Is Japan really a democracy?
- Thread starter gaijinalways
- Start date
you mean this photo is fake?
Japanese style of English is really hard to understand.
twinklestar
Kouhai
- 15 Nov 2006
- 64
- 2
Haha ... Overwhelming majority participant forumers voted Japan not a democracy.☝
Internet is now littered with tons of information garbage,it's definitely not a credible source.There was one doctored Japanese youtube.com video on JT forum,with a S Korean reporter said Korea not USA dropped atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Internet is now littered with tons of information garbage,it's definitely not a credible source.There was one doctored Japanese youtube.com video on JT forum,with a S Korean reporter said Korea not USA dropped atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
If one were to say Japan is a democracy because it is substantially
similar to the US, then Japan is not a democracy.
The US is not a democracy, it is a republic.
No, for real.
And some (maybe very few) people have suggested (as would i)
that at least an active civil society is needed for there to be democracy.
simply the existance of voting does not equal democracy.
even the old soviet union had elections.
Some people are promoting democracy in the US:
The Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution is a non-profit organization rooted in the belief that the American Revolution is a living tradition whose greatest promise is democracy. Our central purpose is to build on the accomplishments of earlier American movements by launching a new stage in the struggle for democracy.
crazybuyer
先輩
- 16 Sep 2006
- 31
- 0
surely yes, the imperator has only a not istitutional role
twinklestar
Kouhai
- 15 Nov 2006
- 64
- 2
Toru Ranryu
後輩
- 23 Nov 2006
- 17
- 1
Economist democracy rankings
The British newspaper The Economist recently ranked all the countries in the world according to their level of democracy. I would've liked to provide you all with a link but because I'm a new poster this site doesn't let me. If you're interested I suggest you google for "economist a pause in democracy's march". Anyway, they rank Japan pretty high. Abreviated rankings given below:
---
1. Sweden
...
17. USA
...
20. Belgium
20. Japan
...
23. UK
24. France
...
102. Russia
...
167. North Korea
---
Discussion here has been pretty interesting but I think some people ought to consider the level of democracy in their own country before proclaiming that Japan is not democratic.
The British newspaper The Economist recently ranked all the countries in the world according to their level of democracy. I would've liked to provide you all with a link but because I'm a new poster this site doesn't let me. If you're interested I suggest you google for "economist a pause in democracy's march". Anyway, they rank Japan pretty high. Abreviated rankings given below:
---
1. Sweden
...
17. USA
...
20. Belgium
20. Japan
...
23. UK
24. France
...
102. Russia
...
167. North Korea
---
Discussion here has been pretty interesting but I think some people ought to consider the level of democracy in their own country before proclaiming that Japan is not democratic.
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
no doubt.
i hear ya.
the US is in sad, sad shape.
and i would not say the Democrats winning the mid-terms will make things better.
isn't politics 'local' or something?
Han Chan
先輩
- 14 Mar 2006
- 444
- 16
I guess everyone who does not come from the eight countries abowe will be wondering about who well their own country managed. So here is the complete list:
Democracy index THE WORLD IN 2OO7
Sweden 1
Iceland 2
Netherlands 3
Norway 4
Denmark 5
Finland 6
Luxembourg 7
Australia 8
Canada 9
Switzerland 10
Ireland 11=
New Zealand 11=
Germany 13
Austria 14
Malta 15
Spain 16
US 17
Czech Republic 18
Portugal 19
Belgium 20=
Japan 20=
Greece 22
UK 23
France 24
Mauritius 25=
Costa Rica 25=
Slovenia 27=
Uruguay 27=
South Africa 29
Chile 30
South Korea 31
Taiwan 32
