Pros and Cons Evenly Matched on
Constitutional Revision
From the Attitude Survey on the Constitution of Japan1
January 2016
ARAMAKI Hiroshi
MASAKI Miki
Public Opinion Research Division
NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute
This article is based on the authors’ article “Sanpi Ga Kikkou Suru Kenpoukaisei : Kenpou Ni
Kansuru Ishiki Chosa Kara” [Pros and Cons Running Neck and Neck on Constitutional
1
Amendment from the Attitude Survey on the Constitution of Japan],originally published in
the July 2015 issue of “Hoso Kenkyu to Chosa”[ The NHK Monthly Report on Broadcast
Research].Full text in Japanese may be accessed at:
http://www.nhk.or.jp/bunken/summary/research/report/2015_07/20150702.pdf
1
Amid increasingly active moves toward revision of the Constitution under the Abe
Shinzo administration, it may be useful to note the four telephone surveys conducted by
NHK on constitutional revision in 2007, 2013, 2014, and 2015. This paper analyzes and
reports the results of the surveys while comparing them chronologically.
In response to the question whether it is necessary to revise the Constitution, in
the 2007 survey the rate of “necessary” responses (41 percent) was much higher than the
rate for those saying “not necessary” (24 percent). In 2014, however, the proportion for
“necessary” decreased to almost the same level as that for “not necessary” and in 2015,
too, the proportions for “necessary” (28 percent) and “not necessary” (25 percent)
remained very close to each other. As for revision of the Constitution’s Article 9, which
renounces war “as a sovereign right of the nation,” in 2007, more people (41 percent)
said revision of Article 9 is “not necessary” than those who said it was “necessary” (28
percent). In 2013, the two percentages were almost the same, but in 2014 the percentage
for “necessary” decreased, and the rate for “not necessary” rose once again. In 2015, too,
the share for “not necessary” (38 percent) remains higher than for “necessary” (22
percent). The reason that the share saying “necessary” decreased in 2014 both for
revision of the Constitution and revision of Article 9 is presumably because people have
become more cautious in their attitudes toward the subject as debate on the pros and
cons of constitutional revision comes to closer grips with the realities involved.
With regard to Japan’s exercise of the right to collective self-defense, the
percentage of people who are cautious about that exercise increased between 2013 and
2014. In 2015, even after the Abe Cabinet’s controversial decision to formally recognize
Japan’s exercise of the right, the rate of those opposing the exercise (30 percent) is
higher than the rate of those supporting it (22 percent). None of the past cabinets
approved the exercise, but the Abe Cabinet has approved it, not by amending the
Constitution but by changing the government’s long-established interpretation of the
Constitution. When asked if this manner of approval is appropriate, a low 15 percent
said “appropriate”; moreover, only 32 percent feel the government’s explanation to the
people about this issue is either “adequate” or “somewhat adequate.”
1. Survey Outline
The Japanese Constitution, which marked its 68th year on May 3, 2015, has never been
amended; it has been the country’s supreme law that determined the course of postwar Japan.
Eager to realize its first-ever amendment, Prime Minister Abe Shinzo has been steadily
making preparations ever since he formed his first cabinet in 2006 (see Figure 1). In 2007 he
enacted the referendum law that stipulates procedures for revising the Constitution, and in
June 2014 a bill revising the referendum law was passed that sets the minimum voting age for
a national referendum at 18. With the hurdles posed by procedures for constitutional revision
having been lowered, the commissions on the Constitution in both houses of the Diet have
entered into full-fledged deliberations.
To amend the Constitution it is required that the Diet initiate a referendum after at least
two-thirds of the members in both houses vote for it, and that majority support the revision in
a national referendum. In the House of Representatives the ruling Liberal Democratic Party
(LDP) and its coalition partner, Komeito, together hold a two-thirds majority. Depending on
the results of the House of Councilors election scheduled for 2016, a referendum might be
held in which the people would decide to vote for or against revision of the Constitution.
2
Figure 1. NHK Surveys and Major Events Related to the Constitution
September 2006
May 2007
July
August
September 2009
July 2010
December 2012
April 2013
July
December
April 2014
June
July
December
April 2015
May
First Abe Cabinet is launched.
Referendum Law is enacted.
LDP suffers crushing defeat in House of Councilors elections.
2007 NHK Survey.
DPJ takes power after House of Representatives elections (held on Aug. 30).
