enu jii ooh
The Role of Voluntary Citizens and NGOs in Japanese Policy Formation
Nicole Murray
During my yearlong stay in Japan, although I was unable to participate in Japanese politics, it appeared to me that despite the existence of many political, economic, and social problems, Japanese citizens did not participate in the political system in order to remedy them. One reason I could observe was social - the Japanese use the phrase, “Shou ga nai,” (It can’t be helped), in response to a myriad of problems as a pacifier and reason not to get involved. I wish now to look deeper into the Japanese political culture to see if there are any underlying reasons there for lack of participation or voice from citizens, specifically NGOs.
I believe that due to cultural and political reasons, Japanese NGOs do not play a significant role in forming political, economic, or social policy.
Status of Japanese NGOs
Compared to other developed nations, Japanese NGOs aren’t nearly as numerous or powerful. According to Japan’s former Economic Planning Agency, there are about 85,000 NGOs in a population of about 120,000,000. Russia has a comparable population, about 140,000,000, yet boasts about 400,000 NGOs. Why the low number in Japan?
Robert Mason in his assessment of environmental activism in Japan says, “Funding and scope of activities are limited; access to policy-making processes, when present, is largely informal; access to information is highly restricted; and ability to sue is limited.”
Finding adequate funding is one of the most pressing challenges of Japanese NGOs. Corporate charitable giving has been decreasing over the years, and government subsidies and grants are negligible . Then, in order to become tax-exempt, a process that takes two to three years, Japanese NGOs must get approval to incorporate from the prefectural governor where its office lies. The governor then has powers of jurisdiction over the NGOs and must receive lists of members, balance sheets, and activity reports, among other information. For this reason, 90% prefer to remain unincorporated and therefore must perform activities and handle taxes under individual names. The NPO Bill passed in 1997 when the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) was in power is currently under review for its tax exemption policies, but since the historically dominant Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has little interest in NGOs, reform may have to rest in the DPJ again.
The Changing Electoral System
Japan is a modern democracy and thus we can say that citizen’s voices lie in their elected representatives. Japan is an interesting case, in that the electoral system has changed three times since World War II, shifting power from a large constituency, to medium sized constituencies in 1958, to small single member districts with proportionally elected 180 national lower House representatives and plurality elected 300 local lower House representatives in 1994. The party with the majority of seats forms the governing party. From the middle period, as the number of districts increased, the number of seats per districted decreased. This in turn made the Diet less diverse and representation from smaller parties and women was hindered. Masaru Kohno suggests that the low voter turnout in the 1996 election had to do with voters taking more time to consider candidates, now that they could only elected one, and the confusing redistricting that followed. He also notes that a statistical analysis of low voter turn out in the 1947 elections as well as 1996 suggests that electoral reform generally has negative effects on voter participation.
Less voter participation means less representation. And seeing as the majority of lower House seats are determined by the first-past-the-post system, representation is skewed towards a single party and its agenda. It should be noted that Japan’s major political parties are less issue-centric than the United States, and were founded instead on how the country should be run. The third, and fourth, and fifth largest enduring opposition parties, the New Komeito, the Japanese Communist Party, and the Social Democratic Party, support a theocracy, communism, and socialism, respectively. There is no green party. It could be said that Japanese voters are then less concerned with single issues, and more concerned with the overall system of governance - at least, they are forced to, based on what platforms parties run.
One-Party Dominance
The party that had control for the longest consecutive periods has been the conservative Liberal Democratic Party. The LDP lost power once in 1993, but regained it back in 1996 when the DPJ became a threat after electoral reform by forming a coalition with the Japan Socialist Party (JSP). Interestingly, the LDP formed as an opposition party to the JSP as a coalition between the Liberal Party and the Japan Democratic Party. Under the winner-take-all system, the LDP has been able to remain in power by strategic coalition forming. The LDP does not generally support women, and is concerned foremost with economic growth. Social concerns have not been part of their agenda. Yasuo Takao says “some new LDP leaders…tended to see the activities and objectives of NGOs not as being complementary to those of the state.” However the LDP, being the favored party of the two thirds of Japan who live in rural areas, enjoy an “iron triangle of business interests, politicians, and bureaucrats [which] supports a vast public works empire that supports subsidies to” this region. Disproportional representation from rural regions has put the LDP in the lead.
The most recent 2007 election placed the DPJ in control of the house, but most Diet members, including Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, are still LDP. According to the DPJ’s Web site, supporting NGOs is part of their platform: “In a society of kyosei [reform?] by self-reliant individuals, NPOs will be a new, important infrastructure. We shall support NPOs through measures such as tax incentives.” The LDP makes no mention of NGOs on their scant English Web site. Perhaps from now after nearly 40 years of LDP rule, Japan shall see a change in how NGOs are supported.
