CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERIALISM
OUTLINE OF TOPICS: The “Charter Oath” of Japan; popular agitation;
promise of a national assembly; a red-letter year; the “Magna Charta”
of Japan; Imperial prerogatives; personality of Emperor and Empress;
Crown Prince and Princess; Imperial grandchildren; Privy Council;
Imperial Cabinet; Departments of State; sundry comments; House of
Peers; House of Commons; some “firsts”; rights and duties of subjects;
criticisms of Japanese politics; popular rights; personnel of two
Houses; cabinet responsibility; political parties; persons and
principles; constitutional system satisfactory.—Bibliography.
When the Revolution, or Restoration, of 1868 ended the usurpation, and
overthrew the despotism of the Shōgun, the young Emperor, Mutsuhito,
restored to his ancestral rights as the actual sole ruler of the
empire, took solemn oath that “a deliberative assembly should be
formed; all measures be decided by public opinion; the uncivilized
customs of former times should be broken through; the impartiality and
justice displayed in the workings of nature be adopted as a basis of
action; and that intellect and learning should be sought for throughout
the world, in order to establish the foundations of the empire.” In
that same year an assembly of representatives of the clans was called
to meet in the capital, and was given the title of _Shūgi-in_ (House
of Commons). It consisted of _samurai_ (knights) from each clan; and
as they were appointed by each _daimyō_ (prince), the body was a
purely feudal, and not at all a popular, assembly. In 1871 feudalism
was abolished, and later a senate was established; but that was an
advisory body, consisting of officials appointed by the Emperor and
without legislative power. In 1875 the Emperor convoked a council of
the officers of the provincial governments with a purpose stated as
follows: “We also call a council of the officials of our provinces,
so that the feelings of the people may be made known and the public
welfare attained. By these means we shall gradually confer upon the
nation a constitutional form of government. The provincial officials
are summoned as the representatives of the people in the various
provinces, that they may express their opinion on behalf of the people.”
But a body so constituted and rather conservative could not satisfy
the demands of the new age. Itagaki (now Count) insisted that the
government should “guarantee the establishment of a popular assembly,”
and organized societies, or associations, for popular agitation of the
subject. Petitions and memorials poured in upon the government, within
whose circles Ōkuma (now Count), Minister of Finance, was most active
in the same direction. In the mean time (1878) provincial assemblies,
the members of which were chosen by popular election, had been
established as a preparatory measure.
It was on October 12, 1881, that the Emperor issued his memorable
proclamation that a National Assembly should be opened in 1890. That
proclamation read as follows:—
“We therefore hereby declare that we shall, in the 23rd year of
Meiji, establish a Parliament, in order to carry into full effect the
determination we have announced, and we charge our faithful subjects
bearing our commissions to make, in the mean time, all necessary
preparations to that end. With regard to the limitations upon the
Imperial prerogative, and the constitution of the Parliament, we shall
decide hereafter, and shall make proclamation in due time.”
From that time on there was progress, “steadily, if slowly, in the
direction of greater decentralization and broader popular prerogative.”
The year 1889 was a red-letter year in the calendar of Japan’s
political progress. On February 11 was promulgated that famous
document[89] which took Japan forever out of the ranks of Oriental
despotisms and placed her among constitutional monarchies; and on April
1 the law of local self-government for city, town, and village went
into effect.
The Japanese Constitution has very appropriately been called “the
Magna Charta of Japanese liberty.” It was not, however, like the famous
English document, extorted by force from an unwilling monarch and a
cruel tyrant, but was voluntarily granted by a kind and loved ruler at
the expense of his inherited and long-established rights. The present
Emperor holds the throne according to the native tradition, perpetuated
even in the language of the Constitution, by virtue of a “lineal
succession unbroken for ages eternal.” But even though rigid criticism
compels us to reject as more or less mythological the so-called
“history” of about 1,000 years; and although Yoshihito, therefore, may
not be really the 123d ruler of the line from the Japanese Romulus
(Jimmu), nevertheless he remains the representative of the oldest
living dynasty in the world. If, then, time is a factor in confirming
the claims and rights of a ruler, no king or emperor of the present day
has a better title. And his father, born and bred in the atmosphere of
Oriental absolutism and despotism, “in consideration of the progressive
tendency of the course of human affairs, and in parallel with the
advance of civilization,”[90] voluntarily and generously admitted his
people to a share in the administration of public affairs.