In House of Councilors elections, LDP increases its seats.
LDP takes power after House of Representatives elections.
Second Abe Cabinet is formed.
Debate heats up over revision of Article 96.
2013 NHK Survey.
LDP wins overwhelming victory in House of Councilors elections, becoming the leading
party in both Houses.
Secret Information Protection Act is passed.
Cabinet decides to review the three principles banning exportation of weapons.
2014 NHK Survey.
Revised Referendum Law is enacted.
Cabinet decides to approve Japan’s exercise of the right to collective defense.
In House of Representatives elections, the ruling coalition garners more than two-thirds
of seats.
Third Abe Cabinet is formed.
2015 NHK Survey.
Commissions on the Constitution of both Houses start full-fledged discussions.
Figure 2. Survey Outline
Period
2015
Apr. 17 (Fri)
to 19 (Sun)
Method
Sample
Valid
responses
(%)
2014
Apr. 18 (Fri)
to 20 (Sun)
2013
Apr. 19 (Fri)
to 21 (Sun)
2007
Aug. 3 (Fri)
to 5 (Sun)
Telephone survey (random digit dialing)
Japanese aged 18 and older
2,528
2,667
2,685
2,548
1,551
(61.4%)
1,600
(60.0%)
1,615
(60.1%)
1,486
(58.3%)
With constitutional revision becoming increasingly likely, it is crucial to assess public
opinion. NHK has traced changes in public attitudes toward the Constitution and its revision
in telephone surveys four times, in 2007, 2013, 2014 and 2015, all of them conducted when
Abe was at the helm of government. This paper analyzes and reports mainly on the results of
the latest survey (2015), but at the same time, compares them with those of the past surveys
when time series comparison is possible. The four surveys are outlined in Figure 2.
3
2. People’s Attitudes toward Constitutional Revision
Seven out of ten people show interest
To what degree are people interested in revision of the Constitution? Results of the 2015
survey show 21 percent to be “very interested” and 49 percent “interested to some degree,”
which means that 70 percent show interest in the debate on this question (Figure 3). On the
other hand, 29 percent do not show interest, which combines the 23 percent who are “not very
interested and 6 percent “not interested at all.”
Looked at by gender and age group, more men are “very interested” than women, and
by age group the highest rate of those who are “very interested” is found among people in
their 60s and older. Nearly half of people aged 18–39, on the other hand, do not show interest,
with those “not very interested” making up 39 percent and those “not interested at all” 8
percent.
Figure 3. Interest in Debate over Constitutional Revision
(2015; overall, by gender and age group)
Don’t know/No answer
Interested to some degree
Very interested
Not interested at all
Not very interested
4
Pros and cons are about equal
When asked if it is necessary to revise the Constitution, 28 percent say “revision is necessary,”
25 percent say “revision is not necessary,” and 43 percent say “cannot say, either way”
(Figure 4). Given the three options to choose from, while the highest percentage select
“cannot say, either way,” the rate of those saying “necessary” and that saying “not necessary”
are about the same, meaning the pros and cons on constitutional revision are closely aligned.
Observing the trend since 2007, we see that in 2007 the proportion saying “necessary”
was higher (41 percent) than that saying “not necessary” (24 percent); in 2013 the former did
not appreciably change (42 percent) but the latter decreased (16 percent), while the percentage
for “cannot say, either way” rose to 39 percent. That reflected a growing mood in favor of
constitutional revision at that time of the 2013 survey, which was conducted immediately after
the second Abe Cabinet was launched.
In 2014, however, the share saying “necessary” decreased to 28 percent and the share
saying “not necessary” increased to 26 percent, resulting in almost no gap between the two.
The 2015 survey produced similar results, showing that the pros and cons remain very close.
Looking at the responses by gender, there have always been more men than women
who consider constitutional revision “necessary” whereas both men and women who consider
it necessary decreased between 2013 and 2014 (Figure 5). In 2015, the proportion for men
stands at 37 percent and women at 21 percent, i.e., no change compared to the previous year.
By age group, 40 to 50 percent said “necessary” for all the age groups in 2007 and 2013.
But in 2014, those percentages fell to between above 20 percent and below 40 percent.
In this way, the percentages of those who said “revision is necessary” decreased overall
between 2013 and 2014, regardless of gender or age. This is presumably because people’s
attitudes changed greatly as the ruling coalition came to hold a large majority in both houses
of the Diet, imparting a stronger sense of the realities in the debate over constitutional
revision.
