Economic issues need political solutions
A few weeks into the job, sentiment regarding new Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, seems muted, at least among the foreign executives I have spoken to.
But given that even the Japanese don’t seem so impressed, this is not surprising. “It’s a new face, but the system hasn’t changed,” one Japanese executive told me. “There is still no sense of fresh ideas and fresh blood entering Japan Inc., or the government.”
Henry Tricks, The Economist bureau chief in Tokyo, said at a recent conference that he couldn’t believe how negative the Japanese are about their own future. Fatalism, or shoganai, seems to be the order of the day, he said. Of course, this is extremely unhealthy, since it strips everybody of the energy to work for reform.
I noticed two things about recent events. As a Brit, I found it very odd that Yukio Hatoyama should resign despite his party having won 310 seats out of 480 at the last general election. This is an unbelievably strong mandate by Western European standards. A mandate means that you persuaded the electorate that you are the right person and party for the job. Nobody expects those popularity levels to last, but you are entitled to push your agenda until the next election, especially with such a huge majority. You don’t just resign when the going gets tough.
Gordon Brown may have infringed the spirit of Britain’s political game when he didn’t call a general election after he took over from Tony Blair. But he was within the rules, and he showed a sense of duty by pushing on in his role despite his rising unpopularity. Ultimately, a general election disposed of him, reflecting proper constitutional process, and the will of the people, after a proper debate.
How unlike Hatoyama and Japan. Here, it’s the latest opinion polls which seem to determine a politician’s fate. Hatoyama’s resignation devalued the importance of general elections. He should have stayed on, or called a snap general election, or lost a vote of confidence in his cabinet. He should not have simply quit. The former is the correct way of doing things in a robust political system, but not, it seems, in Japan.
The second thing I noticed was the absurdity of having an election for the upper house just nine months after a general election for the lower house. What is the point? No government can govern if it keeps getting second-guessed. Just like when a board appoints a CEO, it must then back off and wait for the CEO to prove himself. It can’t micro-manage him.
The UK’s upper house has no power whatsoever, apart from the ability to occasionally make the government uncomfortable by delaying some piece of unpopular legislation. There are no elections for the upper house, and it is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The “will of the people” is enshrined in the lower house for a full four years, and the upper house dares not contradict it.
Yet in Japan, we (effectively) have two general elections within one year. No wonder political parties run around like headless chickens and carry out populist policies. What choice do they have, if they are constantly campaigning?
And the final problem with these many elections is electoral funding scandals. If you are constantly campaigning you need lots and lots of cash to splash around. It’s not surprising so many parties resort to underhand methods.
Japan’s economic issues need political solutions. Yet politics is treated with contempt in Japan, by both foreigners and Japanese. This has to change if things are to improve. It’s difficult for a system to reform itself when the governing and governance structures are so ineffective.