Apres moi, le deluge: On the Failure of the DPJ

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

So, yesterday Japan returned the Liberal Democrat Party to power. The newly-elected prime minister, Shinzo Abe, was not terribly effusive about his party's victory.

"Our victory this time does not mean trust in the Liberal Democratic Party has been completely restored," he told a news conference on Monday.

"Rather, it was a decision by the public that they should put an end to the political stagnation and confusion over the past three years, caused by the Democratic Party's misguided political leadership." [Source]

Remarkable -- a politician who doesn't immediately claim an overwhelming mandate, who recognizes his party's weaknesses. Maybe it's a cultural thing.

The thing is, he's right. Abe's party is the default in Japan. They've been out of power for just over four out of the last 57 years. They are the establishment. The DPJ was the opposition, and when they came into power, they were like a dog chasing cars -- they had no idea what to do with it once they caught it. Their administration was marked by political chaos, with a new Prime Minister every year. Their party splintered early, and their response to the Fukushima disaster -- arguably the most important point in the last three years -- was underwhelming.

I think this comes down to the Japanese system as a whole. As I said, the LDP is the default. The DPJ is reactionary, "revolutionary" in their own terms. They are the opposition, with no governing experience, no experience being anything but the party of "no." And that was fatal to their chances of governing effectively. Their coalition only held as long as they were all fighting the same battles, and they were clearly incapable of implementing their policies or even managing their PR. Governing is like anything else, in that it takes practice, and nobody but the LDP has had any in Japan. Their political system is just reverting to the mean.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

To me Japan is the only example in the world of a 'democratic' one-party state (well, with the exception of that short-lived cabinet). It's for this reason that I sometimes question how much a one-party state can be democratic in practice, even if it's like this Japanese party.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Mexico under the PRi? They had a 70 year run and are back in power again.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I don't think any definition of democracy would include the PRI. Now dictatorship, OTOH, would fit it at multiple levels.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Well, in that case, the same could be said of Japan under the LDP, no? At what point does single party rule morph into dictatorship? Let's leave aside the earliest history since both are rooted in violence.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No. The LDP didn't open fire on the supporters of the other side when it lost the election unlike the PRI's actions in the 1960s when it stood a chance to do that. That the LDP yielded power voluntarily shows it straddles the line but is not over it.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Well, the PRI also yielded power voluntarily, despite their actions in the 60's. And the LDP never faced the kind of social upheaval in the post war era that Mexico did. You have to acknowledge that Mexico and Japan are very different cultures, with different perspectives on authority, that has to be part of the calculation. The LDP never opened fire because they were never faced with that choice because that isn't the way thing work Japan.

(I'm not trying to exonerate the PRI here. It has been a disaster for Mexico in a way the lLDP never was for Japan, that up is clear.)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It did in the end. Then again so did Gorbachev, which didn't mean he wasn't ruling a dictatorship. I would agree that Mexico and Japan have very different cultures, but Mexico's has included a string of serial dictatorships. Japan's has been more a string of object lessons about why generals need to be controlled by civilians. Either way, the LDP has been more democratic than the PRI. I do not think that their being so requires very much, however.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Not to be contrary, as I'm no expert, but would Singapore fall under this as well? Their ruling party has been dominant since independence and they don't seem to have done so through corruption (as opposed to Malaysia, which does seem to have more corruption and coercion). Malaysia has had the same coalition (so not really single party) in power since independence.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Absolutely they would. Singapore is one of the most authoritarian regimes currently in existence. Its prosperity can work only because it's a geographically small area. Do what Singapore does on a vast scale and you get a generic totalitarian dictatorship run by an egomaniac like that guy in I think it was Turkmenistan who tried renaming months of the calendar after himself. Well, that did work for Julius and Augustus Caesar....