Estonia 33
Italy 34
India 35
Botswana 36=
Cyprus 36=
Hungary 38
Cape Verde 39=
Lithuania 39=
Slovakia 41
Brazil 42
Latvia 43
Panama 44
Jamaica 45
Poland 46
Israel 47
Trinidad and Tobago 48
Bulgaria 49
Romania 50
Croatia 51
Ukraine 52
Mexico 53
Argentina 54
Serbia 55
Mongolia 56
Sri Lanka 57
Montenegro 58
Namibia 59=
Papua New Guinea 59=
Suriname 61
Moldova 62
Lesotho 63=
Philippines 63=
Indonesia 65=
Timor Leste 65=
Colombia 67
Macedonia 68
Honduras 69
El Salvador 70
Paraguay 71=
Benin 71=
Guyana 73
Dom Rep 74
Bangladesh 75=
Peru 75=
Guatemala 77
Hong Kong 78
Palestine 79
Mali 80
Malaysia 81=
Bolivia 81=
Albania 83
Singapore 84
Madagascar 85=
Lebanon 85=
Bosnia and Hercegovina 87
Turkey 88
Nicaragua 89
Thailand 90
Fiji 91
Ecuador 92
Venezuela 93
Senegal 94
Ghana 95
Mozambique 96
Zambia 97
Liberia 98
Tanzania 99
Uganda 100
Kenya 101
Russia 102
Malawi 103
Georgia 104
Cambodia 105
Ethiopia 106
Burundi 107
Gambia 108
Haiti 109
Armenia 110
Kyrgyzstan 111
Iraq 112
Pakistan 113=
Jordan 113=
Comoros 115=
Morocco 115=
Egypt 115=
Rwanda 118
Burkina Faso 119
Kazakhstan 120
Sierra Leone 121
Niger 122
Bahrain 123
Cuba 124=
Nigeria 124=
Nepal 126
Côte d'Ivoire 127
Belarus 128
Azerbaijan 129
Cameroon 130
Congo Brazzaville
Algeria 132
Mauritania 133
Kuwait 134
Afghanistan 135=
Tunisia 135=
Yemen 137
China 138
Swaziland 139=
Iran 139=
Sudan 141
Qatar 142
Oman 143
Democratic Republic of Congo 144
Vietnam 145
Gabon 146
Bhutan 147=
Zimbabwe 147=
Tajikistan 149
UAE 150
Angola 151
Djibouti 152
Syria 153
Eritrea 154
Laos 155
Equatorial Guinea 156
Guinea 157
Guinea-Bissau 158
Saudi Arabia 159
Uzbekistan 160
Libya 161
Turkmenistan 162
Myanmar 163
Togo 164
Chad 165
Central Africa 166
North Korea 167
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
I think this list is biased,
...um, The Economist?
I know the list is biased.
Since unbiased is kind of a myth and everyone does have their biases.
Indonesia 65=
Timor Leste 65=
Colombia 67
Venezuela 93
The Economist is quite pro-corporate.
They some how equate the existance of corporations with
democracy. Even though a corporation is a legal construct
and its existance or not has no bearing on democracy.
Go figure.
Other than that massive bias, their widespread coverage is nice.
Thus Venezuela is so low on the list
below Colombia and Indonesia.
Venezuela, despite some of the disinformation and propaganda out there, is not a 'dictatorship' and it could be argued, given the 2000 & 2004 elections, that it is more democratic than the US.
V's gov't has been reelected and survived a recall election, as well as survived a coup attempt (which had the US involved in), survived a strike by oil industry employees, all while millions of dollars flow to opposition groups under the guise of the US's "National Endowment for Democracy" and having almost all the media owned by opposition groups.
While Colombia has the most unionists assassinated of any country with a continuous 40+ year civil war and death squads,
and Indonesia still has the "territorial command structure"
left-over from the days of dictator Suharto in which unelected military personal are at every level of government down to village level, not to mention many human rights abusers in their military not held responsible for killings they did while illegally occupying East Timor and they continue to do in West Papua.
oh, and the US gov't doesn't help when they send millions in military aid to those two countries.
in my view, unions are about democracy - at least when they are run bottom-up and do not mimic the corporate model of top-down.
Sorry, I felt the need to comment.
...um, The Economist?
I know the list is biased.
Since unbiased is kind of a myth and everyone does have their biases.
Indonesia 65=
Timor Leste 65=
Colombia 67
Venezuela 93
The Economist is quite pro-corporate.
They some how equate the existance of corporations with
democracy. Even though a corporation is a legal construct
and its existance or not has no bearing on democracy.