That important document, which signed away such strongly acquired
and inherited prerogatives, at the outset, however, seems far from
generous. The Emperor, “sacred and inviolate,” is “the head of the
empire,” combining in himself the rights of sovereignty; but he
“exercises them according to the provisions of the Constitution.” It is
only “in consequence of an urgent necessity to maintain public safety
or to avert public calamities,” that the Emperor, “when the Imperial
Diet is not sitting,” may issue “Imperial Ordinances in place of law.”
But these ordinances must be approved by the Imperial Diet at its next
session, or become “invalid for the future.” To the Emperor is reserved
the function of issuing ordinances necessary for carrying out the laws
passed by the Diet or for the maintenance of public peace and order;
but “no Ordinance shall in any way alter any of the existing laws.”
The Emperor also determines the organization of the various branches
of the government, appoints and dismisses all officials, and fixes
their salaries. Moreover, he has “the supreme command of the army and
navy,” whose organization and peace standing he determines; “declares
war, makes peace, and concludes treaties”; “confers titles of nobility,
rank, orders, and other marks of honor”; and “orders amnesty, pardon,
commutation of punishments and rehabilitation.”
Now it must be quite evident to the most casual reader that, in
carrying out this Constitution, patterned after that of Germany, much
depends upon the Emperor and his personality. One, like Kōmei (the
father of the recent Emperor), bigoted and intent upon resisting any
infringement, to the slightest degree, upon his “divine rights,” could
create a great deal of friction in the administration of affairs. But,
fortunately for Japan and the world, Mutsuhito was not at all inclined
to be narrow-minded, selfish, and despotic, but was graciously pleased
to be the leader of his subjects in broader and better paths. And
although the Empress had no share in the administration and wisely kept
“out of politics,” her popularity enhanced the interest felt in the
reign recently closed.[91]
It is, moreover, fortunate for Japan that the new Emperor, Yoshihito,
is also a man of most liberal ideas and progressive tendencies. He has
had a broad education, by both public and private instruction, and
a careful training for the career that lies before him; and he will
undoubtedly be found ready to extend popular privileges just so far as
conditions warrant. Seated on the ancestral throne, he is the first
Japanese Emperor who has received any education in public; for it was
in the _Gakushūin_—or Nobles’ School, as it is called in English—that
he completed the elementary course.[92] After that, on account of poor
health, he was compelled to pursue his studies under private tutors.
And that the Imperial line will, in all human probability, remain
“unbroken” for many years, is rendered likely by the fact that the
Emperor and the Empress Sada have been blessed with three healthy sons,
Princes Michi, Atsu, and Teru, who are being brought up by professional
“tutors,” Count and Countess Kawamura, away from court life, with such
care as the needs of said Imperial line demand.
But, to return from this digression to the subject of the Constitution,
another body recognized by that document is the Privy Council
(_Sumitsu-In_), appointed by the Emperor and consulted by him upon
certain matters of State. It consists of 1 President, 1 Vice-President,
25 Councillors, and 1 Secretary, with 5 assistants; and it is composed
of “personages who have rendered signal service to the State and who
are distinguished for their experience,” such as ex-Ministers of
State and others, whose “valuable advice on matters of State” would
naturally be sought. The matters coming within the cognizance of the
Privy Council are specified as follows: Matters which come under its
jurisdiction by the Law of the Houses (of Parliament); drafts and
doubtful points relating to articles of the Constitution, and to laws
and ordinances dependent to the Constitution; proclamation of the law
of siege and certain Imperial ordinances; international treaties; and
matters specially called for. The Ministers of State are, _ex officio_,
members of the Privy Council; but although it is “the Emperor’s highest
resort of counsel, it shall not interfere with the Executive.”
The Cabinet includes the holders of 10 portfolios: those of the
Minister President, or Premier; the Minister of Foreign Affairs; the
Minister of Home Affairs; the Minister of Finance; the Minister of
the Army, or War; the Minister of the Navy; the Minister of Justice;
the Minister of Education; the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce;
and the Minister of Communications. There is one other official who
holds the title of Minister, but is not a member of the Cabinet, that
is, the Minister of the Imperial Household. When the Cabinet is fully
organized, it contains 10 members; but occasionally circumstances
compel the Premier or some other Minister to hold an extra portfolio,
at least temporarily. Each department of state has its own subordinate
officials, most of whom hold office under civil-service rules and are
not removable.
