E. V. MOLODYAKOVA Doctor of Historical Sciences Deputy Director of the Institute of Historical Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Keywords: Japan, revision of the 1947 Constitution, 9th" peace " article, revival of militarism, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

The problem of revising the Japanese Constitution of 1947, which is still in force without a single amendment, has always existed in society. However, since the beginning of the 2000s, discussions about the nature of the revision of the Basic Law have become increasingly tense and are accompanied by concrete actions that help translate them into practice. According to some parameters, the Constitution no longer fully corresponds to modern realities. Moreover, there was a need to introduce new provisions in this document, for example, the so-called new human rights: "the right to a favorable ecological environment"," the right to information","the right to privacy". This need is directly related to major changes in the domestic political situation and attitudes in Japanese society, as well as global and regional changes in the world.

HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1947

The peculiarity and even exclusivity of the Japanese Constitution is that its draft was prepared in the office of the American Headquarters of the occupation forces under the command of General D. MacArthur on the basis of his brief written recommendations, including the provision on renouncing war as a sovereign right of the nation. The task execution schedule was extremely strict: on February 3, 1946, the following tasks were given:

So, on February 10, the project was ready, on the 12th it was approved by the general, and on February 13 it was handed over to representatives of the Japanese government.

While drafting the constitution, the occupation authorities did not try to forcibly implant Western stereotypes of the social structure in Japan. According to S. Yoshida, who served as Foreign Minister, they listened to the suggestions and comments of Japanese experts and officials and in many cases accepted their proposals. The greatest controversy was caused by the provisions on renunciation of war and on the new status of the emperor. During the discussion, the American side insisted that the thesis of "renunciation of war" be included in the Constitution as a separate article, and not just declared in the preamble as one of the general principles. As a result of the approval process, the draft constitution was approved by the emperor on February 22 and officially published on March 6 [1].

Of course, the draft constitution was presented to the public as having been created independently by the Japanese government. In June 1946, it was approved by the Privy Council and referred to Parliament, which approved the draft on October 7. May 3, 1947 The Basic Law has come into force. The amendments made during the discussion were of a clarifying and editorial nature. According to S. Yoshida, " the adopted constitution does not change the national structure of Japan. It is the result of the will of the people who want to live according to democratic principles" [2]. Indeed, although the draft constitution was prepared by the occupation authorities, it takes into account the national values and characteristics of the Japanese, their unique political flexibility in interpreting this or that article.

The Basic Law clearly established the principle of pacifism, expressed in the rejection of "war as a sovereign right of the nation, as well as the threat or use of armed force as a means of resolving international disputes" [3]. This is an epoch-making feature of the document. The Emperor is recognized as "a symbol of the state and the unity of the people," and sovereignty belongs to the people. All this did not cause a sense of rejection among the population, which historically existed in the area of Confucian culture.

The Constitution of 1947 corresponded to the situation in a country that, after a crushing defeat in World War II, was on the path of establishing democracy. Japan, like other Asian countries, has adopted the Western political structure, but its content has undergone significant changes under the influence of specific political practices. At the same time, there was no loss of traditions and national identity, because the country's political elite showed maximum practicality and really assessed the current situation.

The development of Japanese society in the first post-war decade led to the fact that in the political structure all conservative forces, represented by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), established in 1955, were concentrated at one pole, and all social - democratic forces, represented by the Socialist Party of Japan (SPJ, now SDPJ), were concentrated at the other. The LDP and the SPJ held different views and were committed to different values, which corresponded to the then division of society into two camps - conservative and progressive. In the eyes of the voters, the LDP symbolized conservatism and traditionalism, while the SPJ symbolized everything new, modern, and progressive. Over time, the picture of political forces became more complex: parties of various kinds appeared and disappeared, their unification and separation took place. The population, which generally enjoyed a fairly high standard of living, shared a conservative ideology, although they were committed to democratic principles, and trusted the ruling party more than others, because they associated the country's success and stability in society with it. In such a situation, the main initiators of the struggle against the Constitution "imposed" by the occupation authorities, "humiliating" the national pride of the Japanese, were mainly right-wing conservatives.