Go figure.
Other than that massive bias, their widespread coverage is nice.
Thus Venezuela is so low on the list
below Colombia and Indonesia.
Venezuela, despite some of the disinformation and propaganda out there, is not a 'dictatorship' and it could be argued, given the 2000 & 2004 elections, that it is more democratic than the US.
V's gov't has been reelected and survived a recall election, as well as survived a coup attempt (which had the US involved in), survived a strike by oil industry employees, all while millions of dollars flow to opposition groups under the guise of the US's "National Endowment for Democracy" and having almost all the media owned by opposition groups.
While Colombia has the most unionists assassinated of any country with a continuous 40+ year civil war and death squads,
and Indonesia still has the "territorial command structure"
left-over from the days of dictator Suharto in which unelected military personal are at every level of government down to village level, not to mention many human rights abusers in their military not held responsible for killings they did while illegally occupying East Timor and they continue to do in West Papua.
oh, and the US gov't doesn't help when they send millions in military aid to those two countries.
in my view, unions are about democracy - at least when they are run bottom-up and do not mimic the corporate model of top-down.
Sorry, I felt the need to comment.
Last edited:
Talitha_Cumi
後輩
- 23 May 2006
- 16
- 0
yeah, this woman dashed to the conference, but not naked.☝
Toru Ranryu
後輩
- 23 Nov 2006
- 17
- 1
You're right. Of course the list is biased. The Economist does, however, provide an extensive description of their methodology, including the way the scoring works. They didn't just pull the numbers out of a hat. I checked it a little and my non-expert opinion is that pro-corporate bias doesn't have all that much influence on the ranking. In the case of Venezuela, I think there are other reasons why they got a low score, and I wouldn't take their ranking too seriously.
However, the topic in this thread was whether Japan is a democracy or not, and to answer that I think this study is highly relevant. Unless you're using some new exotic definition of democracy, I think the Economist's study fairly conclusively proves that Japan is as democratic as other countries usually considered to be.
- 17 Jul 2002
- 5,907
- 385
These are not the number of the World Audit for November 2006, where Japan ranks 32th, after all EU countries but Greece. Actually nothing matches between the two ranking, even at the top. I would rather trust the World Audit as they are specialised in this kind of statistics and update them every month. We also notice that Japan and South Korea have very close rankings for democracy, freedom of press and corruption, which is normal as the political and economic culture are very similar.
Toru Ranryu
後輩
- 23 Nov 2006
- 17
- 1
Economist vs World Audit
I don't know why you assume the people at The Economist are not experts. It's hardly surprising that the results are different because they're using completely different methodology. World Audit is using a more arbitrary rating system and their detailed criteria are unclear. The only reason for Japan's lower score in the World Audit rankings is that they weren't given top grade in the "Civil Liberties" category. And why not? World Audit didn't see fit to tell us. We're just supposed to rely on their argument from authority. Not very scientific if you ask me.
Japan_Observer
Gimlet Eye
- 12 Dec 2006
- 30
- 3
What is democracy?
This conversation has been dismaying, because while a number of people have pointed out that the US is a democratic republic (and Japan is in a sense, although officially it is a constitutional monarchy), the question of whether Japan is a democracy is irrelevant. Plenty of countries are democracies; the annual survey by Freedom House and others have shown the advance of democracy in recent decades. What matters is whether a country is a liberal democracy (versus an illiberal democracy, as outlined in Fareed Zakaria's Future of Freedom).
And regardless, I challenge anyone here to tell me what the platonic ideal of democracy is. Is it what Aristotle and the Greeks thought democracy was? They thought democracy was a terrible form of government. So who can definitively detail the characteristics of a democracy?
So, returning to my point, the question should be is Japan a liberal democracy? I would argue that it is without question. Its government is representative, its press is free, its people have the right to voice their grievances (an option they are increasingly exercising via NGOs), and the right to private property is secure. Of course, Japan isn't perfect, but neither is the US nor any other liberal democracy. And each liberal democracy makes its own decisions as to what "liberal" means in its national context: to some it means economic security in addition to freedom of conscience, to others it means freer enterprise.
To address some of the more specific points raised about the Japanese political system, I think perhaps the biggest canard about Japanese politics is that the LDP's long, nearly unbroken tenure in office means that Japan is undemocratic. Hardly. Did the LDP manipulate elections? Did it suspend elections and otherwise pursue unconstitutional means to achieve this? There are two points regarding the LDP that I feel the need to add to the discussion.
First, the LDP has governed considerably democratically, despite its long "reign." The Kokutai system -- by which the heads of each party's parliamentary strategy committee (Kokutai) consult with each other to craft policy based on multi-partisan consensus -- ensures that no party is completely locked out of policymaking. It may not be a particularly open way of legislating, which is a problem, but it's more inclusive than the US Congress, in which a majority gains complete control over the levers of power (as seen under the recently departed Republican majority, and, before that, the four-decade-long Democrat majority). This is particularly unusual for a parliamentary system -- look at Britain, where the prime minister is, in essence, an elected dictator. (This is not a dig at Tony Blair; this a structural feature of the British parliamentary system.)
The second point about the LDP is that for decades -- at least for the duration of the cold war -- most serious policy disputes in Japanese politics were subsumed within the LDP, which after all, has long been the epitome of a "big tent" political party. Remember that until the early 1990s Japanese elections were characterized by medium-sized electoral districts, which meant the multiple candidates from the same party could win in the same constituency, leaving room for candidates with vastly different positions but coming from the same party to represent the same constituency.
So yes, the LDP governed uninterrupted for decades, but the same party elevated both Kishi Nobusuke and Miki Takeo to the premiership, meaning that clearly there was more to LDP domination than met the eye.
Of course, a competitive party system is an important pillar of liberal democracy, with parties serving as a two-way transmission belt of ideas and opinions, so the sooner the DPJ -- or another party -- emerges as a credible challenger, the better for Japan.
The other issue I want to address is the question of whether the Japanese people are blameworthy for Japan's presumed illiberalism. From both my study of Japanese politics and my firsthand experience, the Japanese people are hardly passive and ill-informed. One need only open any one of Japan's major dailies -- and they are major, with Yomiuri credited with having the world's largest circulation of any daily newspaper -- to get a running commentary of Japanese politics, as well as regional, international, and American politics. The difference, to me, is that the Japanese people are more reluctant to voice their opinions (unlike in the US, where people are expected to have and voice opinions regardless of how well informed those opinions are). Nevertheless, opinion polls conducted by the government and media organizations regularly show disapproval with government decisions, and Japanese politicians -- like all democratic politicians -- are sensitive to expressions of public opinion.
In short, liberal democracy with Japanese characteristics.
The point of all this is simply to remind those here that while it might be easy and perhaps more interesting to dismiss the Japanese political system as undemocratic, but if one looks closer Japan is as much a liberal democracy as any North American or European country, each with its own particular institutions (and illiberal shortcomings). Japan is no exception.
This conversation has been dismaying, because while a number of people have pointed out that the US is a democratic republic (and Japan is in a sense, although officially it is a constitutional monarchy), the question of whether Japan is a democracy is irrelevant. Plenty of countries are democracies; the annual survey by Freedom House and others have shown the advance of democracy in recent decades. What matters is whether a country is a liberal democracy (versus an illiberal democracy, as outlined in Fareed Zakaria's Future of Freedom).
And regardless, I challenge anyone here to tell me what the platonic ideal of democracy is. Is it what Aristotle and the Greeks thought democracy was? They thought democracy was a terrible form of government. So who can definitively detail the characteristics of a democracy?
So, returning to my point, the question should be is Japan a liberal democracy? I would argue that it is without question. Its government is representative, its press is free, its people have the right to voice their grievances (an option they are increasingly exercising via NGOs), and the right to private property is secure. Of course, Japan isn't perfect, but neither is the US nor any other liberal democracy. And each liberal democracy makes its own decisions as to what "liberal" means in its national context: to some it means economic security in addition to freedom of conscience, to others it means freer enterprise.
