Hatoyama's Resignation – Modern-day Harakiri?
After watching Prime Minister Hatoyama resign this June and join Japan's club of less-than-one-year national leaders, I began to wonder what exactly the point of resignation was. In American history, there has been only one leader to resign his powers—president Richard Nixon in 1974. He resigned after news of the Watergate scandal came to light, an incident in which he was accused of spying on a rival political group. Although this led many Americans to lose trust in their elected officials from that point on, there have been no other resignations. Even Bill Clinton (who faced impeachment hearings in the 1990s over an affair) and George W. Bush (who was accused of lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) did not resign.
In Japan, however, not one prime minister after Koizumi Junichiro has held his post for longer than a year. What is the point in these sudden resignations? Some people have called it a modern version of hara-kiri, or self-disembowelment. In some ways, the analogy is incredibly apt. Hara-kiri was used by samurai in the Edo period to atone for crimes or infractions against the strict Neo-Confucian codes of the time. By taking their own lives, they accepted responsibility for their actions in the most honorable way possible. That, of course, is the idealistic theory behind the act. Realistically speaking, however, a shamed samurai could not effectively function within Japanese society or government. They would have no moral authority, which, in a society governed according to Confucian codes, means they would have no authority at all. Thus, the only logical alternative was to accept a drastic reduction in status or commit hara-kiri.
Of course, modern Japan is not governed by Confucian moral codes but by laws, and beneath them, by influence and consensus. Therefore, even the loss of moral authority should not necessarily condemn a leader. Also, while hara-kiri results in death, political resignations in Japan hardly carry such a serious consequence. In fact, most retired prime ministers either return to public office as regular ministers or return home to enjoy to their large inherited fortunes—not exactly a terrible fate. In this way, resignation is a purely selfish move.
The attitude of the Japanese public towards their politicians is slightly puzzling to foreigners. Hatoyama resigned because public opinion fell drastically after he reneged on a campaign promise to move the US base off of Okinawa—in reality a virtually impossible task to begin with. In the West, however, when a politician fails to keep a campaign promise, he is not viewed with as much animosity.
I once concluded that democracy just doesn't work in Japan, because it is culturally unacceptable for Japanese people. I've come to realize that there's more to it than that. Japanese consider themselves a homogenous society, and the Japanese political system is essentially a one-party system. Thus, when someone has public support, they have a great majority of it, but as soon as they lose some, it all goes down the drain. Thus, like the shamed Edo samurai, they have no authority left to run the government. Perhaps this situation is inevitable in Japanese politics. What do you think of these political resignations?
| 固定リンク



最近のコメント