LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
OUTLINE OF TOPICS: Local government under feudalism; periods of modern
local self-government; gradual development therein; prefectural
assemblies; candidates and electors; standing committee; sessions;
business; speaking; petitions; how bills become laws; powers of
prefectural assemblies, theoretical and practical; residents and
citizens of cities, towns, and villages; rights and duties of
citizens; administration in city, town, and village; city council;
town and village officials; city assembly; assemblymen; powers of
city assembly; town or village assembly; special provisions for
towns and villages; administration of territories; pacification of
Formosa; colonial government; policy in Formosa; political progress in
Japan.—Bibliography.
We have already noted incidentally in preceding chapters some of the
steps in the development of local self-government in Japan; and now we
must treat that subject more particularly. First it is well to observe
in passing that the steps from feudalism to local self-government were
not so difficult as might be imagined; for under the feudal system
local government by clans had prevailed.[98] And yet when feudalism
was abolished, the reconstruction of local government was entered
upon slowly and cautiously in order to minimize jealousies and other
obstacles.
Wigmore, in his articles[99] on this subject, divides the period from
1867 to 1889 into two parts (1867-1878 and 1878-1889), and explains
as follows: “The former was occupied with testing the capacity of the
people for self-government; the latter with extending to them a larger
and larger measure of power, and in advancing towards a proper degree
of decentralization.” As he wrote in 1890, he was just at the beginning
of the third period, what he himself calls “a new period,” during which
local self-government, under the new constitutional _régime_, was to be
still further expanded in the line of popular privileges.
After the Shōgunate fell, but before feudalism was formally abolished,
that is, from 1867 to 1871, the chiefs of the clans were allowed to
continue their administration of local affairs under the title of
_chi-hanji_ (local governor). But when feudalism was formally abolished
in 1871, these feudal lords were retired on annuities; their fiefs (263
in number) were incorporated, regardless of former geographical and
feudal boundaries, and with regard for convenience of administration
by the central government, into 72 _Ken_ and 3 _Fu_; and outsiders
were largely appointed to the position of governor in these new local
governments. The first attempts on the part of the central government
to consult local public opinion were by means of meetings of the local
officials; but the people were gradually allowed, in rather an informal
and limited way, to have a voice in certain matters. In 1878, however,
as we have seen, prefectural assemblies, the members of which should be
chosen by popular election, were established; and just ten years later
a law extending local self-government to cities, towns, and villages
was enacted, to go into effect in 1889. And these two agencies of local
self-government in Japan are worthy of a little study.
The Japanese _Kenkwai_ and _Fukwai_ correspond, in general, with an
American State legislature, but differ in many respects, because they
are part of a centralized national administration. They are “to counsel
about the budget of expenses to be met by local taxation, and about
the manner of collecting such taxes.” The members are elected in each
_Ken_ or _Fu_ according to the population, at the rate of 1 member for
each 20,000 people. Each electoral district may also elect _yobi-in_
(reserve members), twice the number of regular members. As their name
indicates, they are to take the places of regular members who may for
any reason be unable to serve. It is, therefore, unlikely that there
would ever be a vacancy to be filled by a special election; for each
member has two “substitutes” ready to step into his vacant place! The
term of service covers 4 years; but half of the members retire every 2
years. Each member receives an emolument of 1 _yen_ _per diem_ during
the session, and travelling expenses.
A candidate for representative in a prefectural assembly must be over
25 years of age, a permanent resident of that _Ken_ or _Fu_, and be
paying an annual land-tax of more than 10 _yen_. Voters in such an
election must be over 20 years of age, permanent residents of that
_Ken_ or _Fu_, and be paying annual land-taxes of more than 5 _yen_.
There are about 2,000,000 voters in all.
From among the members, the assembly elects a “standing committee of
from five to seven persons,” who serve for a period of two years.
They remain in the capital throughout the year, to give advice when
the Governor asks it about the manner and order of carrying out the
enactments of the assembly and about the payment of extraordinary
expense. A member of this committee receives “from 30 _yen_ to 80 _yen_
per month, and travelling expenses.”
The ordinary annual session of an assembly opens some time in November
and continues for not more than 30 days. But the Governor has power to
call a special session and to suspend an assembly; while the power to
prorogue an assembly rests with the Minister of State for Home Affairs.
Each session of an assembly is formally “opened” by the Governor;
and the business to come before the assembly is presented in bills
originating with him and his subordinates. At any time, when a member
of the assembly wishes explanations concerning any matter within the
purview of the assembly, the Governor or his representative must
explain. In fact, such officials may speak at any time, provided they
do not interrupt the speech of a member; but they have no vote.
