Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi wasted little time this week celebrating her record electoral victory before declaring her ambitions to tackle something even greater: changing the country’s constitution.
Such an undertaking could only be realistically pursued by a government with a rare two-thirds supermajority. Takaichi met that threshold in the lower house on Sunday.
But even then, the hurdles to changing the world’s oldest unamended supreme constitutional text are dauntingly high.
As Japan’s first female prime minister, Takaichi has already become a symbol of change. Empowered by the biggest electoral triumph in Japan’s postwar history, she vowed on Monday to start the process of revising the constitution “with a firm eye”.
Why is Takaichi so keen to change the constitution?
Japan’s constitution, which came into force in 1947, was primarily written and imposed by the US during the postwar occupation of Japan.
Yet despite its fraught origins, the document is seen as the heart of modern Japan’s sense of nationhood. Public resistance to changing it has been consistently strong.
In particular, the Article 9 “peace clause”, which renounces war, has enshrined the country’s pacifism. Japan has reinterpreted those lines to allow the development of its Self-Defense Forces, a defence manufacturing industry and collective self-defence agreements with allies.
Takaichi’s Liberal Democratic Party, which has ruled Japan for most of the past 70 years, was founded with the specific focus of amending the constitution. Successive efforts, mostly aimed at altering Article 9, have failed. The strongest bid was made by Shinzo Abe, Takaichi’s mentor, who never managed to bring a parliamentary vote.
But Takaichi sees constitutional revision as a matter of national destiny, and her huge parliamentary majority as a unique opportunity to update a document suited to Japan’s future. “The constitution tells the story of the nation’s ideal form,” she said on Monday.
“Constitutional revision is the original mission of her party,” said Mieko Nakabayashi, political scientist at Waseda University. “Takaichi wants to do this out of loyalty to that mission, and to the supporters that gave her this big majority.”
How can she amend the constitution?
Amending Japan’s constitution is a deliberately difficult two-step process.
First, the proposed amendment must secure a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament. With 316 of the 465 seats in the lower house, Takaichi’s initial challenge lies in the upper chamber, where the LDP only holds 101 out of 248 seats and where no election is due until 2028.
She would probably need to engage in “horse-trading” with minority parties over other constitutional changes that meet their political priorities, such as the right to free education or national emergency procedures, said Kenneth McElwain, a professor at the University of Tokyo.
After passing through parliament, an amendment needs to secure a majority in a national referendum. Each amendment would be presented to the public individually for a “yes-no” vote on its concrete wording, rather than as a package.
This process has never been tested and could be very different from regular elections because of fewer restrictions on campaign financing.
Experts estimated that, if she succeeds in attaining parliamentary approval, Takaichi could push for a national referendum in spring or summer next year at the earliest.
What change is she likely to target first?
Takaichi faces a tactical choice: whether to target Article 9 first or to focus on less controversial issues before building up to the pacifism clause.
If she takes the latter path, she could seek to grant the prime minister greater decision-making power during natural disasters or terrorist attacks, add patriotic language around the national anthem or flag, or even attempt to lower the bar to future amendments.
Another, less confrontational option would be to add a clause that recognises the Self-Defense Forces, which could ease recruitment and place the enlisted on the same level as Japan’s police and fire services.
A thornier choice would be removing or amending the second sentence of Article 9, which states that “land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained”.
Takaichi signalled her ambitions on Monday, saying that “to defend one’s country with one’s own hands — no one will help a country that lacks that resolve”.
Will the public support her?
Takaichi’s electoral mandate may be huge, but turnout was the fifth lowest in the modern era. Those who grew up under a pacifist nation are likely to remain opposed to any change.
Polling has historically shown the country evenly divided on the need for constitutional revision, although analysts note an increasing share over the past 20 years of those who simultaneously feel the charter serves a positive role and that it should be changed to reflect modern times.
But the biggest challenge, according to Jeff Kingston at Tokyo’s Temple University, is that for most of the Japanese public, it isn’t a priority at all.
“Constitutional revision is really, really low down in terms of popular interest,” he said. “It may be the holy grail for conservatives, but most people don’t care: they are practical, they see that Japan already has a military and they don’t see much need to change things.”
How would the US and China respond?
China, which has been locked in a diplomatic row with Takaichi since the start of her premiership, is on high alert for any sign that she is changing Japan’s stance on pacifism. Within hours of her victory, Beijing warned Takaichi against “retracing the road of militarism”.
But the US would likely be content with the change, said David Boling, principal at The Asia Group, as Washington pushes its Pacific allies to take greater responsibility for regional security against a more assertive China.
He also noted that Japan has already made major changes to its defence posture, such as increasing spending.
“Higher spending and the move to collective self-defence all happened without any formal amendment. It’s now hard to argue the constitution is a real constraint,” he said.
“An amendment would carry symbolic meaning for Japan,” he added. Takaichi “can do whatever has domestic political support — and public backing for a stronger defence has grown”.