Is Japan really a democracy?

[pipokun]

If you say democratic values are such as freedom, equality blah, blah, yes, they are the value. But democracy itself is just a means to achieve them.
I don't overestimate/underestimate it.
There are tons of libral media here, but no Dan Rather here. At the 1st textbook war in the 80s, few media took responsibity. Then Japan has been labeled as a history downsizing nation.
In this sense, your country is better than Japan.

Many criticize here what Japan did in the WWII. Yes, it is important, but Taisho era was quite a liberal one like post WWI Europe, even bad gaijin at that time some of them were pretended as French! Or juvenile delinquency, Mobo/Moga meaning Modern Boy/Girl, (quite an Engrish, isn't it?) were there.

 

[gaijinalways]

Yes I have seen some arguements about equality in japan during various eras, but to be truthful, the historians seem to disagree on this one. Some lords abused their peasant farmers regardless of the supposed enlightened taxation theories you read about. There were some tax revolts in japan, but also when you didn't have any weapons (because you weren't allowed any, and no wheels!), sometimes it was difficult to revolt (translation; perhaps impossible).

 

[caster51]

farmer of all direct appeal to their lord was crime resulting in a death penalty .
they did direct appeal to lord with risk of their life
then reform was promised by lord
and this farmer is worshiped as Kami in the villege
"義民"清三郎
there was a farmer's manners..How to do a riot.
サービス終了のお知らせ
in jidai-geki, the boss of farmers is killed by bodyguards before passing a letter of direct appeal to a lord
If farmer succeed to pass their letter of direct appealﾂ to a lord, this direct appeal would be executed

 

[pipokun]

You don't have to date back to the samurai era.
Tell me what is the difference between Mr Chavez, Mr Bush and M. Chirac, if you believe in presidency, the ideal/true/right political form.

 

[gaijinalways]

Tell me what is the difference between Mr Chavez, Mr Bush and M. Chirac, if you believe in presidency, the ideal/true/right political form.

Uh, they live in different countries? Not sure what your point is, just don't think Japan is much of a democracy.

 

[Han Chan]

Supreme Court finds that it is OK that rural votes counts 5 times as much as urban!

Supreme Court finds that it is OK that rural votes counts 5 times as much as urban! Is such a difference democratic? I don't think so.

Todays article:

"Top court: Disparity in vote constitutional
10/05/2006

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN


The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Upper House election in 2004 was held in a constitutional manner despite a 5.13-fold disparity in the weight of one vote between the most densely populated electoral district and that which was the most sparsely inhabited.

Lawyers in Kanagawa and Chiba prefectures as well as Tokyo had appealed an earlier Tokyo High Court ruling that rejected their complaint of inequality under the law.

At issue was the disproportionate number of Upper House seats allocated to Tokyo compared to Tottori Prefecture.

That meant that 5.13 times as many votes were needed for a seat in the nation's capital compared to one in Tottori Prefecture.

The plaintiffs demanded nullification of the results by the relevant election committees.

But in its decision, the Supreme Court said "the failure to take steps to correct inequality in the value of votes resulting from the allocation of seats in the chamber at the time cannot be said to have exceeded the limits of the Diet's discretion."

Thus, the seating allocation, despite the 5.13-fold disparity, was judged constitutional.

Of the 15 justices, 10 were of the opinion that the disparity in the 2004 election was constitutional while five said it was not.

The Grand Bench of the Supreme Court acknowledged that steps have been taken since the election to correct the gap in representation. But at the same time, it suggested that debate continue on ways to close the gap in vote disparity, "including a review of the election system framework."

It was the first time the Supreme Court made such a call in relation to the election system in a suit fought over vote disparity in the Upper House.

In January 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2001 Upper House election was constitutional even though the most over-represented voter had 5.06 times the voting weight of the most under-represented voter.

At the time, six of the 15 justices said the disparity was unconstitutional.

Even among the nine justices who said it was constitutional, four warned that unless the level of disparity was corrected in the subsequent election--which was the one held in 2004--the situation could be ruled unconstitutional.

The July 2004 Upper House election was held without correcting the disparity.

In June this year an amended election law went into effect to reallocate the seats.

The current disparity is about 4.8.(IHT/Asahi: October 5,2006)"

 

[Sukotto]

Supreme Court finds that it is OK that rural votes counts 5 times as much as urban! Is such a difference democratic? I don't think so.