Figure 4. Pros and Cons of Constitutional Revision
Don’t know/No answer
Revision is necessary
Cannot say, either way
2015
2015
28%
43
2014
28
40
2013
42
2007
41
Revision is not necessary
25
26
39
30
5
5
5
16
24
3
4
Figure 5. “Revision Is Necessary” (by gender and age group)
2015
(％)
60
2013
2007
54
51
47
47 46
42 43
40
2014
37 37
34
36
35
33
30
44
43
36
32
30
40
39
38
32
27
23
21 22
25
20
0
Men
Women
Aged 18 to 39
40s
50s
60s
70 and older
Main reason for pros: Problems have surfaced that the present Constitution does not
address
Those considering revision “necessary” were asked to select the reason that best describes
why they think so from among three options given. The highest proportion, 79 percent, chose
“Times have changed, bringing about new problems that the present Constitution does not
address” (Figure 6). The two other options received weak support; both “Revision is
necessary for Japan to perform its role in international society” and “The present Constitution
was forced upon the Japanese by U.S. occupation forces” garnered low support at around 10
percent.
Figure 6. Reasons in Support of and Against Constitutional Revision
(denominator: number of people for/against revision)
2015
(n=429)
2014
(454)
2013
(672)
2007
(607)
Times have changed, bringing about new
problems the present Constitution does not
address
79%
75
75
73
Revision is necessary for Japan to perform
its role in international society
12
15
15
18
The present Constitution was forced upon
the Japanese by U.S. occupation forces
6
7
9
7
(n=382)
(419)
(259)
(363)
Want to protect the war-renouncing Article
9
67%
60
53
62
The present Constitution does have some
problems but they are not serious enough
to revise it
20
31
36
26
The present
constitution
9
7
7
8
Reasons in support of revision
Reasons opposing revision
Constitution
is
a
good
6
Three options (reasons) were also provided for respondents who consider revision “not
necessary.” The highest percentage, 67 percent, chose “Want to protect the war-renouncing
Article 9,” followed by “The present Constitution does have some problems but they are not
serious enough to revise it” and “The present Constitution is a good constitution,” in that
order.
The percentage for each of the reasons for support of constitutional revision has been
more or less the same since 2007. As for the reasons for the opposition to revision, too, while
in 2015 the proportion for “protection of Article 9” has increased and the rate for “some
problems but not serious” has decreased, their order remains unchanged and there has not
been any marked change overall.
3. Attitudes toward Article 9
Eight out of ten value the role of Article 9
Article 9 renounces war and bans “war potential.” The Survey asks to what degree people
value the role Article 9 has played in postwar Japan. The results of the 2015 survey show that
34 percent “highly value” and 45 percent “value to some degree,” meaning a total of 79
percent see Article 9 in a positive light (Figure 7). Eleven percent “do not value it very much”
and 3 percent “do not value it at all.”
Figure 7. How Article 9 Is Valued
Highly value
2015
2015
34%
2014
31
2013
2007
Value to some degree
45
44
25
11
13
51
36
Don’t know/No answer
Do not value at all
Do not value very much
3
3
14
45
8
10
3
11
7
2 6
With regard to the percentage who value Article 9, combining “highly” and “to some
degree,” there is no difference between men and women, while by age group the percentage is
high for people in their 40s (89 percent) and in their 50s (87 percent).
In terms of change over time, the percentage of those who “value” the role of the
Constitution, which stood at 81 percent in 2007, decreased to 76 percent in 2013 and 75
percent 2014. In 2015, however, it has increased to 79 percent, almost the same level as 2007.
7
A closer look shows that the rate of those selecting “highly value” declined in 2013 but
increased to 34 percent, almost the same level as in 2007 when it was 36 percent.
More against than for revision of Article 9
Asked whether or not revision of Article 9 is necessary, 22 percent says “necessary,” 34
percent “cannot say, either way,” and 38 percent “not necessary.” More people oppose
revision than support it (Figure 8)
Looking at the trend over the years of the surveys, we see that in 2007 more people said
“not necessary,” with 28 percent choosing “necessary” and 41 percent “not necessary,” but in
2013 the percentages for “necessary” and “cannot say, either way” increased, resulting in
equal proportions for the three options, at around 30 percent. In 2014 the share for “necessary”
decreased to 23 percent and the share for “not necessary” increased to 38 percent; again more
people considered revision of Article 9 “not necessary.” In 2015 each of the options remains
the same as in 2014. The share for “necessary” is 22 percent, a decline from 28 percent in
2007.
