This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Constitutional changes eyed to let female on throne, legalize military

Eisuke

先輩
Joined
28 Nov 2003
Messages
292
Reaction score
6
Constitutional changes eyed to let female on throne, legalize military

A Liberal Democratic Party panel has compiled an outline for revising the Constitution that would allow for a "military force for self-defense," the Emperor as head of state and a female on the Imperial throne, LDP sources said Wednesday.
The LDP will finalize the plan next November, when the party marks the 50th anniversary of its founding, the sources said.

While the LDP would leave the war-renouncing stipulations in the current Constitution unchanged, the panel proposes allowing Japan to have a "minimum military capability" to exercise the right to individual and collective defense, they said.

The panel said the military force would be able to make international contributions when it is difficult to solve problems through peaceful measures.

According to the outline, Japanese nationals would be obliged to protect the independence and security of the nation but would not be subject to a military draft, the sources said.

The prime minister would be authorized to declare an emergency to defend the country, maintain security and deal with natural disasters. In these cases, the military would be dispatched and people's basic human rights would be restricted.

Under the government's current interpretation of the Constitution, Japan is forbidden from exercising the right to collective defense and the Emperor is just a symbol of the state.

Besides proposing that the Emperor be head of state, the panel allows for a female member of the Imperial family to ascend the throne.

On the Emperor's status, the Constitution stipulates, "The Emperor shall be the symbol of the state and of the unity of the people, deriving his position from the will of the people, with whom resides sovereign power."

Other proposals include a stipulation that House of Councilors members not be allowed to be Cabinet members, and that some "new human rights" be created, including the right to privacy and the right to know, according to the sources.

The panel also proposes establishing a constitutional court.

The Japan Times: Nov. 18, 2004

http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20041118a2.htm

I think these are great outlines for revising the Japanese Constitution. The only comment I have is about the female member of the Imperial family to ascend the throne. I don't like that, because it is tradition in Japan that a man is the Emperor of Japan. For the rest I think it's fine. :nihonjin:
 
There is evidence that the earliest rulers of Japan were female. Moreover, I think it's a logical change in the 21st century, and would be a good symbol for the women of Japan. Overall, the changes sound pretty good.
 
I agree with this. Good to have an Empress, and this would be great especially that Naruhito's only child is a girl. Making the monarch a head of state is also great. But does this mean that Japan like SK is gonna have mandatory military service?
 
I really think it's absolutely high noon that they change the constitution to let a woman on the throne! :haihai:
The other points are nowhere near that important.
 
I agree. So is making the emperor a head of state. But what about this military thing? Is Japan gnna be like the ROK? Making everyone go through military service?
 
to hiroshi

No, there wouldn't be that kind of military service. In the article it said this :"According to the outline, Japanese nationals would be obliged to protect the independence and security of the nation but would not be subject to a military draft, the sources said."
So, I'm guessing not...so if they're strictly against fighting, they do not have to, but it sounds like (to me..maybe I'm misinterpreting here) one of those things that people feel a duty to do, just like how most people in Japan feel "obliged" to go to college. It isn't literally forced, but is something they would feel compelled to do...
Maybe I misinterpreted it, I don't know, but that's what I can gather from it ^-^.
 
Thanks!

Well, I think that the SDF should take more of an active military role, but not compel or obligate people...
 
A stronger Japanese military can be seen in two lights; either as a stabilising force in the region or as a step towards a dangerous military stand-off in the region.

Without U.S. military support the region would be overwhelmingly dominate dby Chinese and North Korean military forces, there is imsply no military power in the Far East capable of standing against either nation without direct U.S. support.
Japan is the only nation in the Far East with the economic capability to support a military force strong enough to counter China and/or North Korea. The danger is that if Japan starts building up its military forces, China and North Korea may decide to increase thier own military forces in response.
 
scotsboyuk said:
The danger is that if Japan starts building up its military forces, China and North Korea may decide to increase thier own military forces in response.
Click to expand...

North Korea doesn't have the money to increase their own military alot more from what it is now.
 
@Eisuke

I wasn't thinking so much of conventional forces, rather more unconventional forces. The sad thing about North Korea is that they don't actually have the economic resources to maintain their current military forces without adversly affecting the Korean people. Somehow I don't think the North Korean leadership will care very much if people have to starve in order to increase their nuclear and/or bio-chemical capabilities.

Japan is at a serious disadvantage to both China and North Korea in that it possesses no nuclear weapons, making any major confrontation very one sided without U.S. support. Mind you, I doubt it would take Japanese very long to develop their own nuclear capability; they certainly have the technical and economic capability to do so.
 
Eisuke said:
I don't like that, because it is tradition in Japan that a man is the Emperor of Japan. For the rest I think it's fine. :nihonjin:
Click to expand...

I don't see any problem with a female ascending the throne at all. C'mon, what is the alternative when no male heir is present?

In Denmark, the oldest monarchy in the world, a constitutional change happened in 1953, when the King had three daughters, so there were ONLY a FEMALE first-born heir to the throne....Now we have Queen Margrethe in Denmark, and it turned out pretty well without problems..

I believe Sweden had the same constitutional amendments, when the first-born turned out to be a girl, and not a boy....the boy came afterwards and is little brother (and is no direct successor to the throne).

YEAH!! Time for an Empress in Japan.
 
Women have always been allowed to ascend to the thrones of Britain and we have had Queens throughout history. Women are allowed to ascend, but only if there are no male hiers to the throne, such was the case when the last king died and our present Queen succeeded.

There have been some calls for the system to be changed so that women could succeed to the throne if they are older than their brothers or other male relatives, but I don't think this will happen for quite some time.
 
scotsboyuk said:
There have been some calls for the system to be changed so that women could succeed to the throne if they are older than their brothers or other male relatives, but I don't think this will happen for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Yes, in Sweden, it is allowed, as the eldest is a Crown Princess.
 
scotsboyuk said:
@Eisuke

Mind you, I doubt it would take Japanese very long to develop their own nuclear capability; they certainly have the technical and economic capability to do so.
Click to expand...

Yes that is true.

Miss_apollo7 said:
I don't see any problem with a female ascending the throne at all. C'mon, what is the alternative when no male heir is present?
Click to expand...

The son of a brother or sister of the male heir could be the alternative candidate to ascend the throne.

Miss_apollo7 said:
In Denmark, the oldest monarchy in the world
Click to expand...

No. Japan has the oldest monarchy in the world.

The Chrysanthemum Throne is the oldest monarchy in the world. In Nihonshoki it is said that the Empire of Japan was founded in 660 BC by the Emperor Jimmu. And it is said his descendants continue to reign today; the current Emperor Akihito is the 125th direct descendant of Jimmu. With historical assurance the record is back to Emperor Ojin who supposedly reigned in the early 5th century. Despite the fact that there have been eight Empresses, under Japanese Imperial law (promulgated by the Imperial Household Agency and the Privy Council) women cannot reign since the middle of the 19th century.

Chrysanthemum Throne - Wikipedia
 
Eisuke said:
Despite the fact that there have been eight Empresses, under Japanese Imperial law (promulgated by the Imperial Household Agency and the Privy Council) women cannot reign since the middle of the 19th century.

Chrysanthemum Throne - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Something I was meaning to point out. In Japan's long history, the 1800s is practically yesterday. The argument that it's traditional for women to not be considered for the throne is not really accurate. (It reminds me of the US politician or judge who recently claimed the "under god" part of the Pledge of Allegiance as a centuries-old indication of our national faith, when in fact it's a 50-year-old recent addition based on anti-Communist hysteria.)

History! If you don't learn it, you're doomed to ... get lectured on it by Internet users.
 

8 Empresses in the total history of the Japanese monarchy is really not alot. So you can see here that in general it were almost always men who were the Emperors of Japan.
 
Eisuke said:
No. Japan has the oldest monarchy in the world.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right if you want to be precise BUT:
I still consider Denmark as the oldest monarchy in regards to KING & QUEEN, a KINGDOM.
Denmark is the oldest monarchy with a KINGDOM in the WESTERN world.
I consider Japan to be the oldest monarchy in regards to EMPEROR & EMPRESS, an EMPIRE with an Imperial Court - different to KINGDOM, but still older I agree.

I hope this made sense....but it is true if you go into details like this
 
Isn't it true that the Japanese monarchy is not strictly a monarchy in the Western sense? I'm sure I have read that the title 'Emperor' is a Western title used to describe the Japanese soveriegn as best as posisble and that his actual Japanese title means something other than Emperor.

@Eisuke

There have only been three Queens/Empresses of the United Kingdom in over almost three hundred years. Before that there has only been two queens of Scotland and three queens of England and Wales since the time of the Romans.
 

The Japanese Imperial Court is very modern, and had been for many years, however, linguistically, I wouldn't say Japan is a Kingdom, hence, not the same style of monarchy as found in European countries.

Denmark is the oldest monarchy in Europe dating back to the Viking Ages.

About the title Emperor versus King, I have no clue, but there must be a reason for the distinction...What we now as Germany today, had a Kaiser long ago (emperor), and in Russia a Zar (emperor).
 
@ scotsboy: Okay, what is the difference between King and Emperor then? ARe you thinking Roman Britain with Magnus Maximus and others, yes, but he and rest weren't British!

I found this piece of info which is interesting though:


Well, who cares anyway...we are not from the Royal family.

ANyway back on topic:

I found this piece of news: http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=319038

Maybe they were discussing how to get about the female-heir issue too, as Denmark had its constitution amended because of this.

Eisuke: If you don't want a female heir, who would you suggest? Are there any good subjects the Japanese people like/love/prefer?
 
I think that that was based on an old belief that women were somehow inferior to men, and that theory has since been disproven.

There's nothing wrong with a little change if it fits the times.

@Eisuke-
Let's stop talking about tradition here for a moment. Do you think a woman is any less capable of being a monarch than a man?
 
Miss_apollo7 said:
@ scotsboy: Okay, what is the difference between King and Emperor then? ARe you thinking Roman Britain with Magnus Maximus and others, yes, but he and rest weren't British!
Click to expand...

There were Roman Emperors from Britannia, but that wasn't what I was thinking of. The present Queen's father, King George VI, was, to give him his full title, King-Emperor George VI. Quen Victoria was the first Queen-Empress (in fact the only Queen-Empress to rule in he rown right) and there were four King-Emperors, including George VI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Do Japanese people really stare if you have blond hair and blue eyes?
2
Replies
43
Views
166K
mdchachi
Should a female be allowed to ascend the throne in Japan?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
Mikawa Ossan
Y
  • Locked
Fingerprinting policy- don't let the issue die
6 7 8
Replies
175
Views
28K
Mars Man
The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang
2 3
Replies
66
Views
17K
SevenStarsHK2N
S
C
Female Submission and Male Dominance
Replies
13
Views
13K
Minty
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…