Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Kenpō to yoron: Sengo nihonjin wa kenpō to dō mukiatte kita no ka (The Constitution and Public Opinion: How Have Postwar Japanese Viewed the Constitution?)

2018; Oxford University Press; Volume: 21; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1093/ssjj/jyy010

1468-2680

Christian Winkler,

Chinese history and philosophy

This book is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about a (potential) amendment of the Constitution of Japan (COJ). The author points out that previous research had almost exclusively focused on elite discourse and legal interpretations, while ignoring public opinion (pp. 11–12). Needless to say, public opinion does matter, as a successful amendment of the COJ requires two-third majorities in both houses of the parliament as well as a simple majority in a national referendum. With the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) set to announce its third constitutional amendment proposal in spring 2018 and Prime Minister Abe Shinzō aiming for an amendment by the end of 2020, this volume is a worthwhile addition to the growing list of publications on this always controversial and timely topic. Sakaiya is interested in who has supported a constitutional amendment and why. The boldly formulated goal is to provide a foundation for a ‘new constitutional debate based not on ideology, but on data’ (p. 27). To that end, the book examines existing survey data from Asahi Shimbun, Yomiuri Shimbun, Mainichi Shimbun, Jiji, NHK and the government from the early postwar days through the present. Bringing all those existing sources together and trying to make sense of them is certainly a praiseworthy enterprise that has not been undertaken before. Although the book also looks at other topics such as lowering the amendment hurdle of Article 96 or introducing direct elections of the Prime Minister (pp. 196–198), the following two questions are the main focus: 1) Do respondents support an amendment of the COJ in general? and 2) Do respondents think the controversial peace clause, i.e. Article 9, should be revised or not? (pp. 52–53).