Figure 8. For or Against Revision of Article 9
Don’t know/No answer
Revision is necessary
Cannot say, either way
2015
2015
22%
34
2014
23
32
2013
2007
38
6
38
33
28
Revision is not
necessary
32
26
7
30
41
5
6
Many men think it “necessary” to revise Article 9 while few women think so (Figure 9).
Between 2007 and 2013, there was a significant increase for men, as well as for the 50s and
70s-and-older age groups, while in 2014 there was a significant decrease not only for men and
the 50s and 70s-and-older age groups but also for women. In 2015 there is no significant
change by gender or age group.
8
Figure 9. For or Against Revision of Article 9: “Revision Is Necessary”
(by gender and age group)
(％)
2015
60
2014
2013
2007
47
40
36
31
36
2220
1614
20
39
35
22 2523
22
25
22
28
26 21
39
28
3133
27
26
32
25
21
0
Men
Women
Aged 18 to 39
40s
50s
60s
70 and older
Greatest reason against revision: “Article 9 is the most important clause in the
Constitution”
Those considering the revision of Article 9 “necessary” were asked to select, from among four
options, the reason that best describes why they think so. The top response is “The
Constitution should more clearly state that Japan can possess self-defense capabilities” (44
percent) and the second-ranking response is “The Constitution should allow Japan to
participate in United Nations-led military activities” (25 percent). (See Figure 10.) These are
followed by “The Constitution should more clearly stipulate that Japan renounces all military
capabilities including by the Self-Defense Forces” (15 percent) and “The Constitution should
allow Japan to resort to force overseas” (8 percent) in that order.
Of the reasons cited by people who oppose the revision, the option “Article 9 is the
most important clause in the pacifist Constitution” garners the majority, or 65 percent. This is
followed by “The revision might cast off restraints on the use of force overseas” and
“Problems can be dealt with without revising Article 9, by changing the interpretation of the
Constitution,” both of which receive 13 percent. Six percent choose the option “The revision
would damage international relations, especially relations with other Asian countries.”
Thus, regarding the reasons for and against the revision of Article 9, too, we see no
great change since 2007. The top response among the reasons in support of the revision has
always been “The Constitution should more clearly state that Japan can possess self-defense
capabilities”; in the opposite case, the top response has always been “Article 9 is the most
important clause in the pacifist Constitution.”
9
Figure 10. Reasons for Support or Opposition to the Revision of Article 9
(denominator: number of people for/against revision)
2015
2014
2013
2007
(n=343)
(370)
(535)
(412)
44%
41
47
41
25
35
32
33
15
8
7
16
8
8
9
5
(n=596)
(615)
(483)
(602)
Article 9 is the most important clause in
the pacifist Constitution
65%
68
66
66
The revision might cast off restraints on the
use of force overseas
13
11
9
16
13
14
16
9
6
6
7
6
Reasons for support
The Constitution should more clearly state
that Japan can possess self-defense
capabilities
The Constitution should allow Japan to
participate in United Nations-led military
activities
The Constitution should more clearly
stipulate that Japan renounces all military
capabilities including by the Self-Defense
Forces
The Constitution should allow Japan to
resort to force overseas
Reasons for opposition
Problems can be dealt with without
revising Article 9, by changing the
interpretation of the Constitution
The revision would damage international
relations, especially relations with other
Asian countries
4. Estimations of Exercise of the Right to Collective Self-defense
The right to collective self-defense refers to the ability of a country to mount counterattacks
when it deems an attack on an ally to be an attack on itself. The right is recognized by the
United Nations Charter. The interpretation that has long been held by successive Japanese
cabinets is that under international law Japan has the right but that its use is not allowable
under Article 9 of the Constitution. In July 2014, however, the Abe Cabinet approved a
reinterpretation of the Constitution to allow Japan to participate in collective self-defense
operations. National security policy that has prevailed since the end of World War II
underwent a drastic change due to a reinterpretation of the Constitution by the members of a
single administration Cabinet.
