1) it was drafted under the auspices of the Allied occupational forces after the Japanese originated Constitution was rejected outright by MacArthur who then directed his staff to draft a completely new document.
2) Any objections/criticisms to the new Constitution by the Japanese were censored out by the Civil Censorship Detachment until after the the adoption of the Constitution. So, effectively, the Japanese Diet (and the people of Japan) were only receiving limited information on the new Constitution.
3) Like the American Constitution, amendments to the new Japanese Constitution were/are extremely difficult to enact. They require a super-majority in both houses of the Diet and then a public referendum (simple majority). As opposition parties controlled more than 1/3 of the Diet, reaching the super-majority in the Diet has always been an insurmountable obstacle to amendments.
These comments raise questions around Japanese self determination as well as Japanese self defense.
From the self-determination perspective, the current Constitution was given to them, discussion and critical analysis were significantly stifled by the Japanese Occupational Forces. So, in effect, it was forced upon them. Looking at this from a fairness perspective, imagine your Constitution and form of government enforced upon you by an occupying force. While there was Japanese influence on the document, anything that appeared to by critical of the new Constitution was immediately stifled. How would you react?
From a self defense perspective: at the close of WWII, there was, essentially, no single country that had the ability to project power beyond their borders. Japan was almost completely disarmed. The Chinese were in the midst of what amounted to a civil war. The other countries in the Pac Rim were, for the most part, mired in what today would be classified as 3rd world countries. That began to change as time marched on. The rise of Chinese power (both in Taiwan and Beijing) in the latter half of the 20th century has effectively altered the balance of power in the region. The current Constitution has severely limited Japan with the ability to defend itself. Not much has changed since the end of WWII, Japan, as an island nation, still relies (and will continue to rely upon) seaborne transport as its economic lifeline. This would allow any expansionist minded country to isolate, choke and starve the Japanese into submission.
Additionally, the Japanese continue to rely upon an outside military force to provide any significant measure of national security almost 70 years after the end of WWII. While there is a certain amount of fiscal benefit to that, the rebound effect should those security forces be withdrawn would be rather significant. Rising powers in the Pac Rim know this (see the Senkaku Islands dispute and and Kuril Islands dispute) and can press (almost freely) these types of encroachments.
By 2020), I think Japan will have completely restored its status and been making great contributions to peace and stability in the region and the world," he said.
= new reply since forum marked as read
