(no subject)
Peter Duus, Party Rivalry and Political Change in Taishō Japan (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1968).
Duus traces the development of the two party system in Japanese politics, noting that the activities we see in the 1920s in regards to 'popular rights' are entirely separate from the 1880s jiyūminken (freedom and popular rights) groups, which were in Duus' telling, local groups held loosely together by national leaders, resembling political action groups more than political parties.
Despite placing the Taishō period in high relief thanks to the title, Duus is concerned with a swath of history from the late Meiji to early Shōwa. With the promulgation of the Meiji constitution in 1890, political parties as such - ones that a 1920s politician would describe as 'military in nature' - took about a decade to really gained steam, and power - not concern over the populous - became the be all, end all.
Duus goes into some depth examining the lives of Hara Kei (prime minister 1918-1921, founding member of the Seiyūkai) and Katō Kōmei (prime minister 1924-1926, Keiseikai) as a way to illustrate the shifting nature of high-level politics in the period he's examining. It's a very effective way to illustrate the party struggles and underscore the power-focused nature of politics (one of the most important things here is the 'party cabinet,' which had no provision in the constitution, but was an important conduit to power).
The idea that politicians are after political power isn't really a shock, but Duus deftly illustrates the concerns of high level politicians, maneuvering that would affect great numbers of people (e.g., universal suffrage), and the general political landscape of the period.
In a not terribly ringing endorsement, he concludes that while these 'established party' politicians may have had flaws & everyone loves to hate on them, they were much better for the country - or at least a lot less damaging - than the generals and bureaucrats of the '30s.
Duus traces the development of the two party system in Japanese politics, noting that the activities we see in the 1920s in regards to 'popular rights' are entirely separate from the 1880s jiyūminken (freedom and popular rights) groups, which were in Duus' telling, local groups held loosely together by national leaders, resembling political action groups more than political parties.
Despite placing the Taishō period in high relief thanks to the title, Duus is concerned with a swath of history from the late Meiji to early Shōwa. With the promulgation of the Meiji constitution in 1890, political parties as such - ones that a 1920s politician would describe as 'military in nature' - took about a decade to really gained steam, and power - not concern over the populous - became the be all, end all.
Duus goes into some depth examining the lives of Hara Kei (prime minister 1918-1921, founding member of the Seiyūkai) and Katō Kōmei (prime minister 1924-1926, Keiseikai) as a way to illustrate the shifting nature of high-level politics in the period he's examining. It's a very effective way to illustrate the party struggles and underscore the power-focused nature of politics (one of the most important things here is the 'party cabinet,' which had no provision in the constitution, but was an important conduit to power).
The idea that politicians are after political power isn't really a shock, but Duus deftly illustrates the concerns of high level politicians, maneuvering that would affect great numbers of people (e.g., universal suffrage), and the general political landscape of the period.
In a not terribly ringing endorsement, he concludes that while these 'established party' politicians may have had flaws & everyone loves to hate on them, they were much better for the country - or at least a lot less damaging - than the generals and bureaucrats of the '30s.