Japan's prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, has called for “advanced discussions” on revising the pacifist constitution, as large demonstrations were held nationwide to oppose any changes to the country's supreme law. Speaking during an official visit to Vietnam, Takaichi said the constitution, written by US occupation forces after the second world war, “should periodically be updated to reflect the demands of the times”.
Takaichi and others on the conservative wing of the ruling Liberal Democratic party have long called for change, arguing the current document restricts Japan's ability to respond to growing security threats from North Korea and China. Revisionists have set their sights on article 9 – the so-called “pacifist” clause – which forbids Japan from threatening or using military force to settle international disputes.
On Sunday – constitutional memorial day – an estimated 50,000 people gathered at a park in Tokyo in support of the document, whose wording has remained unchanged since it went into effect on 3 May 1947. Protesters holding anti-war placards said article 9 had succeeded in keeping Japan out of ill-advised US-led wars, including in Iran. “Under Takaichi, Japan is following America like a dog follows its owner,” said Hiroko Maekawa, a councillor for a Tokyo ward.
Demonstrations were held in dozens of other towns and cities on Sunday – a public holiday – attended by people old enough to recall how the postwar constitution had brought peace and stability to a country ravaged by conflict. “I want to cherish the constitution like I do my own child, and pass it on to the next generation,” Haruka Watanabe, an 87-year-old protester in Osaka, told the Kyodo news agency.
Any revisions would need to secure a two-thirds majority in both houses of Japan's national diet and a simple majority in a national referendum. Recent opinion polls reveal deep divisions among the public, from broad support for minor revisions to opposition to fundamental changes. As she prepared to travel to Australia, Takaichi said the time for debate was almost over: “We mustn't have discussion just for discussion's sake.”