THE FIRST STEPS OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS TO REVISE THE CONSTITUTION

By the mid-1980s. Japan has entered the peak of the longest period of economic recovery and recovery. The growth was accompanied by an increase in the standard of living of the population, the absence of social conflicts, and the stability of the political system. Stability has become a key concept in Japanese society. It was at this time that the Liberal Democratic Party actively participated in the campaign for the revision of the Constitution.

In specially developed documents, the main directions of revision of some articles of the Basic Law were outlined, namely: increasing the role of the emperor by giving him the prerogatives of state power; a complete revision of the "peaceful" 9th article; expanding the powers of the Cabinet of Ministers, including the transfer of special powers to it in case of "extraordinary circumstances", and some others [4]. It was either about making amendments to the text of the Constitution, or about revising the interpretation of a particular article. At the same time, a campaign was launched for amendments to other legislative acts, in particular, on defense: the right to collective self-defense, provisions allowing military conscription in "emergency circumstances", which prepared the ground for revising the articles of the Constitution itself.

Within the ruling party, there was no consensus on how and to what extent to review the Basic Law. Many Liberal Democrats were afraid of losing the votes of voters, among whom anti-war sentiments were strong. In the minds of most Japanese, the revision of the Constitution, especially Article 9, was associated with a resurgence of militarism. Being the program goal of the LDP, the problem of revising the Constitution remained at the level of study and discussion. For a long time, there were far fewer supporters of its revision in the country than opponents. The discussion of this problem in society was actually tabooed.

ACTIVATION AMID CHANGES IN THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD

In the second half of the 1980s, an unprecedented foreign economic expansion allowed Japanese companies to use the money they received from export sales.

literally buying up firms, real estate, works of art, and securities all over the world. The rapid growth of the yen combined with a multiple increase in the value of assets overnight made the Japanese twice as rich. Over the decades, Japan has accumulated vast amounts of public and private wealth. The well-being of almost the entire society has significantly increased, and the standard of living has increased, as evidenced by the fact that over 90% of Japanese people consider themselves to be middle class. Japan's involvement in international affairs has intensified. The Gulf War of 1990-1991 had a major impact on the change in Tokyo's foreign policy, primarily with regard to defense and security, and also affected domestic political problems. In particular, the question of the need to bring article 9 of the Constitution in line with the need to participate in foreign policy actions to punish the aggressor was urgently raised. However, the Office of Legislation of the Cabinet, which performs an advisory function [5], confirmed the provision that article 9 does not allow Japan to participate jointly with other countries in actions of collective self-defense abroad. Analysts believe that this interpretation played a key role in the fact that Japan, apart from allocating funds, did not participate in the "Gulf War", despite the huge pressure on it.

Given the anti-war mood of the population, the government focused on providing financial support to the Gulf states and the armed forces of the multinational anti-Iraqi coalition. Despite this, the international community reacted quite negatively to Japan's position, accusing it of once again deciding to "sit out"," buy off " from solving common problems. It is no exaggeration to say that the Gulf War was one of the turning points in Japan's post-war history, forcing the political elite to rethink the country's role in the international arena and increase its importance in solving common problems.

The lessons of the Gulf War and the global reaction to Japan's position have turned public opinion on the issue of participation in UN peacekeeping operations. Moreover, the taboo on discussing the issue of constitutional review in political circles and in society as a whole has gradually begun to blur.

In 2000, committees for the study of the Constitution were established in both houses of Parliament, and in 2003, four sub-committees were established to study the relevance of each article to modern realities. It was assumed that the main amendments would concern the problems of war and peace, the system of power and human rights. The transfer of the discussion to the Parliament was of great importance, since, in accordance with Article 96 of the Constitution, amendments to it can be made at the initiative of 2/3 of the members of both houses of Parliament, with subsequent approval in a national referendum.

