Media Change Tone on Constitutional Revision

For the first time since it was ratified in 1947, a national consensus is emerging in favor of revising the Japanese Constitution. And that is changing the tone of media coverage of an issue that had until very recently been considered taboo.

"Who could have predicted the current circumstances surrounding proposals to change the Constitution 10 years ago?? crowed the Yomiuri Shimbun, a longtime supporter of revision.

In the past, the media would duly report on the annual Constitution Day rallies May 3 -- almost ritual-like in their sameness each year -- of those who supported the Constitution and those who sought to revise it. Supporters, mostly left-wing political parties and labor groups, advocated maintaining controversial Article IX, in which Japan renounced the use of war as a means of state policy. Revisionists, generally members of the conservative parties, wanted to abrogate Article IX in order for Japan to take a more aggressive foreign policy stance abroad.

But this year the tone was distinctly different, reflecting new political realities. ?The political process surrounding revising the Constitution is making steady progress,? wrote the Nihon Keizai Shimbun (the Nikkei). ?Committees in both houses of Parliament have released their findings on constitutional revision [the culmination of five years of work], and going forward, the focus will be on each party's specific proposals for revision.? This was made possible by a major electoral shift: both the governing and largest opposition parties now support revision, while opponents of revision have been marginalized in Parliament.

Public opinion appears to be keeping up with the politicians. The Asahi Shimbun, the most left-wing of all major newspapers, reported that a growing number of Japanese ? 56 percent in a survey done in late April ? approve of revision. That compares to only 46 percent five years ago. However, there was no consensus on how to revise the Constitution. While 58 percent said the Constitution should be altered to recognize the existence of Japan's so-called ?Self Defense Forces,? just over half said Article IX should not be changed.

Just like the annual rallies, editorial writers from each of the major newspapers ritually take up the Constitution issue each year on Constitution Day. However, this year the emphasis was not on whether or not to revise the Constitution, but how revision should best be achieved. Even The Asahi, traditionally the most hostile to revision, said there would be no reason to refuse amendments ?if revising the Constitution leads to a better world for the people and if Japan is respected on the international stage.? Still, it warned that at a time when Japan's relations with its neighbors are particularly difficult, Japan should address the concerns of its neighbors (such as those about textbook treatment of recent history) before embarking on constitutional change.

It is perhaps a testament to the growing consensus that newspapers directed their most pointed comments not to the defense issue, but to new constitutional issues that have surfaced relating to press freedom. The Japan Times, an English-language daily, was particularly concerned about the way the government will conduct the popular referendum to approve or deny the proposed constitutional revisions, since this will constitute the first time the Japanese people will be allowed to decide on a constitution for themselves. (Many Japanese consider the 1947 Constitution to have been handed down to them by the American Occupation and therefore lack legitimacy). It noted that some in the government are pushing to restrict media coverage ahead of the plebiscite: ?The worry is that, in extreme cases, reporting in favor of certain constitutional changes might be prohibited. For the people to choose a constitution of their own, it is essential to allow free and active expression of opinion as well as freedom of the press,? it said.

The Yomiuri and the Nikkei were also steadfast in their opposition to a proposal included in the lower house of Parliament?s report, which suggested adding a right of ?access? to the media among the modifications to the Constitution. The right of access is intended to assure media fairness by compelling them to publish multiple points of view. The Yomiuri said such a provision would encourage fringe groups to protest media coverage, and politicians to exert further pressure on newsgathering. The Nikkei argued that including such a provision ?would diminish freedom of the press, and conversely become an obstacle to the people's right to know.?