Decdes of leadlitical center fromthe right. This

right-leaning centrism endured inJapan with the riseof the Liberal Democratic Party.
Samuels exam-By Vicki ,L. Beyer

ines Kishi's role indeveloping the"1955 System" thatSpecial to The Daily Yomiuri

apan's political and economic development
has often been compared to that of Germatry,
whose institutions served as models after theMeiji Restoration of 1868. Richard J. Samuels, however, has chosen to compare Japan to Italy.
Samuels'premise is that Japan and Italy began
to industrialize fairly late in the game, at about thesame time in the mid-19th century. Both had thesame sorts of natural resources-or lack there.

of-and both went through approximately thesame stages of modernization. However, the choices of their leaders have made them very different

places today.
Samuels examines four developmental periods:
the 19th century, the early 20th century, the Cold,
War and post-Cold War, In the 19th century .Iapan and Italy were anxious to consolidate and become members of the"club" of modern nations. Both exploited theirmonarchies and attempted imperialism to promotea sense of nationalism in their populations.

Samuels examines Count Camillo Benso Oi Cavour,Hirobumi Ito and Arimoto Yamagata as the deci-sionmakers who were ruthless in leading theircountries through this stage.
Once a sense of statehood was estabtished inboth countries, there was a need to build
wealth,and the next set of leaders-Alessandro

Rossi, Toshimichi 'Okubo and Eiichi Shibusawa-took their turns at leadership.
Samuels argues that in the ear$ 2bth century thechoices of Takashi Hara and Giovanni Giolitti'tbO tothe decline of liberalism and ultimately paved theway for fascism.
The interim step was corporatism. For Japan,Sanji Muto, Nobusuke Kishi and Gisuke Ayukawa
helped to develop the zaibatsu, as well as theuniquely Japanese cooperative style of capitalism
and the notion of "firm as family" that arguably
perseveres even today. Rossi and Giovanni Agnelli
missed similar opportunities in ltaly.
While Italy was floundering economically, Benito Mussolini seized a politipat opportunity to be
Italy's "total leader" and lead his country along theFascist path. Meanwhile, politicians struggled forsignificance in an economically ascendant Japan.
After World War II Japan and Italy were defeated nations that struggled with occupation and theneed to rebuild and reestablish themselves.

Leadership in this period fell to Alcide De
Gasperi and Shigeru Yoshida, men widely regard"
ed as lone wolves. Perhaps this is because they had

to maintain the goodwill of their constituencies
while also playing to the desires of the UnitedStates. In each case this involved occupying the po-

kept the LDP inpower until the endof the Cold War.
Given Kishi's prewar history and theShigeru Yoshida in 1953

fact that he waseven jailed for war

crimes, it is quite remarkable that he could
reemerge with such profound impact.It is a credit
to his ability to build and finance coalitions, as wellas to his ability,to refashion himself according to

the circumstances,

In Itaty, Amintore Fanfani used similar skills ofreinvention, and also employed corruption to finance it.
When the Cold War ended, normalcy became thegoalinbothcountries.InItaly,thisiesultedina

backlash against corruption and organi zed, crimethat saw prosecutors displace pohlicians on thepublic stage while in Japan it has been the bureaucrats who have been discredited as the economy

jIJjIiIIjhas languished.

Withbut the U.S.-Soviet dichotomy the choices
between left and right have taken on new meaning,
only to reveal that each end of the spectrum has al-ways contributed to the definition of the other.
Achille Occhetto chose to evolve toward the rightto keep the Communist Party relevant in Italy
while Tetsuzo Fuwa's choice was for purity of ideo,logy for the Japan :Communist Party, at the expense of political gain.

,!
{IIiI...I,]

1IJII",, DiA the right faqe.any better? Arguably not. InItaly, Umberto Bossi attempted to create a regionaI agenda in the north, while media magnate-cum.
politician Silvio'Berlusconi's nationalist pushsought to,discredit the bureaucracy and the judiciary, but backfired amid allegations of conflict ofinterest due to his media control. In Japan, Ichiro
Ozawa tried to consolidate the power of a new"center-right" only to find his effoits frustrated byrivals for power and his own inability to consult, his allies.
But meanwhile, Shintaro Ishihara governsTokyo with a nationalist agenda that is immenselyiIIjj{'lIiI,lIjJ1ji
Iti

Itil
I

popular.
Samuels offers excellent comparative analysis ofeach time period and each grouping of leaders.
Samuels argues convincingly that their leadershipstyles are not necessarily cultural or national. In
both countries there have been those who missed
opportunities, those who exploited opportunities
and those who created opportunitiesThisistheeSSeflceofleadership.Itisalsowhat
makes this history so interesting

i't,t',
Ii. " .:''-; r!a+,-:s*+a-*Ept5!iffiE