The Upper House as a Safety Valve

INTERVIEWER  The House of Councillors was launched as the “seat of good judgment.” But the electoral reforms of the 1990s created a system of electoral districts and proportional representation, not unlike that for the House of Representatives, and diminished the difference between the two chambers. Some contend that the upper house has become too powerful. Do you think the upper house should have a clearly differentiated role from that of the lower house?

WAKI  The bicameral system means there’s more time to discuss each piece of legislation. Some contend that government would become more efficient with just one legislative chamber, but that has its dangers. If the DPJ were allowed to implement all its policies when it was the government party, for example, it would have forced through bills that were seriously flawed. Some DPJ legislators, I feel, espouse views that are quite extremist. Judging by the results of the upper house election after the DPJ’s rise to power, when it failed to secure a majority, the public seems to share my concern.

So the upper house can act as a safety valve in a democracy, allowing voters to voice their objections to an administration without having to wait until the next lower house election, which may be four years away. The increased opportunities for the public to express its will can prevent administrations from implementing whatever policies they please on the strength of majority support in the Diet. That alone is reason enough to keep the upper house.

Another important role is to consider policy from a longer-term perspective, since upper house members face an election only once every six years, unlike their counterparts in the lower house, which may be dissolved at any time. To take full advantage of the arrangement, though, you’d have to assemble a diverse field of highly capable candidates.

Some people advocate creating different electoral systems for the two houses in view of their divergent roles, but I disagree. Different roles don’t mean we need different systems. I happen to believe that the current system is a good one that ensures a modicum of diversity. Proportional representation candidates are those endorsed by various interest groups, while those running from electoral districts are endorsed by the party’s local branches. All party headquarters needs to do is approve those nominees. It’s a highly efficient and effective system that gives stakeholders considerable say in the electoral process.

A Constitutional Amendment?

INTERVIEWER  One objection to the idea of bundling prefecture-based districts together was that it makes light of the differing needs of each prefecture, particularly those that are sparsely populated. If it is unconstitutional for residents in the less populated areas to have more voting power than urban dwellers, these critics say, then we should amend the Constitution.

WAKI  I’m not against the idea of a constitutional amendment. The people who are demanding that each prefecture should be guaranteed at least one councillor have a legitimate argument. But as long as the Constitution remains unchanged, the current vote disparities must be rectified.

The Supreme Court has basically said that the present system is unconstitutional, so we have to abide by its verdict. In a country where the rule of law prevails, that’s a must. The court’s ruling clearly indicates that the prefecture-based districts have to be reformed.

Members of the public have every right to insist on ensuring there is at least one councillor from every prefecture. But those of us in the public sector must respect the decisions of the Supreme Court. For cabinet members to insist on all prefectures being represented in the upper house shows their lack of awareness of their status as government officials.