the field, stimulating theyoung generation with research-based advice,
such as how to tackle stereotypes held by
voters and the media, where access points
exist for young women to enter politics, orindeed how politics affects our daily lives.
The accumulation of these small steps will
eventually form a “political will” that leads tolegal changes.

（掲載決定⽇：2018 年 5 ⽉ 16 ⽇）

99