Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba was supposed to be a fresh face. He could quickly end up being a forgotten one.
Weeks into his role and mere days out from a general election, red-alert signals are sounding in Tokyo’s corridors of power.
After his surprise victory in last month’s leadership race for the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Ishiba has spectacularly failed to achieve even the “new manager bounce” in public opinion polls that generally accompanies a change at the top. His Cabinet has been greeted with the lowest support figures of any new prime minister this century. More respondents to a Jiji poll said they disapproved of the prime minister than supported him.
Worse still, the roll of the dice to call a hasty snap election now looks like it might backfire. News front pages warn of a potential trouncing at the ballot box on Sunday.
The LDP is likely to lose its majority in the lower house and might also struggle to hold on to power with its long-standing coalition partner Komeito. Not only would that fall below Ishiba’s own definition of victory, it would necessitate expanding the coalition further, leading to more compromise and slowing decisionmaking.
As polling data continue to worsen as election day approaches, the prospect of an LDP loss — and a subsequent change in government for the first time in more than a decade — still seems quite distant, but is no longer unthinkable.
It was not supposed to be like this. The whole point of last month’s ruling-party election was to find a leader who could reinvigorate the LDP after the slush-fund scandal that brought its support to historic lows. Despite his limited support within the party, Ishiba has long been seen as popular with the public, a glad-handing man of the people, regularly topping surveys as the most suitable choice for the next chief.
Instead, as I had long suspected, it seems that Ishiba’s popularity has more to do with who he is not. In effective opposition within the ruling party, frequently at loggerheads with former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, he represented change and a blank slate onto which Abe opponents could project their political desires. Now that he is in the big seat, people are having to look closer at what he actually stands for.
So far, that has been uninspiring at best. At a time of scandal, the prime minister is clean, but that is not good enough. Like other incumbent parties across the world this year, he is dealing with some issues not of his own making, notably inflation.
However, he is already flip-flopping, backing away from support for everything from an “Asian NATO” and Bank of Japan rate hikes, to greater representation for women in government and support for same-sex marriage.
In the absence of his own alternatives, Ishiba has unwisely inherited many of the domestic slogans and policies of his predecessor, former Japanese prime minister Fumio Kishida.
His fudge on lawmakers implicated in the funding scandal — withdrawing the whip while hinting they might be accepted back into the party if they win re-election — has not gone down well with a public that wants offenders punished. In overplaying his hand in the early days of his administration, turning his back on Japanese Representative and former prime minister Taro Aso and the former Abe faction most heavily implicated in the scandal, he has alienated many conservatives and painted a target on his back.
Aso has reportedly told Japanese Representative Sanae Takaichi, who Ishiba defeated in last month’s race, to be ready for another challenge.
Say what you will of Takaichi, but there is little questioning where she stands and would quickly tilt the country rightward.
The prime minister has failed to quell the feeling around the country of a public that wants to give the LDP a bloody nose. Already, people are searching for the right historical comparison. Is it former Japanese prime minister Yoshiro Mori, who took over in unexpected circumstances in 2000 and oversaw a trouncing that ultimately resulted in his time in office lasting just a year? Or Aso himself, who led the party to electoral disaster in 2009 and ushered in a change of government?
With an upper-house election next summer, a poor night for Ishiba could quickly see him become a lame duck; a bad showing could be even worse. In that scenario, perhaps the correct comparison might predate the LDP itself: Prince Naruhiko Higashikuni, the first post-World War II prime minister of Japan, who served just 54 days in office.
Of course, it might not come to that. Polling, in Japan as elsewhere, has often proved unreliable, and the anti-LDP sentiment might not materialize on Sunday. While the newly elected head of the largest opposition party, Japanese Representative Yoshihiko Noda, is likely to enjoy a large increase in seats, Ishiba is lucky that Noda does not represent much of a break with the past either.
He is still remembered as the last prime minister of the disastrous Democratic Party of Japan and will struggle to energize the electorate to show up on voting day (the ruling coalition tends to benefit from a lower turnout).
The sudden dissolution of parliament also gave Noda no chance to coordinate a strategic alliance with other parties and means the anti-LDP vote will be split in many districts.
The two leaders sound and even look quite alike and indeed were both members of the short-lived New Frontier Party in the mid-1990s.
However, even assuming he somehow engineers a better-than-expected showing on Sunday, Ishiba will need more than luck if he is to survive.
Gearoid Reidy is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Japan, and South and North Korea. He previously led the breaking news team in North Asia and was the Tokyo deputy bureau chief. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS