The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 10 (1999)

Minshushugi and Democracy

Hitoshi ABE

I
Today I would like to discuss minshushugi and democracy. As any
Japanese audience knows very well, minshushugi is the Japanese wordfor democracy. “Minshushugi ” and “democracy” may mean the samething. But in my opinion, there is a deep gulf between Japanese democracy and American democracy. Minshushugi is not simply a Japaneseversion of American democracy. This is the reason why I have dared toentitle my talk “Minshushiugi and Democracy.”
To begin with, I would like to speak about my private experience about
a half century ago. When the Second World War ended, I was twelve
years old and a sixth grader in elementary school. I believed that Japan
had been created and governed by the gods and that the Kamikaze would
blow away every enemy airplane and battleship before Japan would everbe defeated in the war. In short, I was a typical militarist boy. So I was
extremely shocked to see the collapse of the Japanese empire. The occupation army came to Japan and they forced us to black out parts of our
textbooks with India ink. Within a few years the Japanese political system changed drastically from the absolute Emperor system to a liberal
democracy. This drastic change led me to think about the true meaningof American democracy and the Emperor system in Japan. In order to
Copyright © 1999 Hitoshi Abe. All rights reserved. This work may be used, withthis notice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work may
be distributed, electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without permission from the author.
5

6

HITOSHI ABE

answer these questions, I took political science as my major and focused
my studies on American politics.
Most people believe that the liberal democracy Japan has tried toestablish was modeled after American democracy. But I doubt whether
American democracy has been successfully transplanted into Japanesepolitical culture, because our traditional culture has some elements thatseem to be incompatible with American democracy. One of the mostremarkable elements is our weak sense of individuality. While American
democracy is based upon individualism, Japanese traditional culture payhigher esteem to group harmony. Japanese people usually suppress individual points of view in order to keep it.
Although this point has been discussed very often since Ruth
Benedict’s The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, it must be admitted thata kind of individualism has gradually crept into Japanese culture, especially since the 1980’s. The reason for this individualization is rather
simple—because every kind of group, from family to nation, has gradually lost its centripetal power over its members.
Even though individualization has occurred to some degree inJapanese political culture, there are still great difference between the two
democracies. In my opinion, American democracy has three characteristics. First, it is a republican democracy. To be more exact, American
democracy has some republican elements. Second, it is a direct democracy. This direct democracy is especially strong in local governments.
Third, it is a constitutional democracy. In this point, it is important that
the American constitution has been reinterpreted every now and then—and so “remade”—by the Supreme Court.
On the contrary, Japanese democracy does not have any of these.
Republicanism has been almost taboo in this country since the establishment of the Emperor system in the Meiji era. Local governments havebeen miniatures of the national representative government in Japan, anddirect democracy does not work even in local governments. Moreover,
the Japanese Supreme Court has not worked in the American way; theinterpretation of the constitution has been left to the Administrative
Branch.
In short, American democracy and Japanese minshushugi have different ways of operating government. I think that these differences will
determine the politics of the future in each country and also the international relations between the two. Therefore, it is worth examining thesedifferences between the two democracies in more detail.

MINSHUSHUGI AND DEMOCRACY

7

IIFirst, I would like to discuss the signiﬁcance of republicanism in thetwo democracies. Democracy and republicanism have combined together today, but they were different originally. We can trace the origin of
republicanism back to ancient Rome, where it was deﬁned in contrast to
the monarchy. While the monarchy was the most inﬂuential pattern ofgovernment all over the world until the end of the 19th century, republicanism criticized the idea of monarchy for its possible despotism andcorruption.
According to the theory of republicanism, monarchy vests power
entirely in the King and his small staffs and the concentration of power
necessarily results in despotism and corruption. In order to avoid despotism and corruption, the monarchy should be replaced by republican government. If the monarchy is thus overthrown, the theory goes, the new
government will be immune from despotism and corruption. How canthis be possible? Republicanism emphasizes that the way to realize
wholesome politics is through the autonomy of a enlightened citizenry
with virtue. In this emphasis on civic virtue, republicanism differs fromdemocracy, which stresses undiscriminating equality.
Republicanism revived in the Renaissance period in the city-states ofnorthern Italy, and it was transmitted to the 18th-century Americancolonies through the English people. The American Revolution was led
by republicans, not by democratic leaders. After the frame of republican
government had been established, though, republicanism was graduallyreplaced by democracy. Jacksonian democracy symbolized the democratization of the federal government. But all republican elements havenot disappeared from the American political tradition. For example, theintense reaction of American democracy to cases of political corruption
such as the Watergate Scandal can be seen as a result of America’s retention of the republican tradition.
Republicanism and democracy differ from each other. They oppose
each other. While democracy proceeds toward egalitarianism, republicanism toward elitism. Therefore, it is natural that the Democratic Party
gets strong support from the lower class, while the Republican Party getsstrong support from the upper class. But we cannot deny that republicanism is a necessary part of democracy, and democracy would be
mobocracy without any trace of republicanism. The idea of democracy
signiﬁes the autonomous and voluntary creation, by the people, of a polit-