Without going into details, we can say that in the early 2000s, most political parties, except for the Social Democrats and Communists, were more or less in favor of revising the Basic Law, and the population, especially after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, was seriously concerned about the problem of ensuring their own security, as well as the extent to which a country participates in international peacekeeping cooperation.

CHANGES IN THE DEFENSE LEGISLATION

In the second half of the 1990s, a number of amendments were made to the defense legislation. It was a question of revising the fundamental principles of defense policy set out in the "Basic Directions of National Defense" and in the Constitution. It was recognized that it was necessary to update strategic attitudes in the face of emerging new challenges and threats to Japan's security. The essence of the amendments was to review and expand the functions of the self-defense forces, to recognize their participation in international peace-building activities and to support UN peacekeeping. However, they did not include a provision on "collective self-defense", which would allow Japan to participate in the collective security system. At present, it is precisely this provision that is the subject of acute discussion.

The next step was the adoption in 1997 of the "Guidelines for Bilateral Defense Cooperation", which conceptually changed the nature of military commitments between Japan and the United States. In accordance with this document, their obligations were reoriented from the task of repelling direct aggression against Japan to jointly ensuring stability in the Asia-Pacific region. In case of emergencies, Japan assumed obligations to provide logistical support and logistical support to the US Armed Forces. To implement the "Guidelines", changes were made to the existing legislation. In 2003, the "emergency legislation" was adopted, which provided a basis for the activities of the self-defense forces during emergencies. In 2004, it was supplemented by a new package of laws regulating the procedure for actions of the authorities and the population in the event of an armed attack or a predicted threat of a military attack [6].

The almost unanimous approval of the above-mentioned bills by both houses of Parliament convincingly testified to a change in public attitudes towards defense policy and the armed forces. The military issue, like the constitutional issue, has long been considered a taboo subject. Now both the political circles and the population not only did not shy away from these topics, but also showed interest in strengthening the country's defense capability in the face of new threats and challenges to national security. The events of September 11, 2001, which exposed the vulnerability of the United States, shook the belief that it could fully guarantee Japan's security, and led to the idea that the country should look for ways to ensure its own security.

The adopted laws, on the one hand, increase the degree of interaction between Japan and the United States in situations of threat to Japan's security, but, on the other hand, conceal the danger of its involvement in military operations. And this is already unconstitutional.

S. ABE TOOK THE BULL BY THE HORNS

It was Shinzo Abe, during his premiership in 2006-2007, who first brought the long-standing problem of constitutional review to the level of state policy. At the first press conference, he noted that among the priorities of his government he sees the revision of the Constitution along with the adoption of draft amendments to the basic law on education [7]. This relationship is understandable, since Shinzo Abe paid great attention to the formation of a "new public consciousness", the education of young people in the spirit of patriotism, which would prepare the ground for the revision of the Constitution. His concern with education is not accidental: this problem has always been a crucial component of the country's reform. In this case, an attempt was made to legislate "love for the country and Homeland."

Abe said that the Basic Law, adopted 60 years ago amid the shock of defeat in World War II, no longer corresponds to reality and hinders the development of Japan. It was Article 9 that he considered obsolete, which was proposed to be revised from the point of view of ensuring Japan's defense and the country's future contribution to maintaining international security [8]. Public opinion polls showed that citizens, in general, support a partial revision of the Constitution, but the majority so far was in favor of leaving Article 9 unchanged [9].

S. Abe is characterized by a certain fascination with nationalist rhetoric. But what is important is not so much his rhetoric as his desire to actually increase Japan's role in ensuring its own and global security. It was during his time as Prime Minister that the new "Main Directions of National Defense" were adopted at the end of 2006, which continued the process of revising the military doctrine. The new program helps bring the country's armed forces in line with the realities of the era of globalization. It provides for "the formation of compact and effective forces capable of performing a wide range of duties and coping with threats of a systemic and non-systemic nature both on the borders of Japan and abroad [10]. In January 2007, the National Defense Department was officially transformed into a ministry, and its director received the status of a Minister.