[Illustration: NAVAL LEADERS OF JAPAN
ADMIRAL ENOMOTO
ADMIRAL KABAYAMA
]
When a member wishes to address the assembly, he rises, calls out
“_Gichō_” (Chairman), and gives the number of his seat. When the
chairman has recognized him by repeating that number, he “has the
floor.”[100]
If other matters, besides those included in the “original bill(s)” of
the Governor, seem to at least two members to warrant discussion, they
present these matters in the form of petitions; and if the assembly
grants permission, these petitions may be discussed, like bills.
No bill becomes a law until it has been signed by the Governor. If the
latter does not agree with a bill, he may appeal to the Department of
Home Affairs, where it will be finally decided.
If we now endeavor to measure the extent and limitations of the
power of a Japanese prefectural assembly, we may say that in theory
a _Kenkwai_ or a _Fukwai_ is by no means entirely independent of
the central government, nor does it possess absolute control of the
matters of its own _Ken_ or _Fu_. It will be noticed that in all cases
the final ratification or decision rests with the Governor or the
Department of Home Affairs. The latter also has the power in its own
hands of suspending an assembly at its discretion. It would seem, then,
that theoretically a _Fukwai_ or a _Kenkwai_ is pretty much under the
control of the central government, and has very little real power of
its own. Its nature appears more like that of an elective advisory
board than of a legislative body.
But, in practice and in fact, a wise Governor, though he is an
appointive officer of the central government, does not often put
himself in opposition to public opinion, unless it be a case of the
greatest importance; and the Department of Home Affairs is loath to
exercise authority unless it is absolutely necessary. The central
government holds the power to control these assemblies if it should
be necessary; but it also respects public opinion, and allows local
self-government as far as possible.[101]
The extension of local self-government to cities, towns, and villages
(_shi_, _chō_, and _son_) led to the introduction into the Japanese
language of several special terms, like _jūmin_ (resident) and _kōmin_
(citizen), and to a careful distinction between the respective rights
and duties of the two. The “residents” of a city [town or village]
include “all those who have their residence in the city [town or
village], without distinction of sex, age, color, nationality, or
condition in life.” A “citizen,” however, must be “an independent male
person,” that is, one who has completed his twenty-fifth year and has
a household; he must be “a subject of the empire and in the enjoyment
of his civil rights”; and for two years he must have been a resident
of the given local division, must have contributed toward its common
burdens, and must have paid therein a “national land-tax of 2 or more
_yen_ in other direct national taxes.” The rights of a citizen over and
above his rights as a resident are simply but comprehensively stated.
They consist in the privilege of voting in the local elections, and
of eligibility to the honorary offices. There is, however, a slight
qualification of this seemingly universal citizen suffrage. Those
whose citizenship, for reasons to be given later, is suspended, and
“those who are in actual military or naval service,” are disfranchised.
Companies, however, and “other juristic persons” are entitled to the
suffrage on similar conditions with individuals.[102]
But when we come to consider the duties of a citizen, we find peculiar
conditions. The citizen of a Japanese city, town, or village, is under
obligation to fill any honorary office to which he may be elected
or appointed; and except for certain specified reasons he cannot
decline official service without being “subjected to suspension of
citizenship for from three to six years, together with an additional
levy, during the same period, of from one-eighth to one-quarter more
than his ordinary share of contribution to the city expenditure.” Here
is compulsory “public spirit”! On the whole, citizenship seems to be
regarded more as a duty than as a privilege; and the citizens best
qualified to fill official positions of trust would find it much more
difficult than in America to “keep out of politics.”
The administration of local affairs in city, town, or village is
more or less centralized. In the cities the origination and the
administration of the local laws devolves upon a “city council”; and in
the towns and the villages, upon certain chiefs and their deputies.
A city council consists of a mayor, his deputy, and a certain number
of honorary councilmen. The mayor is appointed directly by the Emperor
from among three candidates previously selected by the city assembly, a
body to be described later. The deputy-mayor and councilmen are elected
by the city assembly. The councilmen hold office for four years, but
half of them retire every two years. In the case of a very large city
it is permissible to divide the city into _Ku_ (wards), each with its
own chief and deputy and even council and assembly. The functions of a
city council include the preparation of business for the city assembly
and the execution of the decisions of the assembly; the administration
of the city revenue, and the carrying out of the budget voted by the
assembly; and general superintendence of city affairs.
In towns or villages these duties devolve upon the mayors and deputies,
who are elected by the town or village assembly from among the local
citizens.
The city assembly, already mentioned, is a popular representative body.