8

HITOSHI ABE

ical order. In order to invest this idea with real meaning, it is necessaryfor every citizen to possess the capability of becoming a political actor.
In other words, it is necessary for citizens to possess the capability ofcreating order in their own lives autonomously and independently. This
sort of capability is deeply related to the idea of civic virtue that has beenstressed in the republicanism since ancient Rome.
Postwar Japanese democracy arose under the inﬂuence of American
democracy. But it received scarce inﬂuence from America’s republican
tradition. This was because the Emperor system was retained, albeit insymbolic form, thus cutting off the possibility of republican government.
Indeed, we still retain some vestiges of the Meiji state. According to the
Meiji Constitution, the Emperor was a “divine and inviolable” being, andall sovereign powers were vested in the throne. The Meiji Constitution
did not stop at making the Emperor the absolute embodiement of political authority. He also embodied absolute spiritual authority. The
Constitution stated that the Emperor should be revered by the people inthe depth of their hearts. The sphere of popular morality was the objectof manipulation and control by Imperial decree, as exempliﬁed by theImperial Rescript on Education (Kyoikuchokugo in Japanese) of 1890.
One premise of the Imperial Rescript on Education was that theEmperor was absolute and almighty, while his subjects were powerlessand incompetent. Concerning morality, the emperor knew everything
and the people knew nothing. The people needed an Imperial decree
which declared what was morally right and what was morally wrong.
The decree was consistent with the family-state analogy, in which thestate was explained as an enlarged family and the Emperor, the head of
the state, was seen as the father in the family. This analogy was an authorized explanation found in the elementary-school textbook in the Meiji
era; according to this analogy, the Emperor should be seen as the father
to teach virtues to the people, his children. The greatest problem with
the Imperial Rescript on Education was that the people’s morality did
not lie in each person’s mind and heart, but it was imposed by theabsolute ruler. This kind of morality is just the opposite of the civic virtue
stressed by republicanism.
After the Second World War, the Imperial Rescript on Education was
repealed by a resolution in the Diet, but subsequent attempts to restore
it often occurred. Almost all the Ministers for Education, Culture andScience have talked of the necessity of the Imperial Rescript on
Education or something like it. This is quite strange from the viewpoint

MINSHUSHUGI AND DEMOCRACY

9

of democracy. Almost all these Ministers have been members of the Dietand have got their position by collecting people’s votes. In short, theirposition has rested on the judgement of the people. If politicians thinkthat people’s moral judgement is so infantile that the Imperial Rescripton Education is necessary, they actually destroy the ground they themselves stand on.
In short, some Japanese politicians believe that virtue should notbelong to the individual but to the collective will. Even though somepoliticians or bureaucrats may not have sufﬁcient virtue, Japan—as symbolized by the Emperor—is thought to be highly moral. The Emperor is
not only the symbol of integration, but also the symbol of morality. In
this country, politicians convicted of corruption can restore that morality by being re-elected; this kind of re-election is often called misogi, aterm used basically for a Shintoh puriﬁcation ceremony using water. This
ceremony is meaningful only if morality belongs to the collectivity,
including the electoral system. The absence of any republican tradition
is another symptom that individualism has not yet matured in this country.
Nowadays small government and deregulation are popular political
agendas, as both democracies have to recognize. A prerequisite condition for realizing these goals is that the people autonomously restrain
their own interests for the public good even if there is neither a strong
government nor any regulations to force them to do so. Such anautonomous self-restraint is possible only among people with civic
virtue. In short, republicanism is a prerequisite condition for small government and deregulation. It is clear that American democracy has amuch brighter prospect of realizing small government than Japanese
democracy.
III
Human beings do not have civic virtue by birth; they need some training to acquire it. Local governments are the most proper place for thistraining. People’s participation in local governments has a long history
in the United States. It originated in the New England town meetings ofthe colonial era. All members of a community had the right to attend thetown meeting and also an equal right to stand up and speak. This is a typical form of direct democracy. Indeed, the town meeting and its slightly enlarged form, called “a representative town meeting,” are still alive

10

HITOSHI ABE

in some New England cities. However, the most important point is thatin America all local governments have inherited a tradition of direct
democracy from the town meeting. For instance, city councils are not aminiature of the Congress, but an extension of the town meeting.
In Japan, the Meiji Constitution did not have any article particularly
concerned with local autonomy. Even so, the Meiji government did introduce a system of local government including prefectures, cities, towns,
and villages. Local notables were allowed to govern within their local
communities, and these local governments were placed under the strong
control of the central government. Here, local governments existed justto retain premodern local communities exactly as they had been. It might
have been corporate autonomy but not at all local autonomy based on
the individual.
After the Second World War, the system of local government changed
drastically. In its chapter 8 the new Constitution provided for local autonomy, and the Local Autonomy Act was enacted in 1947. As is wellknown, the new Constitution was enacted under the great inﬂuence ofthe ocupation army, but the frame of government given by the newConstitution is quite different from the American frame of government.
The system of local government is no exception. While this system isdecentralized and pluralized in America, it is centralized and standardized in Japan. The most impressive difference is related to direct democracy. The United States has a long history of direct democracy, but inJapan we have almost no institutions of direct democracy except for limited systems of initiative and referendum.
I found an interesting contrast in the structures of city assembly halls
in the two countries. In the United States, in most cases city councillors
sit in a row, facing the observers; the chairperson is seated at the centerof the councillor seats, also facing the observers. The number of seatsfor councillors is rather limited, perhaps from 10 to 15, while seats forobservers amount to from 200 to 300. Observers usually have the rightto speak, and their remarks are often recorded. City council meetings areoften held in the evening for the convenience of the observers. The
observers, ordinary people participating in the city assembly halls are an
essential part of the city council. The city council is thus literally an
extention of the town meeting.
In Japanese city councils, the chairperson’s seat is placed almost at
the center of the hall, and this seat is placed on a higher level. The ordinary councillors face the chairperson. Also the number of councillors is

MINSHUSHUGI AND DEMOCRACY

11

relatively large. A city with a population of 500,000 is legally authorized
to have 56 seats. Compared to the number of councillors, the observer’s
seats are relatively limited. In most middle-sized cities, the number ofobserver’s seats is, at most, 100. The observers also face the chairperson, and so they can only see the backs of the councillors. Moreover,such observers do not have any right to speak, and always have to keep
quiet. Thus we cannot ﬁnd any element of direct democracy in the city
councils of Japan. In short, a city council is just a miniature version of
the national Diet in this country.
In the United States, direct democracy is institutionalized in various
ways. For example, initiative and referendum are common channels
through which American people directly inﬂuence their state and local
governments. Recently, for instance, voters in California agreed by referendum to ban afﬁrmative action by the state government. Perhaps themost notable case of a referendum was Proposition 13, which called foran upper limit on property taxes in California. On the contrary, Japan
had a rare case of an initiative or referendum. The only type of initiative
we know is a demand to enact, amend or abolish a local ordinance, a proposal which is discussed and decided by the local assembly. Similarly
the only type of referendum we have is a ballot by residents to accept a
special law applicable only to a speciﬁc prefecture or city. Recently several cities and one prefecture have carried out resident ballots in orderto resolve controversial issues such as the acceptance of military bases,
nuclear reactors, and disposal of industrial waste. But those are isolatedcases; there is no symptom of the institutionalization of resident ballots
in the system of local government in this country. Therefore, while
American democracy is direct democracy at its grass-root levels,
Japanese democracy is essentially a representative democracy, even at
the level of local governments.
IV
The United States has a written constitution, the ﬁrst such national
constitution in world history. She is the ﬁrst country to create constitutionalism with a written constitution. She has also inherited the British
tradition. The British tradition includes British-style constitutionalismwith an common-law constitution. Therefore, the United States has elements of an unwritten constitution in its form of constitutional government. One of these elements is the function of decisions by the Supreme