This reminds me of half of the US legislature branch. In the senate (considered the 'upper house'? ), each state gets 2 senators. North Dakota has an estimated population of 636,677. New York has 18,976,457.
That is nearly 30 times.
So a North Dakotan's vote in the senate counts almost 30x more than a New Yorker.

It is similar for the presidential vote in the electoral college system.

But, I read somewhere that voting is like a 'roof of democracy'.
"Civil society" (which is not necessarily just supporting candidates for offices) being something like the walls that hold it up.

 

[caster51]

It Seems Like Nobody Think Japan As A Democratic Country

Yes, because I dont think Democracy is the best

 

[Crazy Russian]

Several questions...

Explain to me the following, please:


1. What do you mean by ﾂ'sovereignty?' Can ﾂ'democracy' and ﾂ'sovereignty' walk hand in hand, side by side? Aren't they mutually exclusive concepts?

2. What is more important: national interests or public interests?

3. Please, enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of ﾂ'being a democracy.' Also, enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of ﾂ'not being a democracy.'


Thanks in advance!

 

[Talitha_Cumi]

Where is the democratic country on this planet anyway?

 

[gaijinalways]

CR, really both the US and Japan are representative democracies. As to the advantages and disadvantages of each, do we really need to spell it out for you?

 

[Sukotto]

Explain to me the following, please:
1. What do you mean by ﾂ'sovereignty?' Can ﾂ'democracy' and ﾂ'sovereignty' walk hand in hand, side by side? Aren't they mutually exclusive concepts?

2. What is more important: national interests or public interests?

3. Please, enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of ﾂ'being a democracy.' Also, enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of ﾂ'not being a democracy.'
Thanks in advance!

1) i wouldn't say they are mutually exclusive. if by "democracy" you the US
gov't talking, the "democracy" means some sort of law making body chosen by some sort of voting system, but ONLY if it includes enshrining the construct of the corporation into your legal system. it might be capitalism & democracy which you might be thinking about as being mutually exclusive. honestly i do not know that much about capitalism. but i do know that US gov'ts in the past have forced other countries to accept the legal construct of the corporation in their counties. why should any country have to accept the limited liability for corporate owners/shareholders in their legal framework?
Historically in the US shareholders used to be held 100% liable for any and all harm done by a corporation. but then the robber barrons took over and invented the p.r. industry.

so i'd say democracy and sovereignty can co-exist. if other countries do not force their definition on to yours. for example it is arguable that Venezuela is actually far more democratic than the US. but they are denounced by the US gov't because they do not worship the corporation. rather they do FDR type projects instead of the maintainence of centuries of oligarchy.

plus, in a democracy, at least in theory, the people are supposed to be sovereign - even over the legal constructs that are corporations. before 'the people', the king was the sovereign, including over the corporations which were chartered with his authority. with the american revolution, sovereignty passed, was recognized as being with the people. that includes sovereignty over corporations - which are different from regular businesses btw.



2) here CR i am assuming by "national" interests you mean the "interests" of the state or the gov't, really those in gov't. Which often times does not coincide with the public interests.
In a democracy it might be assumed that the public interests = the national interests, but...
In the US politicians and gov't officials always talk about national interests as if 300 million people can have the same interests. What they are really talking about is their interests. The interests of those in power. That might mean strengthening 'the state'.


3 ) in a democracy we are able to have this type of discussion. i suppose
in a non-democracy you could too, but if you went too far...like called for the dissolution of all goverment, you would be watched and perhaps jailed or worse. that's in a non-democracy.
plus in a democracy all humans have certain inalienable rights such as speech etc. plus the inalienable right to a fair trial, with being able to challenge evidence as well as witnesses put up against you. without these, it would definately not be a democracy. because democracy does NOT mean just voting. it does not mean just voting for law making officials. it is important to note that even the old Soviet Union had elections, but I know of no one who would call that a democracy.


~on the note of fair trials the Nov issue of the US based magazine
'the progressive' has a really good 'editors note' on the attack - loss of civil
liberties under Bush, including erasing 900yrs of legal precedent of habeas corpus. unfortunately it is only available in the print version.

editor quotes Thomas Jefferson:
"Habeas corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume."
so, rights are NOT privileges of citizenship.
they are rights, inalienable for all persons.

that's my view on some of this stuff.
or at least views that make sense to me.

 

[Void]

as Mars Man sama i am out of my waters, but nevertheless i can tell that you are mixing different subjects. More likely this will not lead the discussion at any productive direction.

before you completely confuse flies with cutlets here is the short excursion into general theory of state Every material (and not much) entity can be viewed from at least four perspectives
1) essence
2) objectives, tasks, duties ...
3) methods and means to achieve the goals (functions)
4) development prospects

The essence of the state would be power. How does it excercise power is
determined by the form of it. But don`t forget that the form in its turn
is 'preprogramed' by goals and by the properties of elements of newborn
existing state...

Democracy is rather a political regime, and as any regime it is good at
proper time and in proper environment

As Pipokun correctly pointed out that values which often called democratic
are human values, their concept just happened to flourish at the times of
blooming democracy

And just for some contemplation
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Nov2006/z1106.html

 

[Crazy Russian]

By posing the questions, I didn't hint at anything. I was just interested in your way of thinking.

Sukotto, thanks for answering my questions.

Sukotto, how much do you think Russia is a democracy? I remember Maciamo's having marvelled at the French politicians. But how about the Russian politicians and Vladimir Putin? I think that they are not so bad either.

Every week the Russian politicians and ministers take part in various TV programmes. TV presenters put the thorniest questions to them. The politicians, in their turn, are not afraid to take part in such TV programmes and always willingly respond to all questions.

Vladimir Putin has convened press conferences for foreign correspondents several times. At such press conferences, several thousands of foreign correspondents sit before the President. Any of them can address any question to Mr Putin. Vladimir Putin is not afraid of being asked about any ticklish domestic or foreign problem.

Not so long ago Vladimir Putin took part in some BBC TV programme. The whole world could see our president answer the thorniest questions from all over the world. The President did it with pleasure. Someone even asked him, ﾂ'When did you have sex for the last time?' Well, Mr Putin answered that question.

Every year Vladimir Putin sets up face-to-face meetings with the Russians by videoconferencing. The meetings are live broadcast. The President answers all ticklish questions. It's amazing! Vladimir Putin is the frankest and most estimable political leader in the world! Are there political leaders in the world who are as frank as the Russian President is?

So is Russia a democracy or not? In the reign of Boris Yeltsin, we had problems with so-called democratic values. However, the American politicians say that Russia under Yeltsin was ﾂ'the pattern of freedom and democracy.' Nowadays, we have all (or at least most of) the democratic values, but the American politicians say that Russia increasingly moves away from such values. Strange... In Latvia, Mr Cheney even delivered a grandiloquent speech about Russia lacking for the democratic values. Sukotto, I think that you understand why it is dangerous to say it in Latvia.

At the G8 Summit in Saint Petersburg, George W. Bush said, ﾂ'I'd like Russia to have democracy like that in Iraq.' (Damn, another Freudian slip?! ) I know, Mr Bush, that you desire it. But no, thank you. We'll try to do for ourselves.



Sukotto, what is less democratic: violating the rights of your own people (Stalin) or violating the rights of the other peoples (Hitler, Bush).

Does democracy mean only carrying about your own people?



In my opinion, in France such concepts as ﾂ'freedom', ﾂ'democracy', ﾂ'human rights', etc. are carried to the point of absurdity. Do you remember the event that occurred in France not so long ago? The French struck against the labour law, which allowed employers to fire newcomers without accounting the reason. At long last, the authorities gave in and repealed the law. I think it is not very good for the national interests (in the large sense of the concept). On the other hand, they had no choice. The French authorities have advocated ﾂ'freedom, equality and community' for a long time. So it's too late to show some muscle to the people. Nice dilemma...

Sometimes it is necessary to violate some principles. Peter I of Russia knew it...

Too much freedom and too many rights result in abusing them...

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

I have to say...I'm starting to really like Crazy Russian here!

 

[Sukotto]

I honestly do not know very much about the state of Russia,
except for after the fall of the Soviet Union a lot of former high communist types
got really wealthy really quick.

I did here when Bush said that, I was like, "uhh! Let's hope not. I guess you'd like Russia to look like Iraq right now, huh Bush?" Part of me only thinks that is a half joke. Part of me thinks Bush & co really wouldn't mind if Russia were in total chaos. Remember it is now official US policy to ensure that no other country even attempt to get near equal of the US on military terms.


As for France, not only do I agree with the workers on what they struck for, but I also agree that they should be able to strike on such issues.


democracy,

What the US has isn't really democracy.
For one it is top-down heirarchical,
those to 'choose from' are pre-chosen for us.
and of course, money controls it all.
(joke: as they say, the majority is always on their side. $)

'participate meaningly in the process of running their own lives'.
Why isn't it that those who work at a place also
own and operate it - democratically.
How could we get to that? Well, i think it is obvious
the path would have to be democratic.
If it is not glaringly obvious to anyone today, you cannot
impose democracy on anyone. not even a psuedo-democratic top-down system like they're trying to put in Iraq.