In May 2007, the Parliament adopted a law on a referendum on amendments to the Constitution. According to this law, all Japanese citizens over the age of 18 can participate in the referendum, and the decision will be made by a simple majority. There are strict deadlines for its implementation: within 60 days or no later than 180 days after the amendment is approved by the Parliament. It is obvious that even 180 days is a short period of time that does not allow the entire population, which is distinguished by a variety of views, to really assess such a serious problem as amendments to the Basic Law. The law does not provide for a minimum voter turnout. In other words, the amendments require a simple majority of the votes of those who voted in the referendum. According to analysts, taking into account the fact that only 60% of voters came to the last general election, amendments to the Constitution can be adopted with the support of just over 30% of the electorate [11].

May 18, 2010 The Law on the People's Referendum was put into effect. Thus, for the first time in post-war Japan, the legal basis for revising the Constitution was created. "The adoption of the law on the people's referendum, "the Iomiuri newspaper wrote," opens up the possibility of introducing a new version of the Constitution's articles for consideration by the Parliament. In the history of post-war constitutional rule, this event should be called epochal "[12].

HOW MANY HOORAY PATRIOTS ARE THERE IN JAPAN?

The return to power of the LDP, led by Shinzo Abe, after a landslide victory in early elections to the key lower house of Parliament on December 16, 2012, and then its victory in elections to the House of Councillors on July 21, 2013, contribute to the emergence of increasingly voiced claims or concerns about "rearing its head nationalism". According to Professor Geoffrey W. Hornung ," it is now fashionable to say that there is an increase in nationalism in Japan. There are many "examples" in this regard: statements of patriotic, populist politicians like Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto, LDP Chairman S. Abe or Tokyo Governor (at the time - E. M.) Shintaro Ishihara; or a visit by politicians to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine. However, such acts are not proof of the widespread spread of nationalist sentiments "[13].

It is true that black cars with loudspeakers broadcasting military marches can be seen on the streets of Tokyo, but there are not many of them, and even fewer of their supporters. There are no mass anti-Chinese or anti-Korean demonstrations by the Japanese, while mass anti-Japanese demonstrations are observed in China and the Republic of Korea. Of course, there are ardent nationalists in the country whose outspoken statements cause just indignation. It is impossible to justify nationalists ' attempts to rewrite history, but it is also incorrect to present them as representatives of the majority of the population.

At the same time, we should not ignore the fact that Japanese society is growing uneasy about the

new threats to the country's security. This is due to the fact that the security situation in Northeast Asia has changed significantly over the past two decades.

Japan is most concerned about the rise of China. As can be seen from annual public opinion polls, before 1989, more than 68% of Japanese people felt sympathy for China; about 66% considered bilateral relations favorable. In 2012, sympathy for China decreased to 18% (the number of those who do not feel sympathy increased from 26.4% in 1988 to 80.6%). The number of those who consider relationships favorable has decreased to 4.8% (92.8% consider relationships unfavorable) [14]. The periodic aggravation of Japan's territorial disputes with neighboring countries also affects the atmosphere in society, contributes to the growth of negative attitudes of the Japanese towards these countries, and causes pessimism in the prospects of their bilateral relations.

Growing concerns about Japan's security are creating the conditions for major changes that, as already mentioned, were unthinkable two decades ago. In particular, this applies to easing the ban on Japan's participation in collective self-defense and standards for the use of self-defense forces. It is the solution of these problems that is directly linked to the revision of the Constitution.

WITH NEW POWERS

After assuming the post of Prime Minister again in December 2012, Abe and the LDP led by him began by calling for the amendment of Article 96 of the Constitution so that amendments to it could be initiated by obtaining a simple majority in both houses of Parliament. On the eve of the elections in the summer of 2013, this article, which makes it difficult to change the Basic Law, became the most important in political discussions, and, in general, the issue of revising the Constitution - the central point in the election campaign.