To address some of the more specific points raised about the Japanese political system, I think perhaps the biggest canard about Japanese politics is that the LDP's long, nearly unbroken tenure in office means that Japan is undemocratic. Hardly. Did the LDP manipulate elections? Did it suspend elections and otherwise pursue unconstitutional means to achieve this? There are two points regarding the LDP that I feel the need to add to the discussion.
First, the LDP has governed considerably democratically, despite its long "reign." The Kokutai system -- by which the heads of each party's parliamentary strategy committee (Kokutai) consult with each other to craft policy based on multi-partisan consensus -- ensures that no party is completely locked out of policymaking. It may not be a particularly open way of legislating, which is a problem, but it's more inclusive than the US Congress, in which a majority gains complete control over the levers of power (as seen under the recently departed Republican majority, and, before that, the four-decade-long Democrat majority). This is particularly unusual for a parliamentary system -- look at Britain, where the prime minister is, in essence, an elected dictator. (This is not a dig at Tony Blair; this a structural feature of the British parliamentary system.)
The second point about the LDP is that for decades -- at least for the duration of the cold war -- most serious policy disputes in Japanese politics were subsumed within the LDP, which after all, has long been the epitome of a "big tent" political party. Remember that until the early 1990s Japanese elections were characterized by medium-sized electoral districts, which meant the multiple candidates from the same party could win in the same constituency, leaving room for candidates with vastly different positions but coming from the same party to represent the same constituency.
So yes, the LDP governed uninterrupted for decades, but the same party elevated both Kishi Nobusuke and Miki Takeo to the premiership, meaning that clearly there was more to LDP domination than met the eye.
Of course, a competitive party system is an important pillar of liberal democracy, with parties serving as a two-way transmission belt of ideas and opinions, so the sooner the DPJ -- or another party -- emerges as a credible challenger, the better for Japan.
The other issue I want to address is the question of whether the Japanese people are blameworthy for Japan's presumed illiberalism. From both my study of Japanese politics and my firsthand experience, the Japanese people are hardly passive and ill-informed. One need only open any one of Japan's major dailies -- and they are major, with Yomiuri credited with having the world's largest circulation of any daily newspaper -- to get a running commentary of Japanese politics, as well as regional, international, and American politics. The difference, to me, is that the Japanese people are more reluctant to voice their opinions (unlike in the US, where people are expected to have and voice opinions regardless of how well informed those opinions are). Nevertheless, opinion polls conducted by the government and media organizations regularly show disapproval with government decisions, and Japanese politicians -- like all democratic politicians -- are sensitive to expressions of public opinion.
In short, liberal democracy with Japanese characteristics.
The point of all this is simply to remind those here that while it might be easy and perhaps more interesting to dismiss the Japanese political system as undemocratic, but if one looks closer Japan is as much a liberal democracy as any North American or European country, each with its own particular institutions (and illiberal shortcomings). Japan is no exception.
bullet train
後輩
- 12 Dec 2006
- 2
- 0
It's not that complicated to tell if Japan is democracy. Japan has a democracy system, but about 90 % of people there still have socialist mindset. You can cast a ballot at your free will. Japanese democracy is still in its infancy. LDP dominace is preliminary arrangement before a real opposition party grows and two party system takes hold.
Japan_Observer
Gimlet Eye
- 12 Dec 2006
- 30
- 3
Still in its infancy?
Socialist mindset?
I think you'll have to be a little clearer. Just because the system is evolving doesn't mean that Japanese democracy is immature.
And the phrase "socialist mindset" in this context means nothing. Does you mean socialist as in the ideology socialism? Because the Japanese Communist Party and Social Democratic Party are utterly insignificant. Ninety percent of people? What kind of statistic is that?
Perhaps you are just using the word "socialist" in the way some people use the word "fascist": something objectionable. But even if that's the case, it makes no sense in this context.
Socialist mindset?
I think you'll have to be a little clearer. Just because the system is evolving doesn't mean that Japanese democracy is immature.
And the phrase "socialist mindset" in this context means nothing. Does you mean socialist as in the ideology socialism? Because the Japanese Communist Party and Social Democratic Party are utterly insignificant. Ninety percent of people? What kind of statistic is that?