The titles of the departments are mostly self-explanatory, and
correspond in general to similar departments in Occidental countries;
but in some cases there are vital differences, especially in comparison
with the United States Cabinet. In a paternal government, like that
of Japan, the Minister of Home Affairs holds a much more important
position than our Secretary of the Interior, for he has the general
oversight of the police system and the prefectural governments; the
Minister of Justice holds a broader position than our Attorney-General;
and the Minister of Communications has the oversight, not of the postal
system only, but also of telegraphs, telephones, railways, and other
modes of conveyance and communication. In general, as will be observed,
the Japanese Government owns many institutions which, in our country,
are entrusted to private enterprise.
The Premier receives a salary of 9,600 _yen_, and other ministers
receive 6,000 _yen_, besides official residence and sundry allowances.
In most cases the real work of each department is performed by the
subordinate officials, while the frequently changing[93] Ministers of
State are only nominal heads of the departments. The two portfolios
of the Army and the Navy, however, have been taken out of politics,
and are not subject to change whenever a ministry goes out of office.
Ministers of State, as well as governmental delegates, specially
appointed for the purpose, “may, at any time, take seats and speak in
either House” of the Imperial Diet.
The Imperial Diet of Japan consists of two Houses, the House of Peers
and the House of Commons. The membership of the former comprises three
classes,—hereditary, elective, and appointive.[94] The members of the
Imperial Family and of the orders of Princes and Marquises possess the
hereditary tenure. From among those persons who have the titles of
Count, Baron, and Viscount a certain number are chosen by election,
for a term of seven years. The Emperor has the power of appointing
for life membership a limited number of persons, deserving on account
of meritorious services to the State or of erudition. Finally, in
each _Fu_ and _Ken_ one member is elected from and among the highest
tax-payers and appointed by the Emperor, for a term of seven years.
The members of the House of Commons are always elected by ballot
in accordance with the Election Law, by which they now number 379.
Their term of office is four years, unless they lose their seats by
dissolution of the Diet, as has often happened. “Those [persons] alone
shall be eligible [as candidates], that are male Japanese subjects, of
not less than full thirty years of age, and that in the _Fu_ or _Ken_
in which they desire to be elected, have been paying direct national
taxes to an amount of not less than 15 _yen_, for a period of not less
than one year previous to the date of making out the electoral list,
and that are still paying that amount of direct national taxes.”[95]
Certain officials, as well as military and naval officers, are
ineligible. A voter must be full twenty-five years of age; must have
actually resided in that _Fu_ or _Ken_ for one year; and must have been
paying direct national taxes of not less than 10 _yen_. The limits of
an electoral district include a whole _Fu_ or _Ken_, except that an
incorporated city (_Shi_) forms one or more districts by itself. And
the number of the latter kind of districts has been increased lately,
so that urban populations might have a more adequate representation.
The plan of unsigned uni-nominal ballots is employed. The present
number of eligible voters is a little over one million.
[Illustration: DEPARTMENTS OF STATE: NAVY; AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE;
JUSTICE; FOREIGN AFFAIRS]
The first election under the Constitution took place (whether
designedly or accidentally, I know not), by a curious coincidence,
on _July 4_, 1890; and the first session of the Imperial Diet opened
on November 29, 1890. On December 2 the House of Peers received the
first bill ever presented to a National Assembly in Japan; and on
December 4 the first Budget (for 1891) was laid before the House of
Representatives by Count Matsukata, Minister of Finance.
Some notice must be taken of the rights and duties of subjects under
the Japanese Constitution. All such persons are eligible to civil
and military offices; amenable to service in the army and the navy,
and the duty of paying taxes, according to law; have the liberty of
abode, inviolate right of property, right of trial by law, and freedom
of speech, writing, publication, public meeting, association, and
religious belief, “within the limits of law”; cannot be arrested,
detained, tried, or punished, “unless according to law,” and can
claim inviolate secrecy of correspondence. Moreover, “the house of no
Japanese subject shall be entered or searched without his consent,”
except in due process of law. All subjects may also present petitions,
“by observing the proper forms of respect.” The freedom of religious
belief is granted “within limits not prejudicial to peace and order,
and not antagonistic to their duties as subjects.” These “rights” are
old to Anglo-Saxons, but new to Japanese.