12

HITOSHI ABE

Court. The Supreme Court’s decisions form judicial precedents, andthese precedents can be understood as supplementing the written constitution.
Usually a written constitution has a clause allowing for amendment,
but in most countries, procedure for amendment is so complicated thatfew constitutional amendments have materialized. The U.S. Constitution
is no exception. As is well known, the U.S. Constitution has added twenty-six amendments over two centuries, but the ﬁrst ten amendments wereappended to the original constitution immediately after it became valid.
Of the remaining sixteen two are now meaningless—the Prohibition
clause and the clause repealing it. Therefore, the remaining fourteen are
the genuine amendments. The difﬁculty of constitutional amendment
was illustrated by the failure of Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970’s.
Even though constitutional amendment is not easy, the possibility ofamendment is itself a necessary part of constitutional government. A
constitution was usually written long before, and its content does notnecessarily correspond with the changing conditions of the modern age.
Therefore, if formal amendments are difﬁcult, some method of informal
amendment is necessary. The Supreme Court decision has provided suchnecessary informal amendments. The British elements of American constitutionalism supplement a defect in American constitutional government.
The Supreme Court decision has another function in supplementing a
defect in democracy itself. The Congress decides economic and social
issues by a majority vote, but some issues are not suitable for the majority vote. For example, the issue of abortion divided people into the opposite camps, pro-choice and pro-life. Each standpoint is deeply connectedwith each person’s value system. Therefore, it is not proper to resolve
the issue of abortion by the majority vote. Discussion by the nine judgesof the Supreme Court may be expected to ﬁnd a better resolution thanCongress. The issue of prayers in public schools has the similar characteristics. The Supreme Court is always expected to become the best institution to resolve this kind of issue.
In Japan, on the contrary, the Supreme Court has not functioned in thesame way as the counterpart of the U.S. The Japanese Supreme Court
has restrained itself from making decisions on political issues, thinking
they should be discussed and resolved in the Diet. As a result, theSupreme Court has not often given a clear decision on a serious issue
which involved a constitutional judgement. The Supreme Court has thus

MINSHUSHUGI AND DEMOCRACY

13

avoided informal constitutional amendment based on its decision. Somepeople emphasize the necessity of constitutional amendment throughinterpretation(kaishaku kaiken in Japanese). Certainly it is true that weneed some informal method of constitutional amendment, but in thiscountry any interpretations of the constituton have actually been givenby the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, which is a part of the administrative
branch. It is a decisive violation of the principle of constitutionalism thatthe administrative branch thus carries out “constitutional amendment
through interpretation”. This kind of interpretation should become a dutyof the Supreme Court. Constitutionalism is thus still under constructionin this country.
V
Finally we had better add common problems facing two countries.
First, political apathy is remarkable in both democracies. Democracy
always needs active citizens who voluntarily participate in elections andmovements; an endless expansion of political apathy is fatal to democracy. The clearest symptom of political apathy is the decline in voter
turnout at the polls in the two democracies. In the U.S. the voting ratio
was 54% in the 1992 presidential election and only 48.8% in the 1996
presidential election. These ratios are obviously low, and voting ratios
in midterm elections and local elections are even lower than in a presidential election. While voting ratios are relatively high at the national
level in Japanese elections, they are often desperately low at local level.
The voting public seems to be disappearing in both countries.
Second, in both countries, most people are exclusively engaging intheir private affairs and are totally preoccupied with self-interest. Thistendency itself is not unnatural, but, as a result, politics comes to be privatized and driven by self-interest. When the economy is in good condition, most people have little interest in politics. When many economic
indices begin to fall, people turn to politics in order to recover prosperity. Politics becomes just a servant of the economy for most people. But
politics should be essentially independent of the economy. While theeconomy is an aggregation of private interests, politics aims at realization of public interests. Politics should consider the global preservationof the environment and the elimination of every form of segregation,
regardless of race or gender. A public frame of mind seeking social justice is thus disappearing in both democracies.

14

HITOSHI ABE

Third, the sense of political ethics is declining in both democracies.
As a result of the privatization of politics, the two democracies have rested ultimately on the distribution of beneﬁts. To the extent that this sortof distribution of beneﬁts is emphasized, the people come to evaluate
politicians only in terms of their ability to “produce pork”; they pay little attention to things like politicians’ responsibilities and ethics. The
politicians, for their part, pay attention to little except caring for the“home folks”; they spend little time thinking about issues like accountability and ethics. The Watergate scandal in America and the Lockheed
and Recruit scandals in Japan are probably related to these two types oflack of concern. Restoration of political ethics is an emergent problem
in both democracies.
We might say that democracies are degenerating in both countries, andwe should seek ways to regenarate democracy. From this point, it can besaid that American democracy has a brighter prospect than Japanese
democracy. We can expect that the American political tradition including republicanism and constitutionalism may help regenerate democracy in the United States. Especially republicanism stressing civic virtue
may contribute to a restoration of civic-mindedness and political ethics.
On the other hand, we cannot see any bright prospect for the regeneration of democracy in Japan. The Japanese political tradition still poses
serious obstacles to the establishment of democracy.