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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS