After Japan's house of Councilors voted down a government bill for the privatization of the postal services last Monday, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi invoked Article 7 of the Constitution, dissolving the House of Representatives and calling for snap elections. The decision has polarized opinion in the political arena.
Many political commentators and politicians have criticized Koizumi's decision for being "unnecessary" and "stubborn," and believe that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is not going to come out well in an early election set for Sept. 11. Even former prime minister Yoshiro Mori, a long-time supporter of Koizumi, criticized his move, describing Koizumi as "an eccentric among eccentrics." He believes that the move will divide the LDP and prevent the party from gaining a parliamentary majority in the upcoming elections. In short, he believes that Koizumi's decision is political suicide.
However, opinion polls by a number of Japanese media outlets indicate that over half of the general public support Koizumi's decision, which they see as honoring his pledges to the public. By risking his political life, Koizumi may see his political fortunes revived from the ashes. But he is taking an enormous risk.
Since the enactment of Japan's post-World War II constitution, the lower house has been dissolved on 21 occasions, including this most recent instance. Former prime minister Shigeru Yoshida dissolved the lower house in 1954 when threatened by a vote of no confidence. In 1990, then prime minster Toshiki Kaifu dissolved the lower house over the issue of a consumption tax. In 1969, then prime minister Sato Eisaku dissolved the lower house after the legitimacy of the Cabinet was challenged. To boost his popularity, former Primer Minister Yoshiro Mori also dissolved parliament. In short, the right to dissolve parliament has long been viewed as an "heirloom" of successive Japanese prime ministers as a method of last resort to solve political issues or stalemates.
Even since President Chen Shui-bian (
In this situation, the Executive Yuan and the president are reacting to pressure from the legislature; they do not have the right to initiate the legislature's dissolution. While lawmakers can obstruct bills over their three-year term, as long as they do not propose a vote of no confidence they can sit out their term, and there is no other means available for the legislature to be dissolved and a new election to be called.
The perpetuation of political stalemates, whether over policies proposed by the government or calls for reform from the public, serve to wear down political ideals.
If the legislature needs to be dissolved, then dissolved it should be. The government should be bold and put the issue to the public rather than allow a political stalemate to continue unresolved. This is the lesson we should learn from Koizumi's actions. In future amendments of the Constitution, we should also give serious consideration to granting the government the right to initiate the dissolution of the legislature.
Yeh Hung-ling is a student of the graduate school of Political Science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS