The last Diet session revised the law on referendum to amend the Constitution. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) regards the change as a ‘step forward’ as the government earnestly and clearly wants to accelerate debates to modify the supreme law, focusing, in particular, on amending Article Nine, which prohibits a war to settle international conflicts. Our urgent task is to intensify struggles to prevent the government’s wish to destroy the Constitution.
IT IS ABSURD TO AMEND CONSTITUTION IN ACCELERATED MANNER
Government wants to change law on procedures, too – unnecessary
The changes reflect provisions of the Public Office Election Act; the ideas include setting up voting stations at railway stations and shopping malls. The bill was presented in June 2018 to the Diet by the ruling coalition parties of LDP and the Komeito as well as the Ishin. In addition, one more political party, the Kokumin-Minshu (or People’s Democracy) Party, submitted another bill to revise the law; it proposed limiting TV advertisement provided by political parties.
The preceding government led by the then-prime minister Abe Shinzo, who had wanted to amend the Constitution during his administration, has put off, ironically, debates on the bills to revise the plebiscite law. In fact there is no need to amend the constitution at the moment when Article 25, which guarantees the rights for survival, and Article Nine must be implemented efficiently and essentially.
And therefore, it is unnecessary to amend the law on procedures to alter the constitution. This is the basic position of the New Socialist Party (NSP).
The NSP has committed sincerely in the campaigns to impede amendment of the constitution, like the National Civic Action NO! to Abe’s Constitution Amendment and the 30 Million Signatures’ Collection Movement.
The devotion continues under the succeeding Suga government. The NSP is determined to step up mass movements to annihilate the government’s intention to change the peace constitution.
Law has severe defects
The law on referendum has a critical defect that hinders justice: it allows TV advertisement on the commercial base. That means those who have financial power can spread their opinions rapidly and sensationally in a short span of time. After the alteration was made the Appendix of the law stipulates that debates shall be made to take necessary measures after three years of implementation of the law. The clause was inserted on the request from the Constitutional Democratic Party and others.
Regulating TV commercial is indispensable, but restriction on postings on internet is also crucial, though it is a difficult task.
The referendum law has deadly flaws: it unfairly restrains social movements of public workers and school teachers and at the same time it does not set forth the minimum voting rate.
Laws in general can be enacted or revised by the majority vote of the members of parliament. But as for amending the constitution, two-thirds of lawmakers in both of the two Houses must approve a proposal to amend the Constitution, and then it needs the majority of votes in favor in the national referendum. That is to say the constitution can be amended only by acceptance of the overwhelming number of people.
The parliament cannot manipulate them toward rewriting the constitution in the absence of a will of people in general. The Constitution itself strictly prohibits an administration of one time from taking initiative of its amendment.
If a constitution is revised for purposes to bring peace and democracy and to protect the human rights, then a voting rate surges reasonably. Under the current circumstances, however, when insidious discussions prevail to rewrite the Constitution, it is absolutely necessary and imperative to fix a high threshold on the voting rate.
