1\Whose ConstitutionPpart of MacArthur's strategy to control and influence the shape of post-war Japan, particularly in re-gard to the Emperor.
The Emperor's role, defined in the U-S. draft as asymbot of the people, was particularly problematicfor the Japanese, for whom the Emperor was inextricably bound to kokutai, which the authors define
as a uniquely Japanese form of patriotism that almost mystically centers on the Emperor.
In the end, the Japanese accepted the "symbolic"status of the Emperor aS an evil necess aty to pro-By Vicki Beyer
Special to The Daily Yomiuri

tect him and ensure the continuation of theo the extent that Japanese citizens
have an awareness of their Constitution-the supreme law of the landmost of them cite four features: The
document was drafted bY GHQ during
the Occupation; Article 9 forswears war and military force; the Constitution contains many individualistic and basic human rights; and it has neverbeen amended. The last three are points of particular pride for most peoPle
Partners for Democracu sets out to show thatJapan's 1947 Constitution was not merely imposedon the Japanese by the American occupiers. Indoing so, it establishes that rather there wereJapanese "conspirators" who assisted in ensuringthat the U.S. draft was accepted in Japan with only
a few, arguably cosmetic, changes.
Authors Ray Moore and Donald Robinson wrote
this book to give their own interpretation of the creation of the Constitution on the heels of working together to edit historical documents on its drafting.
Given the vastness of the primary resources available, it is good for those of us interested in Japan'sconstitutional history that Moore and Robinson
have provided this distillation.

The account begins, as it should, with the initial
Japanese attempts at constitutional reform-minorrevisions to the 1889 Meiji Constitution. This section of the book is rather muddled and the chronology is unclear. But perhaps this is an accurate reflection of the situation in Japan at that time.
It was predictable that mere revision of the Meiji

Constitution would be unacceptable to theAmericans, who had become convinced that its

flaws were a prim ary cause of the Japanese aggression leading to World War II. It was probably
not as predictable that the Americans would decideto actually draft a new constitution themselves, al-Imperial line, but there is ample public debate on

though this is precisely what happened. The result
was a document that "smelled of butter," meaning
the Western influence was patently obvious.

The Japanese text was written in colloquial

Japanese, rather than the usual formal style used
fof tegal documents, and contained unwietdy concepts and phrases that revealed its foreign origins.
Nonetheless, the Japanese potiticians charged withcreating a new constitution took this sow's ear anddid their best to make a silk Purse.
Where possible, they tidied up the language.
Arguably, in some cases, they altered the concepts
at the same time, although often subtly so as not toupset the Americans.
In the meantiffie, U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur
was under some pressure from the Far EastCommis,sion, a Washington-based Occupation authority comprising 13 Allied nations, because hewas forcing rapid constitutional revision without
the commission's input. This action appears to be

this point.
The practicalities of some of the most significant
changes represented by the new Constitution weredebated in detail in both houses of the Diet. Theseincluded the renunciation of war, the role of thecourts, changes to individual rights (particularly
those relating to family tife and women), and theEmperor's new symbolic status.
In some cases, [o resolution was ever found andit could be argued that some constitutional provisions are, even today, mere tatemae. Indeed, in theinterests of saving time, the new Constitution waspromulgated as an amendment of the Meiji Constitution, which technically remains in force today.
One problem with the entire process that wasnever satisfactorily addressed was how the Constitution, never submitted to a vote by the people,
could be regarded as fulfilling the mandate of thePotsdam Declaration to democtatize the nation
based on the "freely expressed will of the Japanese people."

The book concludes with a quick survey of how
the Constitution has actually worked in its 55 yearsof history. This includes discussions of the imptacticality of amending it, despite campaigns from various quarters to do so, and of the sophistry used toaliow the existence of the Self-Defense Forces inspite of Article 9.
In some ways, this discussion is too quick to besatisfactory. There is not enough information onthe actual role of the Constitution in the governingof the country. Is it, in fact, merely an heirloom
sword that one keeps aS a decoration, but neveruses except in an emergencY?
The authors are not clear. They prefer to simply
conclude that the Constitution serves its purpose.