Perhaps you are just using the word "socialist" in the way some people use the word "fascist": something objectionable. But even if that's the case, it makes no sense in this context.
Last edited:
Toru Ranryu
後輩
- 23 Nov 2006
- 17
- 1
Freedom House
Japan Observer: Good post!
Do you have any comment on why Freedom House (and by extension World Audit, referenced by Maciamo above) doesn't believe Japan has the same level of civil liberties as the USA and most of the EU, including such exemplary liberal democracies as Latvia?
Japan Observer: Good post!
Do you have any comment on why Freedom House (and by extension World Audit, referenced by Maciamo above) doesn't believe Japan has the same level of civil liberties as the USA and most of the EU, including such exemplary liberal democracies as Latvia?
Japan_Observer
Gimlet Eye
- 12 Dec 2006
- 30
- 3
The following is from Freedom House's 2006 Freedom in the World report:
These are typical complaints about Japanese politics and society, and they're certainly valid ones. Japanese democracy loses "points" because it's particularly clubby; see the reference to "Kisha" clubs above. But no political system is free from close ties among elites in various sectors. Look at France, for example, where government, political, and corporate elites all tend to have attended the same schools and enjoy chummy relationships that may result in policies not especially in the public's interest. The US, meanwhile, suffers from similar problems in journalistic freedom (see the most recent Reporters without Borders index).
So I repeat: no democracy is perfect. Each democracy reflects unique cultural circumstances, and each democracy's failures are unique.
In light of this, however, we should be amazed at democracy's versatility. Democratic systems have emerged and flourished in all manner of societies.
Is there another political system about which that can be said?
Toru Ranryu
後輩
- 23 Nov 2006
- 17
- 1
I'm sure there is reason to be critical of Kisha clubs, but is it really a civil liberty to be allowed to attend press conferences? The Kisha club system doesn't seem to be much of an impediment to investigative journalism. Rather, it's a problem for news agencies that are in the business of reporting news quickly. The EU criticism against the Kisha club system seems to have been about it being a barrier against free trade, not that it was somehow interferring with freedom of the press.
I read through the passage you quoted from Freedom House, but I don't think there is anything that really stands out. Like you say, all existing liberal democracies have flaws. So why did Freedom House place Japan in a lower division than USA and most of EU? To me it just looks like another example of Western arrogance and double standards.
Anyway, this is not a complaint against you, but rather against Freedom House.
I read through the passage you quoted from Freedom House, but I don't think there is anything that really stands out. Like you say, all existing liberal democracies have flaws. So why did Freedom House place Japan in a lower division than USA and most of EU? To me it just looks like another example of Western arrogance and double standards.
Anyway, this is not a complaint against you, but rather against Freedom House.
Japan_Observer
Gimlet Eye
- 12 Dec 2006
- 30
- 3
I wonder if it isn't because of the equal rights question.
Also, I wouldn't make light of the kisha clubs. They ARE a problem; it is inappropriate in a democracy -- any democracy -- to manipulate the information it provides to the public. A democracy thrives on information, and if the government manipulates it, whether through insiduous kisha clubs, or through plants at government-sponsored town halls, it is a major violation of trust between governed and government.
But, of course, the only thing that sets Japan apart in this department is that kisha clubs are more formal. Look at Washington and tell me that the political and media elite don't have an incestuous relationship. The media may make sport of attacking public officials at times, but usually the political media seems like an unelected branch of government. Fourth estate, indeed.
Also, I wouldn't make light of the kisha clubs. They ARE a problem; it is inappropriate in a democracy -- any democracy -- to manipulate the information it provides to the public. A democracy thrives on information, and if the government manipulates it, whether through insiduous kisha clubs, or through plants at government-sponsored town halls, it is a major violation of trust between governed and government.
But, of course, the only thing that sets Japan apart in this department is that kisha clubs are more formal. Look at Washington and tell me that the political and media elite don't have an incestuous relationship. The media may make sport of attacking public officials at times, but usually the political media seems like an unelected branch of government. Fourth estate, indeed.