Japanese people are thought to generally rely on their government to make all the decisions. Makoto Iokibe argues, “The tradition…in which the samurai class had monopolized government authority since the12th century, contributed to the creation of an overwhelmingly state-led body politic in modern Japan.” The LDP has traditionally supported the monarchy and this kind of centralized decision-making process. However many Japanologists reject this notion and support the concept of nemwashi, or the practice of broad consultation before making a decision, readily seen in Japanese companies. Perhaps more specifically to NGOs, ringi is the practice of bottom-up policy-making. The discrepancy between strict obedience to authority and aiming for consensus is then not made distinctly clear.
Preserving the Wa and Shou ga Nai
It’s important to consider social and cultural reasons why NGOs may be overlooked in Japanese society as an important means of change. Robert Mason asks,
In what measure… is it attributable to the lack of volunteer ethic, to a Confucian system where central authority is paramount, to single-minded dedication to corporate and national interests, to a culture where individuals are reluctant to ‘stand out’ and to deliberate government restriction of political freedoms and opportunities for political participation?
Probably the most salient aspect of Japanese society is that of the Wa. Wa means “harmony,” and the Japanese strive to preserve it. “In business terms, 'wa' is reflected in the avoidance of self-assertion and individualism and the preservation of good relationships despite differences in opinion.” This is exemplified in the concepts of honne and tatemae: When your true feelings, your honne, are at odds with the harmony of the group, you are expected to rise unselfishly above these feelings and present tatemae, your public face to preserve the welfare of the majority. Therefore, rising against the status quo is not something that is encouraged, which could help explain why NGOs are low in number and membership.
Another Japanese-centric concept is that of “Shou ga nai,” or, “It can’t be helped.” This term is used as an answer-all to questions about small and large problems in Japan (‘Japan’s trains are too crowded.’ ‘Well, shou ga nai.’ ‘Japanese police are racist.’ ‘Shou ga nai.’). It’s considered by many foreigners to be a cop-out, but in the face of fighting the status quo or going along with it, most Japanese are happy to attribute any problems to the grand scheme of things, and life will go on as normal.
Also apparent is the influence of Confucianism and Buddhism in Japanese culture. Japan has traditionally revered the Confucian concept of social hierarchies and age as a virtue. The Japanese then (if authors like Sung Il and Makoto Iokibe are correct) rely on the government to solve problems rather than take things into their own hands. Lackluster activism could also be because Buddhism is a pacifist, not activist, ideology, whereas western Christian evangelism encourages activism.
Nicole Murray
During my yearlong stay in Japan, although I was unable to participate in Japanese politics, it appeared to me that despite the existence of many political, economic, and social problems, Japanese citizens did not participate in the political system in order to remedy them. One reason I could observe was social - the Japanese use the phrase, “Shou ga nai,” (It can’t be helped), in response to a myriad of problems as a pacifier and reason not to get involved. I wish now to look deeper into the Japanese political culture to see if there are any underlying reasons there for lack of participation or voice from citizens, specifically NGOs.
I believe that due to cultural and political reasons, Japanese NGOs do not play a significant role in forming political, economic, or social policy.
Status of Japanese NGOs
Compared to other developed nations, Japanese NGOs aren’t nearly as numerous or powerful. According to Japan’s former Economic Planning Agency, there are about 85,000 NGOs in a population of about 120,000,000. Russia has a comparable population, about 140,000,000, yet boasts about 400,000 NGOs. Why the low number in Japan?
Robert Mason in his assessment of environmental activism in Japan says, “Funding and scope of activities are limited; access to policy-making processes, when present, is largely informal; access to information is highly restricted; and ability to sue is limited.”
Finding adequate funding is one of the most pressing challenges of Japanese NGOs. Corporate charitable giving has been decreasing over the years, and government subsidies and grants are negligible . Then, in order to become tax-exempt, a process that takes two to three years, Japanese NGOs must get approval to incorporate from the prefectural governor where its office lies. The governor then has powers of jurisdiction over the NGOs and must receive lists of members, balance sheets, and activity reports, among other information. For this reason, 90% prefer to remain unincorporated and therefore must perform activities and handle taxes under individual names. The NPO Bill passed in 1997 when the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) was in power is currently under review for its tax exemption policies, but since the historically dominant Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has little interest in NGOs, reform may have to rest in the DPJ again.
The Changing Electoral System
Japan is a modern democracy and thus we can say that citizen’s voices lie in their elected representatives. Japan is an interesting case, in that the electoral system has changed three times since World War II, shifting power from a large constituency, to medium sized constituencies in 1958, to small single member districts with proportionally elected 180 national lower House representatives and plurality elected 300 local lower House representatives in 1994. The party with the majority of seats forms the governing party. From the middle period, as the number of districts increased, the number of seats per districted decreased. This in turn made the Diet less diverse and representation from smaller parties and women was hindered. Masaru Kohno suggests that the low voter turnout in the 1996 election had to do with voters taking more time to consider candidates, now that they could only elected one, and the confusing redistricting that followed. He also notes that a statistical analysis of low voter turn out in the 1947 elections as well as 1996 suggests that electoral reform generally has negative effects on voter participation.
Less voter participation means less representation. And seeing as the majority of lower House seats are determined by the first-past-the-post system, representation is skewed towards a single party and its agenda. It should be noted that Japan’s major political parties are less issue-centric than the United States, and were founded instead on how the country should be run. The third, and fourth, and fifth largest enduring opposition parties, the New Komeito, the Japanese Communist Party, and the Social Democratic Party, support a theocracy, communism, and socialism, respectively. There is no green party. It could be said that Japanese voters are then less concerned with single issues, and more concerned with the overall system of governance - at least, they are forced to, based on what platforms parties run.
One-Party Dominance
The party that had control for the longest consecutive periods has been the conservative Liberal Democratic Party. The LDP lost power once in 1993, but regained it back in 1996 when the DPJ became a threat after electoral reform by forming a coalition with the Japan Socialist Party (JSP). Interestingly, the LDP formed as an opposition party to the JSP as a coalition between the Liberal Party and the Japan Democratic Party. Under the winner-take-all system, the LDP has been able to remain in power by strategic coalition forming. The LDP does not generally support women, and is concerned foremost with economic growth. Social concerns have not been part of their agenda. Yasuo Takao says “some new LDP leaders…tended to see the activities and objectives of NGOs not as being complementary to those of the state.” However the LDP, being the favored party of the two thirds of Japan who live in rural areas, enjoy an “iron triangle of business interests, politicians, and bureaucrats [which] supports a vast public works empire that supports subsidies to” this region. Disproportional representation from rural regions has put the LDP in the lead.
The most recent 2007 election placed the DPJ in control of the house, but most Diet members, including Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, are still LDP. According to the DPJ’s Web site, supporting NGOs is part of their platform: “In a society of kyosei [reform?] by self-reliant individuals, NPOs will be a new, important infrastructure. We shall support NPOs through measures such as tax incentives.” The LDP makes no mention of NGOs on their scant English Web site. Perhaps from now after nearly 40 years of LDP rule, Japan shall see a change in how NGOs are supported.
Japanese people are thought to generally rely on their government to make all the decisions. Makoto Iokibe argues, “The tradition…in which the samurai class had monopolized government authority since the12th century, contributed to the creation of an overwhelmingly state-led body politic in modern Japan.” The LDP has traditionally supported the monarchy and this kind of centralized decision-making process. However many Japanologists reject this notion and support the concept of nemwashi, or the practice of broad consultation before making a decision, readily seen in Japanese companies. Perhaps more specifically to NGOs, ringi is the practice of bottom-up policy-making. The discrepancy between strict obedience to authority and aiming for consensus is then not made distinctly clear.
Preserving the Wa and Shou ga Nai
It’s important to consider social and cultural reasons why NGOs may be overlooked in Japanese society as an important means of change. Robert Mason asks,
In what measure… is it attributable to the lack of volunteer ethic, to a Confucian system where central authority is paramount, to single-minded dedication to corporate and national interests, to a culture where individuals are reluctant to ‘stand out’ and to deliberate government restriction of political freedoms and opportunities for political participation?
Probably the most salient aspect of Japanese society is that of the Wa. Wa means “harmony,” and the Japanese strive to preserve it. “In business terms, 'wa' is reflected in the avoidance of self-assertion and individualism and the preservation of good relationships despite differences in opinion.” This is exemplified in the concepts of honne and tatemae: When your true feelings, your honne, are at odds with the harmony of the group, you are expected to rise unselfishly above these feelings and present tatemae, your public face to preserve the welfare of the majority. Therefore, rising against the status quo is not something that is encouraged, which could help explain why NGOs are low in number and membership.
Another Japanese-centric concept is that of “Shou ga nai,” or, “It can’t be helped.” This term is used as an answer-all to questions about small and large problems in Japan (‘Japan’s trains are too crowded.’ ‘Well, shou ga nai.’ ‘Japanese police are racist.’ ‘Shou ga nai.’). It’s considered by many foreigners to be a cop-out, but in the face of fighting the status quo or going along with it, most Japanese are happy to attribute any problems to the grand scheme of things, and life will go on as normal.
Also apparent is the influence of Confucianism and Buddhism in Japanese culture. Japan has traditionally revered the Confucian concept of social hierarchies and age as a virtue. The Japanese then (if authors like Sung Il and Makoto Iokibe are correct) rely on the government to solve problems rather than take things into their own hands. Lackluster activism could also be because Buddhism is a pacifist, not activist, ideology, whereas western Christian evangelism encourages activism.