边听边读，重在理解 做高质量阅读的传播者
本文字数：2317 字
阅读时间：15 分钟

Can Shinzo Abe change Japan’s basic law?
安倍晋三再次尝试修改日本宪法
No reason why not, though both pacifists and the opposition may object
IN THE 1950s Nobusuke Kishi, then Japan’s prime minister, tried to change the constitution that America had imposed on the country in the aftermath of the second world war. He failed. Now his grandson, Shinzo Abe, Japan’s current prime minister, is trying to do the same before he leaves office by the autumn of 2021.
Mr Abe’s personal history is not the only reason he is so set on this. For his vocal nationalistic base, it is a passionately held cause. And as one of Japan’s longest-serving prime ministers (the longest, if he remains in power until mid-November) he thinks he has the political clout to do it.
There are good reasons to try—despite China’s mutterings. (Its state news-agency once said that doing so would be like “releasing the shackles of the nation’s legally tethered military.”) The constitution is out of step with reality. Article 9 commits Japan to pacifism and to abjuring the maintenance of armed forces—which the existence of the country’s Self-Defence Forces (SDF) clearly breaches. This is the most controversial of four areas that Mr Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) addressed in recent proposals, even though the recommendation to recognise the existence of the SDF (rather than, say, allow Japan to wage war) is a watered-down version of what many in the LDP would like. The other three areas are upper-house electoral districts, the right to free education and emergency powers for the cabinet.
If the Japanese want to change their constitution, there is no reason why they shouldn’t. America’s has been altered 27 times since its promulgation in 1788. But Japanese people are proud of their pacifism and keen to stay out of other countries’ affairs. A poll in July by NHK, the national broadcaster, found 29% of people supported any revision compared to 32% opposed to it (the rest were undecided or failed to respond). The numbers diverge when the question focuses on Article 9: an Asahi poll found 33% favourable to amending it and 59% against.
The opposition is resistant, too. It has talked about the need to revise parts to improve governance, such as the prime minister’s right to dissolve the lower house, or to explicitly add new ideas such as a citizen’s “right to know”. But no major party bar the LDP unreservedly backs changing Article 9. Even Komeito, the LDP’s coalition partner, suggests debate is needed first.
That makes it hard to see how Mr Abe is to get this done. Changing the constitution requires two-thirds of both the upper and lower houses of the Diet, followed by a majority in a referendum. And Mr Abe lost his coalition’s two-thirds majority in the upper house in elections last month.
The political calendar is tight, with the change of emperor this year and the Olympics in 2020, and the geopolitical environment is not propitious. America’s calls for allies to help prevent further seizures of ships in the Strait of Hormuz are providing the Japanese with a concrete example of the sorts of conflicts into which their country could be dragged should Article 9 be changed. “The numbers don’t align, voter interest doesn’t align, and the situation in the Middle East doesn’t help,” says Yuki Tatsumi of the Stimson Centre, a think-tank in Washington.
Mr Abe is moderating his approach. He may shift the emphasis from Article 9 to rights and governance issues that appeal to the opposition, reckons Ms Tatsumi. Yuichiro Tamaki, the head of the Democratic Party for the People, the second-biggest opposition group, agrees that there needs to be a debate. Speaking after the elections, Mr Abe said he hoped for “active discussions”, and emphasised that “constitutional revision is not up to the government, but the Diet”.
He is pragmatic, but he wants a legacy. Efforts to resolve diplomatic problems left over from the war, such as with Russia, have stalled. The economy, which he pledged to revive, is spluttering. Changing the constitution is a challenge—but no tougher than the others he faces.
【本文大意】
上世纪50年代，时任日本首相的岸信介试图修改二战后美国强加于日本的宪法。但他失败了。如今他的孙子，也就是日本现任首相安倍晋三正打算在2021年秋季卸任前故技重施。
安倍的个人经历并不是他如此鼓吹修宪的唯一原因。这对于他经常直言不讳的所谓民族主义基调而言，是一项充满激情的事业。作为日本任期最长的首相之一（如果他顺利执政到今年11月中旬，就是任期最长的首相），他认为自己的政治影响力足够实现这个目标。
尽管面对中国的抱怨，但安倍仍然有充分的理由去尝试。(中国的国家新闻机构曾经表示，这样做就是“解除国家法律束缚军队的枷锁”)。日本宪法早已经与现实脱节。其中第9条承诺日本奉行和平主义并放弃维持武装力量，而日本自卫队(SDF)的存在显然违反了这一承诺。
修宪面临四个最具争议的方面,安倍的自由民主党在最近的建议书中提议，承认自卫队的合法存在（没有表述为允许日本发动战争），尽管这个要求已经是是自民党预期的缩水版。
另外三个争议点就是参议院的选区规划、免费义务教育以及内阁的紧急特别行政权。如果日本人想要修改宪法，这的确无可厚非。美国的宪法自1788年颁布以来已经修改了27次。然而日本人一直对自己的和平主义原则感到自豪，并热衷于将自己置身于国际事务之外。
日本广播公司NHK在7月份进行的一项民意调查显示，29%的人支持任何修宪，32%的人反对(其余的人还没有决定或者没有做出回应)。当调查问题集中在第9条（自卫队合法化）时，数字出现了明显分歧:《朝日新闻》的一项民意调查发现，33%的人支持修改宪法，59%的人明确表示反对。
日本在野党也很抗拒修宪。尽管它们谈到了修改部分内容以改善治理政策有其必要性，比如内阁有权解散众议院，或者明确增加新理念，比如公民的“知情权”。但除了自民党，没有哪个主要政党会毫无保留地支持修改宪法第九条。甚至连自民党的执政伙伴公明党也表示，这首先有待论证。
这些都是使得安倍很难做到这一点。修宪需要国会参众两院三分之二的席位，然后进行全民公投。在上月的选举中，安倍已经失去了其联合政府在参议院三分之二的多数席位。
再加上今年的日本天皇换位和2020年的日本奥运会，日本政治日程着实紧张，其地缘政治环境也不乐观。美国呼吁盟国协助阻止霍尔木兹海峡愈演愈烈的海盗劫掠，为日本提供了一个具体范例，也就是如果日本修改宪法第九条，他们的国家可能会卷入更多的冲突。
华盛顿智库史汀生中心的Yuki Tatsumi表示:“数据不一致，选民兴趣不一致，中东局势也没有帮助。”安倍只能缓和自己的强硬态度。Tatsumi女士认为，他可能会把重点从第9条转移到吸引在野党的权利和治理问题上。日本第二大在野党民主党的党魁玉一郎?田木也赞成，修宪问题有待论证。
安倍在大选后发表讲话时表示，他希望“展开积极探讨”，并强调“修宪并不取决于政府，而是国会”。他很务实，但他也想留下一笔遗产。解决战争遗留下来的外交问题，比如与俄罗斯的外交问题，虽然目前已经陷入停滞。他承诺要重振的经济正在分崩离析。修宪是一项挑战，但并不比他面临的其他挑战更艰巨。
累计坚持30天留言回复“每日打卡”或与文章相关评论的用户，将获得365英文轻阅读计划付费用户体验月卡（30天有效）；累计30次发布高质量相关评论并获得置顶，将获得轻阅读计划半年卡1张！（180天有效）【回复仅前100条留言有效，且用户每天仅限1次】快在下方评论吧！
————【往期内容精选】————
在阿拉伯地区，你甚至没有“度假自由”
在纽约开车的速度并不比骑自行车快多少
中国发誓将在与美国的贸易战中奉陪到底