Saturday, May 04, 2013

Ishiba Shigeru's Party Rules

Yesterday was Constitution Day, a national holiday. Standing atop a van in Kagawa Prefecture, Liberal Democratic Party Secretary-General Ishiba Shigeru offered his take upon the document for which the holiday had been set aside, and the purpose for which his party -- the possessor of a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives, which makes it, under the Constitution, omnipotent -- exists:
"The Liberal Democratic Party is a party for doing what?...First and foremost, it a party for the revision of the Constitution."
(Link - J video)

To which a wag, had there been one in the audience, would have had the right to shout, "Great! Because you sure would not want to have anyone thinking the LDP's number one job for the last 56 years has been governing--not with the record you guys have!"

To which I would have added, "Which is not even half as bad their disgraceful record as a party in opposition."

Someone needs to take a look at the rhetoric Ishiba is employing and come to some sort of decision. Does he say the things he does as part of a clear strategy? Or does he shoot off his mouth at random, knowing that the worst thing that could happen to him is what is already happening to him -- namely that the man who pipped him in last fall's party presidental election, after Ishiba won the support of most of the local chapters, is leading a wildly popular government? And that despite being the secretary-general of the LDP, in charge of the party's day-to-day affairs, Ishiba is not all he could be because the #2 position is not all that it was, Abe Shinzo and his entourage having carried out a stealth Westministerization leaving the formal party apparatus and main party officers with plenty of status but little power?

Image courtesy: Shikoku News


Anonymous said...

One related query for you MTC: if the goal of revising Article 96 is to allow for easier passage of constitutional amendments, how is Article 96 - itself part of the constitution - apparently so easily changed? Why does that change to the constitution not require the two-thirds vote of the Diet? Or does it, and I'm stupidly misunderstanding the situation? If so, forgive my stupidity.

On another note, I'm digging the colour themed header images.

MTC said...

Anonymous -

You are not stupid. A few months ago I tried to work out how it would be possible to have 2/3rds of the House of Councillors in favor of revision. I could not find a way to the total. I have to try and see whether the current levels of popularity of the LDP and the JRA and the numbers of candidates each party has put up for election change the calculus.

Thank you for the feedback on the slightly altered header images.