The LDP proposed its own draft revision of the Constitution, which provides for amendments and additions to a number of articles [15]. Of course, Article 9, "Renunciation of war", was at the center of the proposed amendments. Since Japan already has large, well-equipped land, sea and air self-defense forces, the amendments do not concern the actual armed forces, but rather their use. The LDP is going to retain some of the language on international peace and completely rewrite the article, starting with changing the title to "National Self-Defense". The Self-Defense Forces will become a national self-defense force under the command of the Prime Minister, and they can be used for various tasks, including international peacekeeping.

It is also proposed to make a number of amendments to various articles of chapter III "Rights and duties of the people". For example, a reminder is introduced that rights are combined with responsibility, that the exercise of rights should not conflict with the "public good and public order". It is proposed to add three articles to this chapter that deal with the so-called new human rights. The first concerns cooperation between the State and the people in protecting the environment. The second requires the protection of the Japanese state abroad in case of emergencies. The third one provides for State protection of the rights of victims of crime and their families.

It is proposed to add a completely new chapter IX, which will give the Government emergency powers in the event of a national emergency (attack by an external enemy, internal unrest, natural disasters and "other cases provided for by law"). If the Prime Minister, acting with the consent of the Cabinet, declares a state of emergency, the Government can obtain certain powers that are normally the prerogative of Parliament, including the introduction of rules that have the force of law and the implementation of necessary financial expenditures. The Government can also give orders to local authorities and people in the relevant territory. Parliamentary approval is required to maintain the state of emergency after a specified period of time. [16]

The Abe government is now launching a full-scale debate on a proposal to change the government's traditional interpretation of constitutional provisions that relate to the right to collective self-defense. In a joint statement following the meeting of the Foreign and defense Ministers of Japan and the United States, the Japanese side stated that "it is reviewing the legal framework for its security, including the exercise of the right to collective self-defense, increasing the defense budget, reviewing the Main Directions of the national defense program, as well as increasing the ability to protect sovereign territory and expand regional with the countries of South-East Asia " [17.

The Abe government wants to use the recognition of Japan's right to collective self-defense as a means to change Article 9 itself and, in the future, completely abandon it. If this goal is achieved, the self-defense forces will become "conventional armed forces" and, despite certain legal restrictions on their actions, politicians will be able to expand the scope of their operations indefinitely. In such a situation, Japan's tensions with sopre will undoubtedly escalate.-

the arms race in the region will increase. Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who opposed the government's right to arbitrarily interpret Article 9, said that such an ill-considered change would weaken public confidence in the Constitution. He also insisted that the Government's expansion of the interpretation should be preceded by a debate on constitutional amendments. [18]

Leaving aside the high-profile pre-election announcements about changing Article 96 in order to lower the voting threshold for the adoption of constitutional amendments, Prime Minister Abe chose a strategy of changing the articles of the Constitution by their new interpretations, at least on the issue of defense. The main thesis of this interpretation is already known: "article 9 allows Japan to participate in collective security efforts", so instead of a well-founded legal analysis, only a pretext is needed that the voters will agree with. And such an excuse seems to have been found. The new director of the Legislative Department, Ichiro Komatsu, stated that, according to most experts in international law, the right to collective security comes from the UN Charter [19]. This would probably help justify an interpretation of Article 9 that would not only allow Japan to engage in collective self-defense activities, but even present it as a duty under international law.

Abe already took advantage of this when speaking at the 68th session of the UN General Assembly on September 26, 2013. He stated that Japan would "participate even more actively in collective UN security measures, including peacekeeping operations". [20] The prime minister described his position as "active pacifism". It is well known that Japan has generally adhered to pacifism in its true meaning for decades. It seems that in this case, he used the term "pacifism "as a means to win public support for the Government's attempts to ensure Japan's right to collective self-defense through a" new " interpretation of the Constitution.