The number of members varies, in proportion to the population, from
thirty to sixty; and the membership is divided into three classes,
elected by three classes of voters, according to the amount of taxes
paid by the electors to the city. The object of this division, copied
from the Prussian system of local government, seems to be to give the
highest tax-payers a power and a representation greater than what they
might secure by mere proportion of numbers.[103]
The assemblymen hold office for six years, are eligible for
re-election, and, like the councilmen, draw no salary, but receive
“compensation for the actual expenses needed for the discharge of their
duties.” The assemblymen go out in rotation every two years.
The principal matters to be decided by the city assembly, besides the
election of certain city officials by secret ballot, are as follows:
the making and altering of city by-laws and regulations; the voting of
the budget and all matters involving expense; the modes of imposing and
collecting all kinds of taxes; the incurring of a new liability or the
relinquishment of an acquired right; the modes of management of city
property and establishments; etc.
The constitution of a town or village assembly is also based upon the
population, according to a fixed ratio. But in the grouping of electors
according to the amount of taxes paid, there are only two classes. The
rules, powers, and functions of a town or village assembly correspond
exactly to those of the city assembly.
There are, in the case of towns and villages, two provisions which
are not necessary in the case of cities. One provision prescribes a
method by which two or more towns or villages, by mutual agreement and
with the permission of the superintending authority, may form a union
for the common administration of affairs that are common to them. The
other provision prescribes that, by a town or village by-law, decided
upon by the _Gun_ council, “a small town or village may substitute for
the town or village assembly _a general meeting of all citizens having
suffrage_.” This appears to be an imitation, in theory at least, of the
Anglo-Saxon town meeting and village assembly.
The privileges of local self-government are extended to all parts
of the empire except Hokkaidō and Formosa, which are administered as
“territories” by the central government. In Hokkaidō, moreover, a small
measure of local administration has been granted, and this will be
enlarged as rapidly as possible. But Japanese rule in Formosa is worthy
of special consideration, because it is illustrative of what Japan can
do in bringing enemies under her jurisdiction into harmony with her
government. Japanese colonial government in Formosa may be called a
success.
When Formosa[104] was ceded by China to Japan in 1895, it was well
understood that the Japanese had no easy task in pacifying the Chinese,
civilizing the savages, and thus bringing the beautiful isle, with its
great resources, under cultivation and proper restraint. But, by a wise
combination of military force and civil government, Japan has achieved
a remarkable success.
At first, for a brief period, Formosan affairs were under a separate
department of State, that of Colonization; but when administrative
economy and reform were demanded, this department was abolished,
and the Governor-General of Formosa, appointed by the Emperor upon
recommendation of the Cabinet, was made directly responsible to the
Cabinet. At first, of course, mistakes were made, and a great deal of
incapacity and corruption manifested themselves in official circles.
But, by a gradual weeding out of the incompetent and the dishonest,
the civil service has been greatly improved. Especially in dealing
with opium smoking and foot-binding among the Chinese has the Japanese
government shown remarkable tact. And it has also encouraged local
administration among the natives to the extent of employing them in
subordinate positions where they can be trained for future usefulness.
The general policy of Japan in Formosa has been stated succinctly by
Count Kabayama: “Subjugate it from one side by force of arms, and then
confer on the subjugated portion the benefits of civil government.”
It is the expressed determination to make Formosa, “body, soul, and
spirit,” a part of their empire; and reliable testimony shows that they
are making a success of their labors.[105]
We have now noticed the chief features of local self-government as
applied in Japan to prefectures, counties, cities, towns, and villages.
Although there are many enactments against which the democratic ideas
of Americans would revolt, the system is certainly well adapted to
the present needs and capabilities of Japan. It is an interesting
fact that Japan’s political institutions have been developed, since
the Restoration of 1868, from the top downward. In Japan the people
are conservative, and the government is progressive; and the people
are simply under the necessity of growing up to political privileges
that are gradually bestowed upon them. And we may feel assured that,
as the people show themselves capable of exercising power, their
privileges will be gradually extended. We should not find fault
with Japan, because in only a few years she has not leaped into the
enjoyment of political privileges which the English and American people
obtained only after centuries of slow and often bloody development;
but we should congratulate Japan, because by peaceful measures she
has gradually removed herself entirely out of the pale of Oriental
absolutism, beyond even despotic Russia, and may be classed with her
model, Germany.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Especially helpful are Iyenaga’s “Constitutional Development of
Japan,” Wigmore’s articles in the “Nation,” and several papers in the
Transactions Asiatic Society of Japan. See also the author’s “Local
Self-Government in Japan” in the “Political Science Quarterly” for
June, 1892, and “A Japanese State Legislature” in the “Nation” for
February 27, 1890. On the subject of Formosa, besides Davidson’s book
already mentioned, see chap. xiv. of Ransome’s “Japan in Transition,”
pp. 167, 169, of Diosy’s “New Far East,” and Takekoshi’s “Japanese
Rule in Formosa.”