More continue to oppose than support exercise of the right
Questions concerning the right to collective self-defense were provided in the 2013 and 2014
surveys, prior to the July 2014 Abe Cabinet approval of exercise of the right. In these surveys,
it was stated in advance that “The government’s interpretation of the Constitution bans
exercise of the right,” and then, regarding whether exercise of the right to collective
self-defense should be allowed, people were asked to choose, from among four options
10
(Figure 11), the one that best described their view.
In 2013, the top choice of 29 percent was “Should be allowed by changing the
government’s interpretation of the Constitution.” Combined with “Should be allowed by
revising the Constitution” (19 percent), the rate of those saying “Should be allowed” was as
high as 48 percent. On the other hand, the rate of those saying “Should not be allowed” was
only 25 percent, including “Should not be allowed, maintaining the previous governments’
interpretation of the Constitution” (17 percent) and “The right to collective self-defense itself
should not be allowed” (9 percent).
In the April 2014 survey, conducted only a few months before the Cabinet decision to
allow exercise of the right to collective self-defense, the share for “Should be allowed by
revising the Constitution” decreased from 19 percent to 13 percent; so did the share for
“Should be allowed by changing the government’s interpretation of the Constitution” from 29
percent to 21 percent. The combined percentage for “Should be allowed” decreased from 48
percent to 34 percent. By contrast, the rate of those saying “Should not be allowed,
maintaining the previous governments’ interpretation of the Constitution” increased from 17
percent to 27 percent, taking the top position among the four options. The rate of those saying
“The right to collective self-defense itself should not be allowed” also increased from 9
percent to 14 percent. The combined percentage for “Should not be allowed” jumped to 41
percent, from 26 percent in 2013, overtaking the percentage for “Should be allowed.”
Figure 11. Should Exercise of the Right to Collective Self-Defense Be Allowed?
“Should be allowed”
34%
2014
2013
13%
“Should not be allowed”
41%
21
19
27
29
17
14
25
9
26
26%
48%
Should be allowed by revising the Constitution
Should be allowed by changing the previous governments’ interpretation of the
Constitution
Should not be allowed, maintaining the previous governments’ interpretation of the
Constitution
The right to collective defense itself should not be allowed.
Other/Don’t know/No answer
In the 2015 survey, held after the Cabinet decided to change successive governments’
long-standing interpretation of the Constitution, people were asked to choose from among
three options—“support,” “opposition,” and “cannot say, either way”—with regard to Japan’s
11
capacity to exercise the right to collective self-defense. Results show that, while 42 percent
choose “cannot say, either way,” more people give “opposition” (30 percent) than “support”
(22 percent). (See Figure 12.) Despite the government’s decision in favor of the exercise of
the right, more people express “opposition” than “support” as they did in 2014.
By gender, there is no difference as far as “opposition” is concerned, but far more men
(38 percent) give “support” than do women (11 percent). Among men more give “support”
than “opposition,” whereas among women half say “Cannot say, either way.” By age group,
the proportion for “support” is between 20 and 28 percent for any age group, and there is no
age group in which “support” of exercise of the right to collective self-defense surpasses
“opposition.”
Figure 12. Support for or Opposition to Exercise of the Right to Collective Self-Defense
(2015; overall, by gender and age group)
Don’t know/No answer
Support
Cannot say, either way
Opposition
Approval of the exercise of the right through constitutional reinterpretation is deemed
“appropriate” by 15 percent
How do people assess the way the Abe Cabinet enabled Japan to exercise the right to
collective self-defense, not by revising the Constitution but by changing the long-held
interpretation? A low 15 percent deem it “appropriate” while 33 percent consider it
“inappropriate” and 44 percent give “cannot say, either way” (Figure 13).
The rate of those saying “appropriate” is small, between 10-19 percent for both men
12
and women, and for all age groups. The rate of those saying “inappropriate” exceeds 40
percent for men and for middle-aged people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s.
Figure 13. Assessment of Approval of Exercise of the Right to Collective
Self-Defense through Change in the Constitutional Interpretation
(2015; overall, by gender and age group)
Appropriate
Cannot say, either way
Don’t know/No answer
Inappropriate
Looking at those supporting the exercise of the right to collective self-defense and those
opposing it separately, we see that 41 percent of the former deem the manner of instituting
approval “appropriate” (Figure 14). This means that even among supporters of the exercise of
the right only less than half consider the manner in which the approval was instituted
“appropriate.” Among opponents of the exercise of the right, only 6 percent consider the
manner of approval “appropriate” and as high as 67 percent “inappropriate.”