At the same time, referring to new threats to Japan's security, the Abe cabinet increases military spending and equipping the self-defense forces with the latest weapons. In the preface to the "Defense of Japan" White Paper published in July 2013, Japanese Defense Minister Yi Ye Onodera noted: "The security situation in Japan is increasingly deteriorating due to such provocative actions as the launch of a missile... both North Korea's nuclear test and China's rapid expansion and increase of activity in the waters and airspace around Japan, including incursions into its territorial waters and airspace. In this situation, in order to protect the lives and property of our people and defend our territory, sea waters and air space, the Government has decided for almost the first time in the last 11 years to increase defense spending in order to strengthen our defense capability. In addition, we have begun intensive work to review the Main Directions of the National Defense Program during this year " [21]. Military spending increased in fiscal 2013 (from April 1), reaching 4,734 trillion yen (about $48.13 billion) [22].

* * *

The actions of the Abe cabinet clearly indicate that there has been a turnaround in national security. The proposed change in the official position will be a radical departure from the basic principle in the policy of post-war Japan on this issue. "This fundamental principle cannot be changed by a new interpretation of the Constitution by the government alone, "the Asahi Shimbun newspaper writes. - A strict procedure for reviewing the Constitution must be observed "[23].

Thus, the constitutional review mechanism is launched, on the basis of which the government intends to propose a new position on ensuring the country's security and start the necessary legislative actions.

1. For more information, see: Molodyakov V. E., Molodyakova E. V., Markaryan S. B. History of Japan. XX century. Moscow, 2007, pp. 245-252. (Molodyakov V. E., Molodyakova E. V., Markaryan S. B. Istoriya Yaponii. XX vek) (in Russian)

2. Inoki Masamichi. Heden Shigaru Yoshida (A critical Biography of Shigaru Yoshida). Tokyo. 1981. Vol. 3, p. 191.

3. The Constitution of Japan - http://ilk-ilk.narod.ru/ japanabout/konstitutciya.httm

4. See for more details: Tsvetova I. A. The problem of revising the Constitution in the political life of modern Japan //Japan. Yearbook 1984. Moscow, 1985, pp. 118-130. (Tsvetova I. A. Problema peresmotra konstitutsii v politicheskoy zhizni strani / / Yaponiya. Yezhcgodnik 1984) (in Russian)

5. One of the most influential government bodies oversees the drafting of most of the draft laws passed in Parliament and advises the Government on legal issues, including the interpretation of the Constitution. According to Professor Colin P. A. Jones, this department, together with the Budget office of the Ministry of Finance, is considered the pinnacle of the national bureaucracy.

6. For more information, see: Dobrinskaya O. A. Expanding the Legislative base of Japan's Defense Policy, Moscow, 2005, p. 37 / / Japan. Ежегодник 2004 - 2005. (Dobrinskaya O. A. Rasshireniye zakonodatel-noy oboronnoy politiki Yaponii // Yaponiya. Yezhegodnik 2004 - 2005) (in Russian)

7. Asahi shimbun. 21.09.2006.

8. ITAR-TASS. 02.11.2006.

9. Ibid. 14.05.2007.

10. Revision of Japan's "peaceful" Constitution http://znat.ru/ page, 2, 145-japan/html

11. The Japan Times. 28.06.2013.

12. Yomiuri shimbun. 26.05.2010.

13. http://mail.yandex.ru/neo2/#message/2350000001128 000642

14. Ibidem.

15. Mainichi Shimbun. 28.04.2012.

16. The Japan Times. 02.07.2013.

17. Mainichi Shimbun. 07.10.2013.

18. Asahi shimbun. 17.07.2013.

19. The Japan Times. 20.11.2013.

20. The Asahi Shimbun. 28.09.2013.

21. National Defense 2013. Ministry of Defense of Japan. 9.07.2013 - http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2013.html

22. Ibidem.

23. Asahi shimbun. 17.09.2013.

Permanent link to this publication: