By Kenta Sugawara

An Emergency Bill which is about to be made law by the Japanese government contains the provision which will grant the government great power to deal with a foreign attack; this goes against the Constitution of Japan, Article 9, the Renunciation of War. Although the Constitution proclaims that Japan renounces war, the Liberal Democratic Party, led by the Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, has introduced the legislation into the Diet. The solution to the controversial proposal, which runs in clear contradiction to the article in the Constitiution that renounces war and accepts the legal existence of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces is to hold a national referendum to decide whether the Japanese people agree to the bill or not.

Article 96 of the Constitution provides for the procedure to amend the Constitiution and states "Amendments to this Constitution shall be initiated by the Diet, through a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all members of each House and shall thereupon be submitted to the people for ratification, which shall require the affirmative vote of all votes cast thereon, at a special referendum or at such election as the diet shall specify."

Prime Minister Koizumi said, "It is vitally important that Japan pass the bill in order to preseve our national security and guard our lives, even though Japan is at present living in peace." The Japanese people may approve of the bill because the Japanese government will be able to organize military forces against another nation's attack more smoothly. However, if you consider that after World War �� the Japanese government established a law to protect its national security based on the Security Pact Treaty between the U.S and Japan, the present Japanese government is mistaken in its position to campaign actively or even aggressively.

Fifty-six years have passed since World War�� ended and the numbers of those who lived through the war are now decreasing. During the war, the Japanese government tied the people down with numerous laws, including the fearful terms of emergency and sovereignty based on the Meiji Constitution, the former Japanese Constitution. At the time, the government, taking the country's sovereignty and the Constituion into its own hands, governed the nation despotically and without consulting the opinion of the citizens.

When the present motion is carried by the majority of those members of the diet who approve of it, without considering the unfavorable opinions that other members may have―simply decided by a majority vote―then, clearly, the diet cannot reflect the will of the people. Moreover, when Prime Minister Koizumi was engaged in the election campaign, he said nothing whatever to the people about the bill he intended to bring concerning this controversial issue.

Democracy incurs obligations and responsibilities as well as seeking a national consensus. The ideal practice of national consensus must not be lost to Japanese Democracy. Yet while the members of the Diet are arguing about what to do with the bill, how to refer to it, and how to amend the Constitution in order to indicate clearly the content of the emergency bill, the Japanese citizen has not participated seriously in the debate over this amendment to the constitution. Citizens have not recognized the problem that the people face.

I hope that the Japanese government will not add this amendment to Article 9. Although Article 9 may be too ideal to cope with a national emergency if Japan is attacked by another country, it can speak to all nations of the need for building a lasting world peace. Yet, although there is a contradiction between an ideal Constitution and realistic legislation, Article 9 reminds the Japanese of peace as defined by the Constitution. All things considered, however, the Japanese government has to enact legislation that reflects the will of the people, but that entails that Japanese citizens must discuss the issue of the emergency bill and must decide whether to amend Article 9 or not.