Concerning the Abe Cabinet’s approval without deliberation in the Diet or adopting
such necessary procedures as constitutional revision, some constitutional scholars severely
criticize it as “de facto constitutional revision by way of reinterpretation.” People’s
understanding of how the constitutional interpretation maintained by successive governments
after the war was changed by a single cabinet’s decision is not widespread.
13
Figure 14. Assessment of Approval of Exercise of the Right to Collective Self-Defense
through Change in the Constitutional Interpretation
(2015; proponents versus opponents of exercise of the right)
Inappropriate
Cannot say, either way
Appropriate
Proponents
(n=340)
41%
“Cannot say, either way”
(n=647)
Opponents
(n=458)
34
9
6
Don’t know/No answer
69
23
2
24
17
4
69
2
Six out of ten feel the government has not provided “explanation”
How do people feel about whether the government has provided explanation of its lifting of
Japan’s self-imposed ban on collective self-defense? Results show that 61 percent feel
“explanation” has not been provided (49 percent for “explanation not very adequate” and 12
percent for “explanation inadequate”), much higher than 32 percent who feel “explanation”
has been provided (2 percent for “explanation adequate” and 30 percent for “explanation
somewhat adequate”) (Figure 15).
Regardless of gender and in all age groups more than half feel that “explanation” has
not been provided. Among those in their 40s and in their 60s about 70 percent think that way
(Figure 16).
At a press conference following the cabinet’s decision to enable exercise of the right to
collective self-defense, Prime Minister Abe said, “From now on, too, I will explain with great
care in the effort to win understanding from the public.” The right to collective self-defense is
a legal concept that, by nature, is not easy to understand and so a more careful and concrete
explanation is needed, but people’s satisfaction with explanations made by the government so
far is generally low.
Figure 15. Regarding Government Explanation of Its Approval of Exercise
of the Right to Collective Self-Defense (2015)
Explanation adequate
Explanation inadequate
Don’t know/No answer
Explanation not very adequate
Explanation somewhat adequate
2
30%
“Explanation adequate”
32%
49
“Explanation inadequate”
61%
14
12
7
(％)
Figure 16. Regarding Government Explanation of Its Approval of Exercise
of the Right to Collective Self-Defense: “Explanation Inadequate”
(2015; by gender and age group)
80
60
70
59
62
64
63
68
50s
60s
59
40
20
0
Men
Women
Aged 18 to 39 40s
70 and older
5.Revision of Article 96 and Constitutionalism
In this section, people’s thinking about the Constitution is examined from the points of view
of revision of Article 96 and constitutionalism using the results of the 2013 and 2014 surveys.
More express “opposition” than “support” regarding revision of Article 96
Article 96 specifies the requirements for the Diet to initiate amendments or revisions to the
Constitution. When he formed his second Cabinet in December 2012, Abe expressed his
strong ambition to revise this article. In order to make it easier for the Diet to initiate
constitutional revision, he argued that support by “more than two-thirds” of lawmakers
required in each house of the Diet should be reduced to “more than half” of lawmakers. He
also stated that the LDP should aspire to amend Article 96 before any other article and make it
part of its campaign promise in the House of Councilors elections scheduled for July 2013.
That resulted in a heated debate over the pros and cons of revision of Article 96.
With this development in mind, the NHK survey conducted in April 2013, asked people
if they support or oppose the easing of the requirement for the Diet to initiate the revision of
the Constitution by reducing support by “more than two-thirds” of lawmakers to support by
“more than half.” Three options—“support,” “opposition,” and “cannot say, either
way”—were provided. While nearly half said “cannot say, either way,” 26 percent said
“support” and 24 percent “oppose,” meaning the pros and cons were closely aligned (Figure
17).
The LDP’s attempt to lower the bar for constitutional revision by revising Article 96
invited sharp criticism from some constitutional scholars and other specialists. There were
also many in the Komeito party, LDP’s coalition partner, who expressed opposition.
Public-opinion polls conducted by media organizations showed very low support. Ultimately,
instead of making revision of Article 96 part of its campaign promise, the LDP put forward
economic growth driven by “Abenomics”—a mixture of fiscal stimulus, monetary easing, and
15
structural reforms—and won a sweeping victory in the House of Councilors elections.
In February 2014, during the Diet session, Prime Minister Abe again stated, “Article 96
has to be revised, and I will continue to stress the necessity of its revision.” The NHK survey
in April 2014 asked people—as in the previous survey—if they support or oppose the easing
of requirements for initiating amendments of the Constitution. Results indicated that the share
saying “support” was 18 percent, a decrease from 26 percent in 2013, whereas the share
saying “opposition” increased from 24 percent to 30 percent, meaning that “opposition”
overtook “support” (Figure 17). This suggests that as the constitutional revision grew
increasingly likely, people became more cautious about the move to ease the requirements for
procedures that would appear to take for granted that revision would be carried out.
Figure 17. Do You Support or Oppose the Revision of Article 96?
Support
2014
2013
Cannot say, either way
18%
44
Don’t know/No answer
Opposition
30
26
47
7
24
4
Constitutionalism should receive “primary consideration”—71 percent
Finally, let us look at results of the question concerning constitutionalism—the fundamental
idea behind the current Constitution—from the 2014 survey. The survey asked if
constitutionalism—restraining the power of the government and protecting the people’s
rights—should be a primary consideration in the debate over constitutional reinterpretation
and amendments. As high as 71 percent regarded constitutionalism as a “primary
consideration” and only 11 percent said it was “not a primary consideration” (Figure 18).
By gender, more men (76 percent) said it was a “primary consideration” than women,
and the age groups that had higher percentages were those in their 40s (79 percent) and 60s
(78 percent). But the differences were small, at 70 to 80 percent for both men and women of
all age groups (Figure 19).
Figure 18. Should Constitutionalism Receive Primary Consideration?
Other/Don’t know/No answer
Should receive primary consideration
71%
Is not a primary consideration
11
16
19
Figure 19. Constitutionalism Should Receive Primary Consideration
(2014; by gender and age group)
(％)
80
79
76
67
69
Women
Aged 18 to 39
76
78
70
60
40
20
0
Men
40s
50s
60s
70 and older
Even among the supporters of amendments to the Constitution or to Article 9 a majority
said constitutionalism was a “primary consideration”—75 percent of those who saw
constitutional revisions as “necessary” and 79 percent of those who saw revision of Article 9
as “necessary” (Figure 20). Despite differences in opinion over revision, three out of four
people support the role of the Constitution that is to restrain the power of government and
protect the people’s rights.
Figure 20. Should Constitutionalism Receive Primary Consideration?
(2014; those who consider constitutional revision /
Article 9 “necessary” or “not necessary”)
Should receive primary consideration
Is not a primary consideration
Constitutional revision
Necessary
Not necessary
Other/Don’t know/No answer
75%
82
12
13
11
7
Revision of Article 9
Necessary
79
12
9
Not necessary
81
10
9
17
6.Epilogue
The 2013 survey, held four months after the start of the second Abe Cabinet, which had
received strong public support, suggested a growing public mood in favor of constitutional
amendments. While the proportion of “support” for constitutional revision remained
unchanged since the first 2007 survey, the “opposition” rate decreased. The proportion of
those who supported the revision of Article 9 increased.
However, in the 2014 survey, both “support” for constitutional revision and “support”
for revision of Article 9 decreased. As a result, regarding constitutional revision “support” and
“opposition” were evenly matched, and as for revision of Article 9, “opposition” overtook
“support.” The same situation continued in the 2015 survey.
In 2013–2014, revision of Article 96 and the right to collective self-defense became
subjects of heated debate. The LDP greatly increased its seats in the House of Councilors
through the elections held in the summer of 2013, resulting in a majority for the ruling
coalition in both houses of the Diet. Apparently, people grew cautious about the revision,
feeling that constitutional revision was no longer a matter of the distant future but was
becoming a more likely reality.
In July 2014 the Cabinet approved a constitutional reinterpretation that would allow
Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense. The 2015 survey found, however, that
many people felt the reinterpretation of the Constitution was not the proper method or that the
government’s explanation of its approval of the exercise of collective self-defense was not
sufficient. That “support” for constitutional revision has remained low since the first 2007
survey may reflect people’s dissatisfaction with the procedures taken by the government.
Depending on the results of the House of Councilors elections scheduled for 2016,
concrete steps may begin to be taken toward constitutional revision. What is very important
here, as suggested by the recent NHK survey, is whether the government will be able to
proceed in a way that will gain public support.
18