Now we often see and hear rather uncomplimentary statements about
the Imperial Diet, political parties, cabinet ministers, and Japanese
political affairs in general, and are even told that Japan is only
“playing” with parliamentary and representative institutions, that her
popular assemblies are mere “toys,” her constitutional government is
all a “farce,” and her new civilization is nothing but a “bib.” Such
criticisms, however, result either from ignorance or from a wrong point
of view. It is undeniably true that, viewed from the vantage-ground
attained by popular institutions and constitutional government in many
Occidental nations, Japan is still lagging behind. It is not fair,
however, to judge her by our own standards; the only just way is to
estimate carefully the exact difference between her former and her
present conditions. This the author has tried to do elsewhere in a
pamphlet[96] on “Constitutional Government in Japan,” in which he has
given a sketch of the workings of the Japanese Constitution during
the first decade, or period, of its history. From that he quotes the
following conclusions:—
The progress made during the first decade of constitutional government
in Japan was considerable. In the first place, popular rights were
largely expanded by the removal of most of the restrictions on freedom
of the press and public meeting; as much extension of the electoral
franchise as seems warranted was accomplished; and public opinion, as
voiced in the newspapers and magazines, was wielding an increased and
constantly increasing influence.
On this point the “Japan Times” says: “No one who goes into the country
and compares the present degree of the people’s political education
with what it was ten years ago, can fail to be struck by the immense
progress achieved during that interval.”
In the second place, the character of the two Houses of the Imperial
Diet has greatly improved. The inexperienced have given way to the
experienced, the ignorant to the intelligent; so that, after six
elections, the personnel of the House of Representatives is of a much
better quality, and the House of Peers has been quickened by the
infusion of new blood. Experience, as usual, has been a good teacher.
In the third place, the Cabinet, theoretically responsible to the
Emperor because appointed by him on his own sole authority, is
practically responsible to the Imperial Diet and must command the
support of a majority of that body. Hereafter it would seem that
dissolution of the Diet is not likely to occur as often as dissolution
of the Cabinet.
The one weak point in this situation is that, although the principle
of party cabinets is thus established, its practical application is
difficult of realization, simply because there are no true political
parties in Japan. There are many so-called “parties,” which are really
only factions, bound together by personal, class, geographical, or
mercantile ties, and without distinctive principles. One “party”
is actually Count Ōkuma’s following; another is Count Itagaki’s;
another is called “the business men’s party”; another is composed of
politicians of the Northeast; and another tries to maintain the old
clan alliances; so in 1913 Prince Katsura assumed leadership of a new
progressive party.[97]
But it is, nevertheless, true that “Japan is at length passing out
of the epoch of persons and entering the era of principles,” when,
of course, will speedily come the development of parties. It is not,
perhaps, strange that the personality of the great statesmen who made
New Japan possible has been felt for so long a time, nor that the able
men of the rising generation have begun to chafe a little under the
prolonged control of those older statesmen. But, as the “Japan Times”
says, “the conflict between the old and the new elements of political
power, the so-called clan statesmen and the party politicians, has been
so far removed that the time is already in sight when the country will
see them working harmoniously under the same banner and with the same
platform.” Such was apparently the case in the Seiyukwai, Marquis Itō’s
new party, organized in 1900, the closing year of the first decade
of Japanese constitutionalism. And this problem of political parties
is the great one to be solved in the second period of constitutional
government in Japan.
We may, therefore, conclude that the working of the new system of
government has, on the whole, been satisfactory. We must acknowledge,
with the “Japan Mail,” that “it would be altogether extravagant
to expect that Japan’s new constitutional garments should fit her
perfectly from the first. They are too large for her. She has to
grow into them, and of course the process is destined to be more
or less awkward.” We must agree with Prince Itō, the author of the
Constitution, not only that there has been the experimental period,
but also that “excellent results have thus far been obtained, when it
is remembered how sudden has been the transition from feudalism to
representative institutions.” We ought, indeed, to bear in mind, that,
when the Constitution was promulgated, Japan was only eighteen years
out of feudalism and twenty-one years out of military despotism; so
that, by both the Oriental and the Occidental reckoning, New Japan had
only just come “of age” politically. She seems, therefore, deserving
of the greatest credit for the progress of the first decade of
constitutionalism.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
“The Story of Japan” (Murray), “Advance Japan” (Morris), and “The
Yankees of the East” (Curtis), give some information here and there
about the government of Japan. But especially helpful are Wigmore’s
articles in the “Nation” and “Scribner’s Monthly,” Iyenaga’s
“Constitutional Development of Japan,” Knapp’s “Feudal and Modern
Japan,” Count (now Marquis) Itō’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of
the Empire of Japan,” and Lay’s “History of Japanese Political Parties”
(Transactions Asiatic Society of Japan, vol. xxx. part iii.). See also
“The Political Ideas of Modern Japan” (Kawakami), and “Dai Nippon”
(Dyer), chaps. xiii. and xiv. Uycharu’s “Political Development of Japan
(1867-1909)” is the latest and best.