 

[Void]

Too much freedom and too many rights result in abusing them...

as well as they result in anarchy

 

[Void]

Does democracy mean only carrying about your own people?

since then democracy is synonym of altruism or charity? Since then state has to care about other people?
to think about equality. Are all people inhabiting same state equal in their right to vote (excluding under-age and mentaly retarded). Something tells me that they are not even in countries which are recognised as democratic

 

[Crazy Russian]

The word ﾂ'democracy' consists of two words: ﾂ'people' and ﾂ'power.' ﾂ'Power' is a key word.

(Un)fortunately (decide yourself), power is the only thing that makes sense in our world. There exists only struggle for power, not for existence (as Darwin thought).

- What is democracy?

- It got something to do with young men killing each other,
Arthur.

- When it comes my turn, will you want me to go?

- For democracy, any man would give his only begotten son.

ﾂ'Johnny got his gun'

Sounds terribly...

I don't want democracy to be a new religion. If some people don't have democracy, it doesn't mean that they are stupid or backward. Democracy is not a top of the humankind's evolution.

Sometimes the propagation of democracy reminds me of the propagation of Christianity.

Struggle for power is everywhere...


Sukotto, what do you think of Zbigniew Brzezinski?

I have just begun reading his book called ﾂ'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.' Very interesting stuff... Have you read it? Wonder to know your opinion!

P.S. Mikawa Ossan, thank you for your kind words.

 

[gaijinalways]

CR,

You have made a favorable impression here in this thread. Democracy recently in Japan and the US is more about the power of the few than of and for the people (but perhaps this has always been the case and I just became more aware of it recently).

Quote:Originally Posted by Crazy Russian
Does democracy mean only carrying about your own people?

Actually, this is a problem in all nations when ultranationalism takes hold.

 

[Sukotto]

Sukotto, what do you think of Zbigniew Brzezinski?
I have just begun reading his book called ﾂ'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.'

Z Brzezinski, eh?
Um, i've not read any of his stuff, but from what i take from hearing about him, he's kind of like the Democratic party's version of Henry Kissinger (except both major US parties seem to heap praise on Henry the K).
Brzezinski is '98 or '99 he said something like 'the US lured the Soviet Union into an Afghanistan Trap' and that the US was in Afghanistan a full 6 months before the Soviets were.

umm...., yeah.
real humanitarian there huh?
What a jerk, to put it nicely and rated G.

 

[Ho-te-ru]

japanese ppl is not interested in politics much because they are almost same policy.
that is , it does not change much...
they are using it as just power struggle..
when a matter of Privatization of postal services was occurd, we realized that clearly
of course. it is not applied when japan face a war
If I see the USA,there are two classes.
Poor, black, imigrants people... supprt Democratic party
rich.....Republican Party
japan does not have such classes

There are still ethnic or social class in Japan, think of the Ainu, Koreans that were taken to Japan during the war, Ryukyuan, workers from Iran and Brazil, Burakumin, Chinese people. People like Matsumoto Jiichiro were politically active for the Buraku

 

[caster51]

There are still ethnic or social class in Japan, think of the Ainu, Koreans that were taken to Japan during the war, Ryukyuan, workers from Iran and Brazil, Burakumin, Chinese people. People like Matsumoto Jiichiro were politically active for the Buraku

ﾂ？ﾂ？ﾂ？☝ ☝

their policies are sameﾂ eccept Communist Party
they may support Communist Party

 

[CBT1979]

democracies in EastAsia still at early stages

Compared to South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, the democratic understandings among its people are a bit better.
At least you won't see brawls and cursing inside the parliament in Japan unlike in Taiwan or South Korea.
As for Singapore, it is more a Pseudo-Democracy (while China is a Pseudo-Communism).
The only problem in Japan is that most citizens don't dare to vote for someone really new, I mean many of them are too conservative in political thinkings.
The democratic principle is good but usually often gets abused by politcians who wants power instead of really listening to the people. On the otherside, in most countries the majority of its citizens don't know really what is good for their country. Because the heart of a human is basically greedy and selfish.

 

[gs001]

Compared to South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, the democratic understandings among its people are a bit better.
At least you won't see brawls and cursing inside the parliament in Japan unlike in Taiwan or South Korea.
.

Anyone know where this happened?