Abe takes license with interpretation of Constitution

For the economy he has arrows, for foreign policy he wants missiles, and for the Constitution, well, has just driven a tank over it. Either that or Shinzo Abe has a way with words that suggests imaginative writing rather than politics should be his calling.

Policies are often presented in poetry, and government is normally conducted in the less-idealistic manner of prose. But Abe's skills at reinterpretation require a linguistic flexibility that normally falls under the category of fiction.

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is written in a language that is crisp and clear and seems, at first glance, not to require any reinterpretation as the official English translation of the article shows.

"Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."

There is no clamor in Japan for changing it. Quite the opposite. Opinion polls show a clear majority against any change.

Reinterpreting the article is "a dangerous move that could lead to military actions by Japan's Self-Defense Forces abroad" and will "change the basic shape and defense posture of postwar Japan, which are based on its resolve not to repeat the mistake of treading the path to war".

These thunderous words were not issued by a marginalized dodgy think tank seeking publicity. They were part of a Japan Times editorial published on March 16.

Collective self-defense is a loosely defined phrase, and this is deliberate. The Japanese government wants to keep any definition abstract and open for interpretation. Aah, that word again, interpretation. Article 9 has been interpreted and reinterpreted and re-re-reinterpreted as to be effectively gutted of its original intent.

The key to Abe's ambition is not Article 9 but 96 and this too has to be reinterpreted.

Article 96 governs the procedures for amending the Constitution. Currently, a two-thirds majority in both houses is needed to change an article, followed by a referendum.

Abe wants a simple majority in both houses, without calling for a referendum, to enable wholesale changes to be made. His Liberal Democratic Party of Japan has been in power for all but a handful of the last 60 years. Getting a simple majority in both houses will not be an issue.

But so what? Why does it matter? The answer is simple. The very foundations for Japan's democracy are at stake, according to that same Japan Times editorial.

"Abe's attempt to skirt this requirement poses a real threat to Japan's constitutional democracy," it said. Even Abe would be challenged to reinterpret those words of warning.

The author is a senior copy editor of China Daily.

cliffordtomsan@hotmail.com