手続法改定も不要
今次改定は、駅や商業施設への「共通投票所」設置など公職選挙法の規定を反映させる内容で、自・公や日本維新などが1８年６月に法案を提出した。１９年５月には、国民民主党が政党のテレビCＭを規制する改定案を提出していた。
「在任中の改憲」を狙った安倍晋三前首相による民主主義破壊が、皮肉にも投票法改定案の審議を遅らせたとも言えるが、９条をはじめ生存権保障（２５条）などの徹底こそ求められる今日、改憲の必要など全くない。
従って、今日の時点では改憲手続法の改定も不要というのが、わが党の基本的なスタンスである。
新社会党は、安倍政権下で闘われてきた「安倍９条改憲ＮＯ！全国市民アクション」や、「３０００万署名」を軸とした闘いに積極的に取り組んできた。
その姿勢は、菅偉義政権下でも何ら変わることはなく、更に運動を強め、憲法改悪の息の根を止める闘いこそ求められていると考える。
致命的欠陥の法律
現行の国民投票法には、資金力による有料広告でテレビＣＭなどが短時間に煽情的に誘導し、公正さが担保されない危惧がある。今次改定では立憲民主党などの要求で、付則に施行後３年をめどに検討し必要な措置を講じると明記した。
ＣＭ規制は当然だが、インターネット上の規制という難しい問題もあることを指摘しておく。
そして、国民投票法は致命的な欠陥を持った法律だが、公務員や教員の運動を不当に制限していることが第一点。最も重大な欠陥は、投票率の下限が定められていないことだ。
法律は国会議員の過半数で制・改定できるが、改憲発議は両院の３分の２の賛成を要し、国民による投票の過半数の賛成が必要だ。その意味するところは、国民の大多数が求めてこそ憲法は改正されるということ。
国民が求めてもいないのに国会が誘導することなどあってはならないし、時の政権が改憲を主導することは憲法自体が禁じている。
平和と民主主義、人権擁護を実現するために憲法を改正するのであれば、自ずと高い投票率になるであろうが、邪悪な改憲論が跋扈（ばっこ）する今日、投票率で高いハードルを設けることは必須かつ重大だ。
英訳版↓
No. 1216 Law on Referendum Revised
The last Diet session revised the law on referendum to amend the Constitution. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) regards the change as a ‘step forward’ as the government earnestly and clearly wants to accelerate debates to modify the supreme law, focusing, in particular, on amending Article Nine, which prohibits a war to settle international conflicts. Our urgent task is to intensify struggles to prevent the government’s wish to destroy the Constitution.
IT IS ABSURD TO AMEND CONSTITUTION IN ACCELERATED MANNER
Government wants to change law on procedures, too – unnecessary
The changes reflect provisions of the Public Office Election Act; the ideas include setting up voting stations at railway stations and shopping malls. The bill was presented in June 2018 to the Diet by the ruling coalition parties of LDP and the Komeito as well as the Ishin. In addition, one more political party, the Kokumin-Minshu (or People’s Democracy) Party, submitted another bill to revise the law; it proposed limiting TV advertisement provided by political parties.
The preceding government led by the then-prime minister Abe Shinzo, who had wanted to amend the Constitution during his administration, has put off, ironically, debates on the bills to revise the plebiscite law. In fact there is no need to amend the constitution at the moment when Article 25, which guarantees the rights for survival, and Article Nine must be implemented efficiently and essentially.
And therefore, it is unnecessary to amend the law on procedures to alter the constitution. This is the basic position of the New Socialist Party (NSP).
The NSP has committed sincerely in the campaigns to impede amendment of the constitution, like the National Civic Action NO! to Abe’s Constitution Amendment and the 30 Million Signatures’ Collection Movement.
The devotion continues under the succeeding Suga government. The NSP is determined to step up mass movements to annihilate the government’s intention to change the peace constitution.
Law has severe defects
The law on referendum has a critical defect that hinders justice: it allows TV advertisement on the commercial base. That means those who have financial power can spread their opinions rapidly and sensationally in a short span of time. After the alteration was made the Appendix of the law stipulates that debates shall be made to take necessary measures after three years of implementation of the law. The clause was inserted on the request from the Constitutional Democratic Party and others.
Regulating TV commercial is indispensable, but restriction on postings on internet is also crucial, though it is a difficult task.
The referendum law has deadly flaws: it unfairly restrains social movements of public workers and school teachers and at the same time it does not set forth the minimum voting rate.
Laws in general can be enacted or revised by the majority vote of the members of parliament. But as for amending the constitution, two-thirds of lawmakers in both of the two Houses must approve a proposal to amend the Constitution, and then it needs the majority of votes in favor in the national referendum. That is to say the constitution can be amended only by acceptance of the overwhelming number of people.
The parliament cannot manipulate them toward rewriting the constitution in the absence of a will of people in general. The Constitution itself strictly prohibits an administration of one time from taking initiative of its amendment.
If a constitution is revised for purposes to bring peace and democracy and to protect the human rights, then a voting rate surges reasonably. Under the current circumstances, however, when insidious discussions prevail to rewrite the Constitution, it is absolutely necessary and imperative to fix a high threshold on the voting rate.
July 6, 2021